Commons Sitting of 20 June 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Wakefield Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Birkbeck Share and Debenture Trust Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill,
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed.
Ystradfellte Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill (by Order),
Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause or Clauses in the Bill for the purpose of applying the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to
1814
financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, so far as those recommendations are applicable to any adjustments to be made otherwise than by agreement between the councils and other authorities affected by the Order included in the Bill.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (by Order).
Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause or Clauses in the Bill for the purpose of applying the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, so far as those recommendations are applicable to any adjustments to be made otherwise than by agreement between the councils and other authorities affected by the Orders included in the Bill.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause or Clauses in the Bill for the purpose of applying the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area, or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, so far as those recommendations are applicable to any adjustments to be made otherwise than by agreement between the councils and other authorities affected by the Orders included in the Bill.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill (by Order),
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause or Clauses in the Bill for the purpose of applying the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, so far as those recommendations are applicable to any adjustments to be made otherwise than by agreement between the councils and other authorities affected by the Orders included in the Bill.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Exe Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be road the third time Tomorrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Brodsworth and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Derwent Valley Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Stockport Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill. [Lords],
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords],
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords],
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports, to lie upon the Table.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

DEEP EXCAVATIONS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee on Deep-Excavations. Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans-raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on 31st March, 1912, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 715 (Weihaiwei, Annual Report for 1911) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools in England (excluding Wales and Monmouthshire), with Schedules, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
Copy presented of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1912, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 167.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give an assurance to the House that no pressure of any kind will be put on the Persian Government to grant the railway concessions proposed to be asked for by England, Russia, or the International Syndicate financing the proposed Trans-Persian Railway.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I cannot give an assurance that no railway concession of any kind will ever receive diplomatic support in Persia, but if what is meant by the question is pressure of an offensive nature, I can certainly say we have no intention of resorting to anything of the kind.

  Egypt.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Egyptian Committee have applied to him for information as to the particular articles in their organ, "Egypt," which have been complained of by the Egyptian Government as justifying their prohibition of that newspaper; whether he has read these articles; and whether he will state to the House what are the publications in Egypt which he considers to be calculated to disturb public order?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have not read all the articles. In regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply
  1818
  which I gave to his question on the same subject on 16th May, and especially to the answer given in regard to point 4 and the concluding portions of that question—to which I have nothing to add.

  Turkey (Gendarmerie).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether any application has been made to the Turkish Government for the loan of military officers for the gendarmerie; and, if so, whether the request has been agreed to?
  Sir E. GREY: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Central Hull on the 12th inst.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's information lead him to think that public order is sufficiently improved to warrant the loan of officers?
  Sir E. GREY: I want to be quite sure under what conditions the officers are required and what work they will have to do before I can answer. That is the point now under consideration.

  Protestants (New Ross).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a soldier named Ferreston and his wife were shouted at and booed as they came out of the Protestant church at New Ross on Sunday, 2nd June last; whether he will state the reason for this intimidation on account of their religious belief; and what steps are being taken to afford them the free exercise of their religion?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have obtained a police report, from which it appears that a small crowd, consisting principally of children, booed at Ferreston and his wife when leaving church on the 2nd inst., the reason apparently being that Mrs. Ferreston's female relations were dissatisfied with her for changing her religion. The Ferrestons' attended church on three subsequent occasions without any notice being taken of them. They have now left New Ross for London on a visit, and the police do not anticipate any trouble on their return.

  Seditious Placards (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether a poster has recently been placarded in Wexford calling upon Irishmen to arm themselves so as to be ready, when England in the near future is involved with

  1819
  a big war with Germany, to break away from England; and what steps have been taken to trace those responsible for the notice, and whether any arrests have been made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that some posters of the nature referred to were found placarded at Enniscorthy and Wexford. The police have made close inquiry into the matter, but so far no arrests have been made.
  Mr. FFRENCH: Who supplied the funds to put up these placards; what Unionist Association was it?

  Employment of Nuns (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the employment of nuns in workhouse industrial schools and other public institutions in Ireland is steadily increasing; whether in consequence the expense to local taxpayers and competition with lay labour has increased; whether in many instances lay nurses and lay teachers have been dismissed in order that their places might be filled by nuns; and the numbers of such during the past six years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The increase in the number of nuns employed in public institutions in Ireland during the last six years has been very slight. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension with regard to the dismissal of lay teachers and nurses and their replacement by nuns. Nuns have always been employed in the various workhouse industrial schools to teach the girls. In one case, however, the Pelletstown Auxiliary School, which was originally provided for boys, and to which girls were sent for the first time in 1910, some of the officers were at the time of the change discharged, receiving full compensation for loss of office, and the school was placed in charge of the nuns. Lay teachers are, however, still employed there for teaching purposes.
  Captain CRAIG: Are these nuns paid to the detriment of lay teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of course you cannot have two sets of teachers. If there were no nuns in the world I suppose other women who are not nuns would be employed.

  Glebe Lands (Durrow, Queen's County).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the glebe lands in certain
  1820
  parts of Ireland, the property of the Church of Ireland, are now the subject of attack by the United Irish League, and that a Mr. James Delany, J.P., of Durrow, Queen's County, president of the local branch of the United Irish League, ordered cattle to be removed from the rectory fields in order to force the land to be sold, although Canon Wills, Protestant rector of Durrow, had no cattle grazing on them, having let them on the eleven months' system, and, owing to terrorism, can now make no use of them; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent intimidation in such cases?
  Mr. DELANY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether he is aware that there are no grounds whatever for the allegation in this question, and that the reason why Mr. Delany is accused is because he is a Protestant Home Ruler and an Englishman by birth?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is my business to answer the question on the Paper. I am not aware of any foundation for the statement in the first part of the question. The glebe lands in question were held by the sisters of Mr. Delany on the eleven months' system, and when the period' expired last April they did not take the lands again. There was no terrorism or intimidation in connection with the case, and I am informed by the police that Canon Wills, who has never grazed the lands himself, but has always let them, could have done so again but that arrangements had been made to sell them.
  Mr. DELANY: Is it not a fact that the Misses Delany have offered to take the land again?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, they are quite willing to take the land again.

  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what was the cause of the delay in enforcing the rule requiring students seeking admission to the training colleges to pass an examination in a second language?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for the Connemara Division on the 7th May last.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that two years ago a promise was made by the Board to have this rule introduced, and,

  1821
  seeing that 200,000 children are learning Irish and no teachers are trained for them, will not the right hon. Gentleman take some steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It involves Treasury sanction. The National Board have laid their case before the Treasury, but have not yet obtained sanction for the additional expenditure.

  Opium Agreement (India and China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India, whether, in view of the facts that the present Government of China is only provisional, has made no official declaration of its intention to assume the obligations of the late Imperial Government, and has not effective control of the cultivation in many of the provinces of China, the Government of India will, in the interest of the Indian taxpayer, suspend for the present the operation of the opium agreement between India and China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on Monday last to a similar question of the hon. Member.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he was aware that representations have been made by the leading opium merchants to the Governor-General in Council to the effect that the resumption of the culture of opium is unchecked in China; that in several of the most important of the provinces free and unrestricted cultivation of the poppy proceeds; that the present Chinese Government is evidently unable to secure the observance of treaties by its own provincial authorities; that Chinese merchants who have bought Indian opium are being obstructed by the provincial authorities at the instigation of the principal authorities and refuse to admit it, in defiance of existing treaties; and, if so, what action is being taken in the interests of British trade and British-Indian taxpayers?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is aware that a memorial to the effect stated has been presented by certain Indian opium merchants to the Government of India. Inquiry is being made into the facts, and the matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Minister has already made, and will continue to make, representations to the Chinese Government
  1822
  against the obstructions placed in the way of trade in certificated Indian opium by the provincial authorities, but the difficulties of enforcing our rights under existing treaties are for the moment greatly increased by the fact mentioned by the hon. Member that the provisional Government in China are unable to impose their will upon the provincial Governments.
  Sir J. D. REES: Would it be just to the Indian taxpayer that the treaty should be suspended until China is able to carry out her part of it?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Gentleman will consider for a moment the terms of our agreement with China I am unable to see how any dislocation of that agreement to meet temporary circumstances would be of any benefit at all.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say that these circumstances are temporary, and how temporary?
  Mr. MONTAGU: We are not in a position to say they are other than temporary.

  Mahomedans (Eastern Bengal).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any protests which have been made in India against his references to the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the opportunity which his question affords me of expressing my regret that the remarks to which he refers should have given rise to misunderstanding and misapprehension among some of the Mahomedan people in India. My object was to point out that the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal, in that to a great extent they were not the descendants of those with whose history Delhi was so intimately connected, deserved the special and careful consideration which we claim they have received in the rearrangement of the province in which they live. But I recognise, as I stated last year in this. House, that the Mahomedans are animated by a religious feeling which produces a unity making them independent of geographical and racial separation. I should like to repeat that the history of India shows, and, I doubt not, will show, that the Government is not unmindful of

  1823
  the responsibility which is placed upon them by the unswerving confidence of the Mahomedans in India in British rule.

  British East Africa (Prisoners' Legal Defence).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the condemnation to death of three natives at the Nakuru High Court, British East Africa, for the murder of a native on 6th March last; whether he is aware that the accused parsons had no legal defence provided for them, while the case against them was conducted by the Crown advocate; and whether steps will be taken to provide legal assistance in the future in similar cases involving a capital charge?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): My attention had not been called to the matter, but I have now seen an account of the trial in one of the local newspapers and I am in communication with the Governor of the Protectorate, who is now on leave in this country, with regard to the matter raised in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    POSTMEN (EX-SOLDIERS).
    Captain CRAIGasked whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, the proposed new Parliament would have power to reverse the practice now in vogue in the postal service of allotting one-half of the vacancies for established postmen to ex-soldiers of the British Army?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It will be optional with the Irish Government to follow or to depart from the existing practice with regard to the appointment of established postmen.

    POSTAGE RATES.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Postmaster-General whether the Irish Parliament will have power to fix internal rates for postage, parcels post, and telegrams on a lower scale than the rates imposed by His Majesty's Post Office?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the affirmative, the Irish Exchequer bearing any loss of revenue which might ensue.

    LAND QUESTION.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether he can now see his way to accompany the Government of Ireland Bill by some such proviso as Mr. Gladstone in 1891 undertook to propose, with a view either to completing the settlement of the land question by Act of the Imperial Parliament within a limited period, to be specified in the Bill, or to committing the power of dealing with it to the local legislature?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have made inquiry from Lord Morley, and I understand that what my hon. Friend calls a proviso, which was made public at the time, was no unconditional undertaking but an offer to give such an undertaking, if it were accepted, along with an accompanying proposal about the police, in satisfaction of demands then being pressed forward by important leaders of the Irish party. It was not so accepted, and no action was attempted on it in the Home Rule Bill of 1893, or otherwise. I must repeat that the Government are fully alive to the importance of proceeding with all possible dispatch with the land purchase settlement. The reservation of that service was in a great degree dictated by the necessity of maintaining unquestioned the security on which the future of land purchase must largely, if not wholly, depend.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that Mr. Gladstone not only gave these pledges in 1891, but that he gave effect to the pledge in Clause 34 of the Bill of 1893, which is in these words:—
    "During three years from the passing of this Act the Irish Legislature shall not pass any Act respecting the relations between landlord and tenant or the sale or purchase or letting of land generally."
    What objection can there be to embodying these words in the present Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have reserved the service generally. When we come to Clause 2, on which the question arises, I shall be very glad to discuss the question with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MOORE: With regard to the question of reserving the settlement of the Irish land question, will the right hon. Gentleman consider what settlement would be likely to be arrived at in fixing

    1825
    rents by a political party consisting of the National League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and what fair play the landlords would get?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask that we shall have a full opportunity of considering this matter on Clause 2 in the manner in which its importance deserves?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall take good care of that.

    Writ of Error (Release of Prisoners).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in a reported case in the year 1871 a number of persons, wrongfully sentenced by the Judge of Assize in Tyrone to hard labour for unlawful assembly, were released on a writ of error moved for by the Attorney-General, and that the same course was taken in a Cork case, similar in character, twenty years ago; and whether, in the cases in which a like mistake was made by a judge at the last Winter Assize in Limerick, it is the intention of the Attorney-General to apply this remedy?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am advised that in the circumstances of the Limerick case the application suggested would not be the appropriate remedy. To remove the disqualification caused by the sentence, the more convenient course would be the granting of a free pardon, and the Lord-Lieutenant will be advised to consider favourably any application made to him for that purpose.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state if the Estates Commissioners have yet completed the sale to the tenants of the estate of Mr. John Hart, B.L., of Ballymacramery, Saintfield, county Down, agreements for the purchase of which were entered into in 1906; and, if not, can he give the reason for the delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the vendor to the tenants, and is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash). Having regard to its position on the register, it is estimated that its turn will not be reached for some time.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the agreements for the sale were all arrived at amicably six years ago, and cannot the
    1826
    right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of a settlement being arrived at?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am sure I regret the delay as much as possible. This is an all cash sale, and they come on slower than others. It is most desirable that they should be facilitated as far as possible.

    Royal Irish Constabulary (County Limerick).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state whether in the county of Limerick the system still exists of giving favourable records and promotion to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary according to the number of prosecutions brought or convictions obtained by them; and, if so, having regard to the temptation which such a system offers to constables to invent outrages or to bring false charges, whether he will have steps taken to terminate that system, as has been done with excellent results in other Irish counties?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The inspector-general informs me that no system exists in county Limerick of giving favourable records and promotion to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary according to the number of prosecutions brought or convictions obtained by them, nor, so far as the inspector-general is aware, did such a system ever exist there.

    National Schools (Ireland).
    Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state how many junior assistant teachers have been deprived of their positions owing to the alteration introduced by the Commissioners of National Education by Rule 86a (1911–12); and whether he will recommend the Commissioners either to reinstate these teachers or, in cases where this cannot be done, to suitably compensate them for the loss they have sustained through the action of the Commissioners in changing the rule under which they were induced to become teachers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for North-East Cork on the 21st March last, the managers of eighty-two schools have recently been requested to appoint assistant mistresses in the place of junior assistants. I understand that in each case where it has been necessary to replace junior assistant mistresses by an ordinary assistant the junior assistant mistress has been allowed the opportunity for promotion if she

    1827
    fulfils the requirements of the Commissioners' Rules on the subject. I am not in a position to hold out hopes of compensation or reinstatement to teachers not so qualified.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping his eye on it? What is he doing about it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have had some correspondence upon the subject. It is a hard case and if I can find a way to meet it I will do so if he stirs my conscience again.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will repeat the dose.
    Mr. LARDNERasked whether any communications have been as yet addressed to the local authorities as to the provision of a sum from local sources equivalent to the Treasury Grant set aside for medical inspection of national schools in Ireland; and what is the result?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No communication has yet been made to local authorities, but I am in correspondence with the Commissioners of National Education on the subject.

    House of Commons (Lighting).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the hon. Member for St. George' s-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether electric light will be substituted for gas in the Debating Chamber before the House can make a practical trial of the effect of the former illuminant acting from the roof upon the eyes of Members?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The answer is in the negative.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman think this is quite fair to hon. Members?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I said no permanent change will be effected until the experiment has been made. The First Commissioner is quite willing to change his views should it appear to be necessary.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONTINENTAL NAVIES.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether by 1st January, 1916, France will possess any completed ships of the all-big-gun type besides the "Jean Bart," "Courbet,"
    1828
    "France," "Paris," "Bretagne," "Provence," and "Lorraine" whether these ships will have an aggregate broadside fire of seventy heavy guns; and whether at the same date Italy will have at least six completed ships of the all-big-gun type, with an aggregate broadside of seventy-seven heavy guns, and Austria at least four such ships, with a broadside of forty-eight heavy guns?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Some confusion appears to have arisen owing to the use of the expression "all-big-gun type" in the question asked by the hon. Member on 12th June, which was taken as being equivalent to the expression "Dreadnought type." According to the figures used in all previous official returns the six French "Dantons" have been classed as "Dreadnoughts," and rightly so, since they are of later date than the "Dreadnought," and are of approximately equal power. The aggregate broadside fire of the "Dantons" is twenty-four 12-inch and thirty-six 9.4-inch guns, and the figures given in the question, which are otherwise correct, should be increased by this amount. On the other hand, it would be proper to include-the three Austrian "Radetskys," which have not hitherto been counted as "Dreadnoughts." They are smaller than the "Dantons," and somewhat inferior in armament and size, but are rather similar in character. In this case the account for these ships would stand:—

    France, ninety-four 12-inch or better, and thirty-six 9.4-inch.

    Italy, seventy-seven 12-inch.

    Austria-Hungary, sixty 12-inch, and twelve 9.4-inch.

    These figures are, however, not a complete or trustworthy guide to relative strength.

    PORT OF ANTIVARI.
    Captain FABERasked what was the last date of a British warship visiting Antivari; and when it is intended to send one there again, as used to be the case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Treaty of Berlin provided that the port of Antivari should remain closed to the ships of war of all nations. This provision was cancelled in 1909, but none of His Majesty's ships have as yet visited the port, nor is any visit in immediate prospect at the present time.

    LEATHER CONTRACTS.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state his reason for purchasing a quantity of the leather used for making boots for the Navy from Germany instead of using British leather; and if he will state his reason for refusing to meet a deputation of the leading members of the leather trade?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has directly made no such purchase. Leather for seamen's boots is provided by the bootmakers who hold contracts for the supply of the finished article. Contractors are bound by the Admiralty specification to use only British leathers for the soles of the boots, as the quality of such leather is superior to that of foreign leather. But they are at liberty to use either British or foreign box-calf leather for the uppers. it is probably the fact that contractors find that they can get box-calf leather of the flexibility and durability which we require for the seaman's boot at a lower price from America or Continental than from British sources. But it is made perfectly clear to all concerned that there is no restriction placed by the Admiralty on British leather. As regards the question of the refusal to meet a deputation, the Light Leather Trades' Federation have been informed that the Admiralty are willing to receive from them a practical demonstration, by means of samples and prices, of both British and foreign boxcalf leather, illustrating the superiority which the Federation claim for the British quality with a comparison in cost. It does seem to me that a technical examination of such samples and careful consideration of comparative prices is necessary as a preliminary to any general discussion with a trade deputation. The Federation, I may say, have not yet responded to the Admiralty invitation, which has been twice extended to them.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I ask if they do respond to the invitation given the Admiralty would be willing to meet a deputation of the leading leather sellers, as there is a strong feeling with regard to this question? I understand—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement.
    Mr. CROOKS: May I ask whether it is a fact that the sealed envelopes containing samples bear the words "Sealed Samples"?
    Mr. LLOYD: Is it a fact, as already pointed out, that they can supply British leather of the same quality or better quality?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If they can demonstrate to us that leather of the same flexibility and durability can be supplied, having regard to price, the Admiralty would be very pleased to accept British contracts.
    Mr. LLOYD: Is it a fact that the Admiralty refused to meet a deputation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said in the answer I have just given that no good purpose would be served by a general discussion until it is demonstrated that they can do what I have indicated.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask whether any stipulation is made as to the wages to be paid in the production of this leather?

    CRUISER MACHINERY (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to place with engineers on the Thames the orders for the machinery for the second-class cruisers which are to be built at Chatham and Pembroke?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Thames Company was invited to tender, but has not succeeded in securing the order.

  PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

    MESSRS. HOULDER BROTHERS.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases of provocative action as defined by him in relation to the case of Messrs. Houlder Brothers committed by employers of labour during the recent Port of London strike considered likely to lead to a breach of the peace; and how many prosecutions were instituted by his authority, and the result?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have not attempted to give any definition of provocative action; it is a matter which must obviously depend on a great variety of circumstances. I am not aware of any criminal offence involved which could be made the subject of prosecution.
    Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why, if

    1831
    Messrs. Houlder Brothers were guilty of provocative action, he did not take action against them?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have stated that there was no criminal offence involved which could be made the subject of a prosecution.
    Captain CRAIG: Then why did you charge them with provocative action likely to lead to a breach of the peace?
    Mr. McKENNA: A person may be guilty of provocative action without being guilty of a criminal offence.
    Captain CRAIG: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state in this House that the provocative action in this case was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and is not that a crime in a sense?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Captain CRAIG: There is no use saying "No, Sir."

    POLICE PROTECTION.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he has official information to the effect that efforts are being made by master lightermen to resume work; if they have asked that protection may be afforded to enable them to do so; and what steps are being taken in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative; to the third that adequate arrangements have been made for giving them police protection.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what adequate protection is?
    Mr. McKENNA: A detailed answer to the question would be rather long, but when the House is informed that there are 10,000 men at work it is obvious that sufficient protection is being given.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he will state in how many cases Metropolitan Police have been sent to the provinces in connection with labour disputes during the last two years; and whether in all such cases inquiries have first been made to ensure that the need for additional protection has not arisen from provocative action on the part of employers?
    Mr. McKENNA: During the past two years Metropolitan Police have been sent in four cases to the provinces to assist the local police in maintaining order during labour disputes, namely, South Wales, Hull, Salford, and Cardiff. This was done on the application in each case of the local authority, and at a time when there were no labour troubles involving special urgency for the services of the police in London. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. SANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any official information showing that Patrick Sullivan, on 13th June, having proceeded to Tilbury for the purpose of seeking work, was seriously assaulted by a large body of men in the street and had his head cut open by a cudgel in the presence of some, police; if so, will he say why they did not interfere; whether he has been officially informed that subsequently in the day the said Patrick Sullivan was not allowed to proceed along the highway for the purpose of seeking lodging without a passport from the strikers' secretary; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report from the superintendent of police at Grays. He has made careful inquiry, but can find no one, constable or other, who witnessed the assault, and the statement that Sullivan visited a chemist to have his head patched up appears to be incorrect. The statement as to the so-called passport appears to be accurate. I understand that the Essex Police, who have been strongly reinforced by men from other forces, are doing their utmost to maintain order, and that things are now much quieter at Grays and Tilbury.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to the cases of terrible brutalities inflicted by strikers upon men working and willing to work in the docks; now under course of treatment at Poplar Hospital and other hospitals in the East End of London, and what further steps he proposes to take to protect life and limb from these shocking outrages?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiries as to the cases in Poplar Hospital referred to in the question. As soon as I have a report, if the hon. Gentleman will be so

    1833
    good as to put a question on the Paper I will give him all the information in my power.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If the report proves that these outrages are taking place daily, and almost hourly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of relieving the police so that they may perform their ordinary duties of patrolling the back streets, and using the London garrison for the convoy of provisions?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would rather have notice of a question such as that, but the assumption underlying the hon. Member's question is that in fact a large number of disturbances and assaults are now taking place in places in London. According to the reports which I receive daily it appears that there is no considerable increase in the total number of assaults of that kind which ordinarily take place.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the information to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is based merely on those cases which are reported to him by the police as having been interfered with or dealt with in any way by the police; and whether he has any information as to those cases where the whole point is that the police have not been able to deal with them?
    Mr. McKENNA: I stated in my answer the information to which I was referring was the daily reports of the police. I am referring not merely to cases in which the prosecutions are undertaken, but to cases in which complaint is made. If no complaint is made to the police it is quite obvious immediate knowledge on the point will not be brought to me.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the right hon. Gentleman does find these victims are in the hospital, will he not undertake to see that steps are taken to prevent the recurrence of such assaults?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand the number of victims at Poplar Hospital is six. I do not think the fact that six persons are suffering from various injuries, and which in the case of one or two are slight, would be a sufficient reason for asking soldiers to do the work of the police.
    Mr. CROOKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they receive in Poplar Hospital in the ordinary way under ordinary circumstances something like thirty persons per day?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures received in Poplar Hospital are, I understand, large.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask if, pending the results of this inquiry, he will take steps to prevent any more people being sent to Poplar Hospital?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I should be extremely sorry to see the door of the hospital closed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, pending the inquiry, take steps to prevent innocent people being brutally ill-used by men who are on strike or from other reasons are apt to ill-treat their fellow subjects?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I understand the number of charges of assault which take place daily in London is something like eighty. The police do their utmost at all times to prevent those assaults taking place. It is impossible for any Home Secretary to undertake that no further assaults shall take place.

    Malatesta.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary if he will say for what reason he decided not to make an expulsion Order against the prisoner Malatesta?
    Mr. McKENNA: The sentence of three months' imprisonment and the order to pay the costs of the prosecution appeared to be sufficient punishment for the offence of which Malatesta was convicted; and having regard to the nature of the offence and to the reports which I obtained as to his character and antecedents, I did not think that an expulsion Order was required in the public interest.
    Mr. MOORE: Had the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the meeting in Trafalgar Square before he came to that decision?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman occupy in this matter the position of a responsible Minister or the position of an irresponsible Pasha? Is it by caprice alone that he rejects the recommendation of the Court?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I acted on the same principles which have actuated all my predecessors.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors their decisions could always be ascribed to pressure from one quarter?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. My predecessors on both sides of the House have always endeavoured to discharge their duties on the best advice they could obtain and on the highest principles.
    Mr. MOORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative of the police for the Metropolitan area, now state that he was not aware of the mass meeting of the mob in Trafalgar Square in favour of this man?

    Aliens Deported.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many aliens were recommended for deportation during the six years ended 31st December, 1911, and in how many cases the recommendation was carried out?
    Mr. McKENNA: During the six years in question 2,378 aliens were recommended for expulsion by the Courts which convicted them, and in 2,173 cases expulsion Orders were made. Of the remaining 205 cases, eighty-eight were under sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude which were unexpired on the 31st December, and in 117 expulsion Orders were not made, for reasons which are indicated in the Annual Statements as to expulsion.

    Education in Scotland (Cost).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the total amount of money spent on primary and secondary education in Scotland during the past financial year, and what facilities are given to the children from the primary schools to acquire secondary or higher education?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The expenditure figures for the last financial year are not yet available. For the year 1910–11 the expenditure on primary and secondary (including technical) education from the Parliamentary Vote was (exclusive of expenditure on administration) £2,167,737; the expenditure from local taxation sources was £254,942; while the sum raised in local rates was £1,644,546; making a total of £4,067,225, which does not include expenditure met from voluntary contributions, fees, and sundry sources. In reply to the second part of the question, I think that I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to Section III. of the Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, presented to Parliament this month.

    Court of Session (Cost of Litigation).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether it is a statutory rule which renders it compulsory for a litigant in the Court of Session in Scotland to employ counsel as well as agent; if not, will he state the origin of the rule; and will he introduce legislation which will save the public this double expense, in view of the fact that litigation has grown so much more expensive of late years?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): There is no statutory rule relative to the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. The practice dates, I believe, from the institution of the Court of Session in 1532. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the topic mentioned in the last part of the question.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the monopoly of the Bar in Scotland ought to be broken down to some extent?
    Mr. URE: There is no monopoly of the bar.

    Secondary Education (Wales).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Education what facilities are given to the children of primary schools in Wales to acquire secondary education?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): There are 109 Grant-earning secondary schools in Wales, including Monmouthshire, containing 14,952 pupils, of whom 6,226 occupy free places specially reserved for pupils who have been under instruction for at least two years in a public elementary school immediately before entering the secondary school.

    Victoria and Albert Museum (British Water Colours).
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the historical collection of British water-colours in the Victoria and Albert Museum has been closed as a whole to students and the general public for nearly two years, pending alterations in the lighting of the galleries; whether the new lighting arrangements have been completed for at least six months; and, if so, what steps are being taken to make the collection again accessible to the public?
    Mr. PEASE: A considerable part of the historical collection of British water-colours is on exhibition in the east and west cloisters of the North Court, and any picture which is not there exhibited may be seen by any student or member of the public upon application at the Department of Paintings. Arrangements for the permanent exhibition of these watercolours are under consideration, but I cannot make any statement about them at present. I shall be glad to let the hon. Member know when a decision has been reached.
    Mr. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of water colours at present not available for the public except on express application, and can arrangements not be made so that they may be on exhibition?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question I am giving the matter my consideration, and I cannot give the hon. Member any definite statement as to the conclusion at which I may arrive.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE.

    GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE FACTORY.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether at the telephone factory at Nottingham the hours have been altered from fifty-two to forty-eight per week, and that the men's money has been reduced in some cases 3s. per week; and, if so, whether he will say if this reduction of wages in the case of a reduction of hours is usual in Government Departments; and whether, seeing that now the rates at this factory are below those current in the district for similar work, he will take the Fair-Wage Clause into consideration at this factory?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question put by the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 18th instant. The question of the rates of pay for persons employed in the Nottingham factory is receiving consideration.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the case of private firms no corresponding reduction is made in the wages?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. A reduction would be made where men are paid at hourly rates. Where these men are paid a weekly rate they have the advantage of shorter hours without reduction.

    AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the results of the two experimental automatic telephone exchanges recently established in England?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The automatic telephone exchange at Epsom is the only one as yet established. It has worked efficiently, and is providing a satisfactory service for subscribers. But the, period since its opening has been short, and the experience obtained up to the present has necessarily been very limited.

    RURAL PARTY LINE RATES (IRELAND).
    Mr. LARDNERasked how many applications have been made in Ireland for telephone service under the revised rural party line rates; how many such applications have been granted; how many refused; and how many rural party line services are now actually in operation in Ireland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: From a telegraphic report I find that sixty-four applications for telephone rural party lines have been received by the secretary of the Post Office in Dublin. In twenty-three cases the number of subscribers has been insufficient to allow of lines being provided. Quotations have been given in thirty-three cases, of which eight have been accepted, fifteen refused, and ten are outstanding. There are eight other cases under inquiry. No lines are actually in operation as yet.

    Japanese Ships (Coasting Trade).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether British are allowed to compete with Japanese ships in the coasting trade of Japan; if not, whether Japanese ships are subject to any restrictions in respect of the British-Indian coasting trade; and, if not, whether the Government propose to take any and, if so, what steps to introduce free, fair, or reciprocal trade in this behalf?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Under Article 21 of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1911, the coasting trade of the two countries is excepted from the provisions of the treaty and is to be regulated according to the laws of the United Kingdom and Japan respectively, but Most-Favoured-Nation treatment is mutually guaranteed. The law of Japan reserves the coasting trade to Japanese

    1839
    vessels. I understand that Japanese ships are at present subject to no restrictions in respect of British-Indian coasting trade. The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to this question, and the representations made to them are under consideration.

    Ulster Celebrations.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether, in arranging the future business of the House, he will provide that the Government of Ireland Bill be not put down for Thursday, 11th July, in order that Ulster Unionist Members may get away in time to take their part in their annual celebration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be happy to bear in mind the hon. Member's request, and I think he will find that the business for 11th July, which I shall announce in due course, will not interfere with the Ulster Members' projects.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an invitation to come to the North that day himself?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I must wait until the invitation is tendered.
    Captain CRAIG: May I issue an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman now?
    Mr. HAYDEN: What about the Ulster Hall?

    Irish Courts (Jurisdiction).
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, an act done by an official of the United Kingdom in obedience to a Statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom will be punishable by an Irish Court, if it appears to involve a breach of the law of the Irish Parliament?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): If the Act is done in obedience to a Statute of the Imperial Parliament passed after the creation of the Irish Parliament, and which Statute extends to Ireland, it would not be punishable in an Irish Court, as the law of the Imperial Parliament then prevails. If the act is done in obedience to a Statute of the Imperial Parliament passed before the creation of the Irish Parliament, it would be punishable in an Irish Court unless the Irish Statute dealt with any of the matters reserved for the Imperial Parliament, in which case the law of the Irish Parliament would be void.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the Irish Parliament passed a Bill forbidding distraint for taxes, would an Imperial officer not be able to distraint?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The answer which I have given covers that case.

    Budget Resolutions.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked in what order the Resolutions of the Finance Bill will be taken on Monday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take the Report of Ways and Means on Monday in the following order:—

    Sinking Fund.

    Tea.

    Income Tax.

    It may be for the convenience of the House if I now state that in order to ensure that we obtain these Reports without unduly curtailing Debate we shall suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, but we trust that this will not mean that our proceedings will be prolonged.

    Industrial Unrest.
    Mr. PETOasked whether the evidence already submitted to the Committee of the Cabinet, which has been considering the subject of industrial unrest, will be laid before the Industrial Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would not be possible to lay the evidence submitted to the Committee of the Cabinet before the Industrial Council. The evidence has been purely oral, and no detailed notes have been taken. Witnesses have been informed that any evidence they gave would be treated as confidential and divulged to no one.
    Mr. PETOasked whether the Industrial Council will sit continuously, and whether the subjects which they are considering will be dealt with separately and successively; and whether it is the intention to publish the. Report of the Council; and, if so, whether interim Reports will be published from time to time as the consideration of each separate subject is completed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am informed that the Industrial Council propose to sit to hear evidence on two days in each week. The order in which the questions referred to the Council are dealt with is a matter for

    1841
    the discretion of the Council. It is intended to publish the Report of the Council in due course. I am not at present in a position to say whether or not interim Reports will be published.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether, as out of the twenty-six members of the Industrial Council only two, namely, Mr. Devitt, chairman of the Shipping Federation, and Mr. Gosling, president of the National Transport Workers' Federation and general secretary of the Society of Watermen, are directly concerned with the dispute in the Port of London, he proposes to add members to the Council who will have some special knowledge of the trades and services concerned, and who can express their views in the Council and give opinions of value as to what measures for the enforcement of agreements are, and are not, practicable and likely to be effective?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: It is not at present proposed to add additional members to the Industrial Council. I may remind the hon. Member that the inquiry which the Council have been asked to undertake is not confined to agreements in the transport trades, and that, in the course of the inquiry, the Council will have the opportunity of hearing evidence from persons representative of and competent to speak with authority upon the various branches of the transport and other trades.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Council as at present composed contains a sufficiency of members to decide what is applicable to the Port of London?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is the view that is held.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if, with a view to the settlement of labour difficulties, the Prime Minister will consider the appointment of a strong committee of representatives of masters and men, nominated in part by the interests concerned, with power to appoint sub-committees, to deal with the important trades and industries, to inquire into and take evidence with regard to the relations between capital and labour, and to report as to the means which could best be taken to place those relations on a more satisfactory footing, and to secure such elasticity in the method of fixing rates of pay and hours of labour as will ensure fair conditions of working without recourse to
    1842
    strikes and lock-outs; and if, in the event of such committee arriving at conclusions-requiring Parliamentary authority, he will give precedence to the necessary legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion of the hon. Member will be brought before the Committee of the Cabinet which is still considering the whole question of industrial unrest. Until their inquiry is concluded, which I hope may shortly be the case, I can make no statement as to what action the Government will or will not take.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked whether the definition in the Franchise and Registration Bill of the expression occupier will include and is intended to include all soldiers and sailors stationed in the United Kingdom; and whether the definition of the expression premises includes military and naval barracks?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether a soldier who has occupied for a continuous period of six months premises belonging to the War Office, such as Bulford or Tidworth camps, is entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector under Clause 1 (2) of the Franchise and Registration Bill; and, if not, what is the object of the Government in differentiating between soldiers and civilians?
    Mr. PEASE: The Bill makes no distinction between soldiers and sailors and any other persons, and if soldiers and sailors possess the qualification as residents or occupiers of premises required by the Bill, they will be entitled to be registered and vote as Parliamentary electors just as any other persons. "Premises" includes naval and military barracks.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment to the Bill making it perfectly clear in the definition Clause that premises do include naval and military barracks?
    Mr. PEASE: The definition in regard to premises is that it includes any house or part of a house occupied for any purpose. I understand that in legal parlance it is quite clear that barracks would be included under premises.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is any provision being made to enable soldiers and sailors to vote during their absence?
    Mr. PEASE: I explained, in introducing the Bill, that it was impossible to extend the Bill to matters of electoral reform.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does residence by a soldier include occupation of one of those wooden buildings such as are found in Bulford and Tidworth camps?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer is in the affirmative.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ADMINISTRATION IN IRELAND.
    Mr. LARDNERasked if the Postmaster-General will state how many Civil servants in the employ of the Post Office in Ireland have undertaken the administration of Part II. of the National Insurance Act; what the remuneration of these officers has been fixed at; out of what fund will it be paid, and on what Vote can the matter be discussed; and will he state if these Post Office officials were appointed by the Board of Trade as the result of applications for appointment made by these officers in response to the advertisement issued by the Board of Trade relative to the appointment of local agents or were they appointed on the nomination of the Post Office authorities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At the request of the Board of Trade eighty-three postmasters and salaried sub-postmasters have been nominated by me to act as local agents for unemployment insurance work in Ireland. The question of the remuneration to be paid for the new work has not yet been settled; it will in any case fall on the Post Office Vote.
    Mr. HAYDENasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury will state the circumstances under which selections are made from applicants in Ireland for examinations for positions under the Insurance Commissioners in that country; and upon what principle some are admitted and others equally qualified are rejected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The recommendations in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Outdoor Staff (Cd. 6231) are being adopted by the Irish Commission. I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion in the last part of the question.

    CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a notice issued to their workpeople by a London firm of printers to the effect that, under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, it becomes necessary for every employé to produce a certificate of birth, which must be in their hands without fail on or before 21st June, 1912; whether the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners require the production to an employer of the employé's birth certificate; and, if not, can he state what protection a workman will receive in the event of refusal to comply with the employer's demand?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, the Act gives no employer any right to require a birth certificate from persons employed by him.
    Mr. POINTER: Is there any possibility of the employer getting to know the age of the individual where there is an application?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know of no possibility under the Regulations laid down under the Act.
    Mr. CLYNES: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do in cases where the Act gives no right, but where the employer exercises the powers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no authority to act except on the Regulations under the Act. I think some of the requirements are being made under a misapprehension, and I hope the employers who make them, when they realise the situation, will cease to make them.

    LAUNDRY WOMEN (OCCASIONAL WORK).
    Mr. LEACHasked if the Insurance Commissioners will issue a Regulation showing whether a woman who does laundry work on two days a week at two different houses, and who is the wife of an insured worker who supports her, must be insured; and, if so, which of the two employers must pay the employer's 3d.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the employment is regular she must be insured unless she obtains a certificate of exemption under Section 2 of the Act, e.g., on the ground that she is ordinarily and mainly dependent on her husband for her livelihood. Whether she is exempted or not the employer's contribution will be payable in

    1845
    respect of her, and in the absence of any special arrangement the first employer in the week will be liable.

    INSURANCE CARDS.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked whether the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury has been drawn to proposals made by an approved society to relieve employers of the duty of affixing stamps to the insurance cards of their employés; and whether he can state the decision of the National Insurance Commissioners in regard to such proposals and the reasons for such decision?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston and the hon. Members for the Exchange Division of Liverpool and Buteshire on the 17th inst. and yesterday, the stamping of cards (whether quarterly, under the special arrangements for bulk stamping, or weekly) must not be done by any approved society nor by any body forming a separate section approved under the Act; and no system can be allowed which might lead to a contravention of the principle that an insured person should have the right of joining any approved society without disclosing its name to his employer.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked if an employed contributor under the National Insurance Act who applies for membership in an approved society between now and the 15th of October, and obtains an insurance card from that society, will be obliged to return his card on 15th October to the society from which he obtains it, or may he, without the consent of that society, transfer his membership and deliver up his card to some other society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the contributor is an actual member of the first society the conditions of his transfer to another society would depend upon the rules of the first society. In order to take his transfer value he would require to have the consent of the first society to his transfer (which must not, however, be unreasonably withheld) under Section 31 (1) of the National Insurance Act.

    EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the difficulty of distinguishing between Section 4 (4) (a) and Section 49 of the National Insurance Act, 1911; and
    1846
    whether a person who is over sixty-five years of age at the commencement of the Act and becomes employed within the meaning of Part I. of the Act, either immediately on the Act coming into operation or after an interval, will be treated as coming within the provisions of Section 4 (4) (a)?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no discrepancy between the two Sections named. Under the conditions stated in the second part of the question, Section 49 and not Section 4 (4) (a) would apply.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me on what grounds Section 4 (4) (a) would not apply?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot enter into an argument as to the special application of these various Sections. I have given the answer, what in our opinion is the legal interpretation of the Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious doubt on this very important question as to whether a person over 65 has got to pay his own 4d. or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have had that doubt suggested to me by Members on the other side, but I think I managed to convince them that the opinion of the Commissioners is the right one.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked what arrangements have been made under the National Insurance Act to meet the case of a domestic servant who at one time pays at the reduced scale of 2½d. per week and who transfers her services to another employer who requires her to pay 3d. per week, or vice versâ; will she, in such differing circumstances, be in the same position with regard to benefits as if she had been continuously insured at the full rate; and if she is a member of an approved society will her reserve value be affected to any and what extent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If domestic service is included among the employments to which Section 47 applies, a servant in the circumstances mentioned would be entitled to all the ordinary benefits of the Act except that she would not draw sickness or disablement benefit in the periods during which she was entitled to full wages from her employer under the provisions of the Section. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked if, for the better information of domestic servants on the subject of the National Insurance Act, he can see his way to issue a leaflet explaining the advisability of joining an approved society before 14th October, and not becoming a Post Office contributor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The N.H. leaflet, which will be circulated to every household in the country, and also leaflets No. 5 and 11a, all emphasise the advantage of joining an approved society rather than of becoming a deposit contributor. As already stated, an insured person is allowed to choose a society any time up to the middle of October before becoming a deposit contributor. A deposit contributor may subsequently transfer to a society if he can find one to accept him, but he runs the risk of being unable to do this, not only in the event of an actual breakdown in health in the meantime, but also because societies may be unwilling without some special test to accept persons who are deposit contributors. The Commissioners will take further steps to make insured persons realise the importance of choosing their societies as soon as they are in a position to do so, and in any case of joining an approved society before October next.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of certain advice which has been widely distributed on this subject, make an addition to the leaflet which is being issued as to domestic servants and explaining this important point?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope in a very few days, as soon as I can get some information of alternative superannuation possibilities, to issue some sort of general circular for the use of mistresses and domestic servants.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that as to domestic servants it may be more advisable for them to wait at all events until some time before October to see whether a suitable society for domestic servants is established?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if I were giving advice I should not advise domestic servants immediately to rush into the first society offering. I hope long before October she will have a choice of societies suitable.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there any reason why a National Health Insurance Society
    1848
    for Domestic Servants should not be immediately formed providing special-benefits?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not at all; and if the hon. Gentleman will take steps towards the formation of such a society in hand, I will give him every assistance.
    Mr. BAIRD: May I ask whether servants will have to become deposit contributors from 15th July until they join an approved-society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, the deposit contributor does not exist before next October. It is only after a date in the middle of October that anyone begins to become a deposit contributor.

    HEALTH INSURANCE OFFICERS.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Insurance Commissioners' Form O.S. 5, whether he can state the reasons why the health insurance officers named in the close of the form will not ordinarily be eligible for promotion to the inspectorate; and is he aware that such a limitation will prejudice the duties of these men?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The duties of health officers appointed by the Insurance Commission will be entirely distinct (as my hon. Friend will see from page 5 of Cd. 6231) from those of the inspectors and the two classes will not be a part of the same establishment. If particular individuals who are first appointed as health officers prove to possess the qualities required for the inspectorate they will be eligible to transfer as persons in the Civil Service generally are eligible for transfer from one Department to another. The sentence referred to was inserted to prevent any misunderstanding amongst those who are applying for positions as health officers which might lead them to think that such positions would normally lead to the inspectorate.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will there be any similar limitation placed to any other class of insurance officer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That I could not tell now.

    AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of a meeting held at Crewe on Monday at which it was decided to form a league of employers and others concerned in agriculture to consist of persons pledged to

    1849
    resist the operations of the National Insurance Act; and whether he will say what action will be taken to deal with the organised resistance expressed in this pledge?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not inclined to attach any importance to demonstrations of such a character.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, in which the contributions of employer and of workmen are fixed at 2½d. each per week, the employer having affixed a stamp for 5d. must, in order to obtain the workman's contribution from the latter's wages, deduct 2½d. in that week, or whether he may deduct 2d. in that week and 3d. in the following week when he affixes the next stamp for 5d.?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: An employer who in two successive weeks affixes two 5d. stamps, representing the joint contribution of himself and the workman for those two weeks, may deduct 2d. from the workman's wages in the first week and 3d. in the second week. He may not deduct 3d. in the first week and 2d. in the second week from the workman's wages, because the amount which he may deduct at any moment cannot exceed one-half the amount of all the stamps affixed by him up to that date.

    Postmen's Remuneration (Erdington and Sutton Coldfield).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked whether the Postmaster-General is now in a position to make arrangements that the postmen of Erdington and Sutton Coldfield shall receive the same rate of remuneration as those of Aston and other adjoining districts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I explained to the hon. Member on the 27th February last, I am not in a position to revise the classification of these offices pending the Report of the Select Committee now sitting.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be submitted to the House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say. That matter rests entirely in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Does it mean that some months, perhaps a year, may elapse before it is submitted, and that in the meantime these postmen will be receiving less pay than persons living in the immediate neighbourhood under the same conditions at the present time?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is a great number of questions of classification all over the country where representations are made that one office is unfairly treated compared with another in the same district. All these matters are being subjected to inquiry by a Committee of the House, and I cannot deal with the subject piecemeal.

    Post Office Savings Bank Deposits.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the Postmaster General is in possession of information in regard to the way in which deposits in savings banks are utilised by countries where such banks are established; if not, whether he will take steps to obtain it; and whether he will lay such information before the House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have recently obtained full information on this subject, and will lay it before the House at an early date.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the Postmaster-General will state the total amount of deposits at the close of the year 1910 in savings banks serving rural districts and towns below 10,000 in population; and whether he will grant a Return showing the total amounts of deposits at the close of the year 1910 in each of the savings banks serving such rural districts and towns?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The information asked for is not available, and cannot indeed be obtained, for it is impossible to say to what extent a savings bank in a town of over 10,000 population is used by depositors in the surrounding districts.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great need of this money now going out of the rural districts into the towns being used for the purpose of agricultural credit in the villages, and cannot some part of it be put at the disposal of the agricultural labourers and others?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would like notice of that question.

    Scottish Board of Agriculture (Law Agents).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the solicitors who formerly acted as law agents for the Congested Districts Board have been appointed to act in the same capacity for the Scottish Board of Agriculture; if so, whether they will be required to give the whole of their time to the business of the Board of Agriculture; if not, has the Board considered the economical advantage, in view of the many claims for compensation likely to arise, of advertising for and engaging a solicitor who would give his whole time to the work of the Department?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The Board has considered both the advantages and disadvantages of the course suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the fees likely to be charged against his Department in all probability buy up six ordinary solicitors?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend did not pay attention to the answer. The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. WATT: Quite so.

    Parliamentary Visit to Fleet.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked (71) what is the maximum sum to which Treasury sanction has been given in order to provide for a visit to the Fleet by Members of both Houses of Parliament on the 9th July; (72) whether, in considering the estimates for the visit of Members of both Houses of Parliament to the Fleet on 9th July, the Treasury has considered the possibility of making some charge to the Members taking part in this visit and not placing it wholly upon the National Exchequer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I informed the hon. Member for Carlisle on Monday last, the details of the cost to public funds of this visit are still under consideration. No definite sum has yet been sanctioned by the Treasury.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Is it the fact that the Treasury has sanctioned this expenditure without stating any distinct sum?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Communications are now passing between the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty as to what is to be done.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements have-been made and the invitations, in fact, issued?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of that at all. I am not aware of finality in any of the arrangements at present, not have I any knowledge of the proportion of Members of the House who have accepted the invitation.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second question as to the possibility of Members paying at least some part of the cost?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that subject is certainly worthy of consideration.

    Crown Property in Piccadilly.
    Mr. SOAMESasked whether the building adjoining the Piccadilly Hotel, on the east side, which has been set back, is on Crown land; and, if so, whether the Secretary to the Treasury is aware that a front is now being erected which, instead of completing the design of an eminent architect for the elevation to Piccadilly, is of a totally different character, completely discordant with the remainder of the block; whether drawings of this front were submitted to any Government Department and approved by them; whether it was the original intention of the Government that, in the rebuilding of Regent. Street Quadrant and the block of Piccadilly east of the hotel, there should be a similarity of treatment of the whole façade; and, if so, why that intention has been abandoned; and whether the Government in future will exercise sufficient control over the buildings erected on Crown land to prevent the recurrence of such an unhappy result?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The building referred to stands on Crown Land held under a lease granted before the hotel was commenced. The Commissioners of Woods have had prolonged negotiations with the various parties concerned, but they are advised that they have no power to prevent the re-erection of the old front. It was the intention that in rebuilding the Quadrant there should be similarity of treatment throughout, but objections have been raised to the original design by tending interests and the question is now under consideration. No definite design was even settled for the buildings in Piccadilly east of Nos. 19 and 20. In normal cases the Commissioners have full

    1853
    power to control buildings erected on Crown Lands. In this instance there is no new building, but only the re-erection of an old façade removed when part of the former premises were thrown into the street.
    Mr. KING: Are we to conclude from that that the beautiful design has not been carried out?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that conclusion must be drawn from the reply.

    Road Contribution (County of Devon).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked what was the amount of money paid to the road authorities of the county of Devon during the year 1910–11 towards the cost of the upkeep of the main roads out of the sum of £22,846 received from carriage, including motor car, licences in the county during that year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amount paid to the county of Devon, in accordance with Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911, was £13,618.

CARDIFF BANK HOLIDAY.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: What action, if any, has been or is to be taken by the Government to ascertain the opinion of the working classes of the city of Cardiff on the proposal to proclaim Wednesday next a Bank Holiday; and, if they are not to be consulted, are they to be paid wages for that day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the notice only since coming into the House. I do not know how far it would be possible to make the inquiry referred to. If the hon. Member will put down a question for Monday, I will inquire in the meantime.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not the case that the council which is to issue the proclamation is to meet on Monday? That is the reason I have thought the matter urgent and put the question on Private Notice.
The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into the matter.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Prime Minister see if he can issue an Order that a man who is forced against his will to take a holiday on Wednesday shall have a right to recover his wages?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the proclamation of a Bank Holiday necessarily involves the closing of business premises.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

  EMPLOYERS AND CABINET.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to give to the House the result of the inquiries of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the Motion on the Order Paper of yesterday respecting the transport dispute in London?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer yet. The inquiries are still being prosecuted. I am bound to say we have received, not only nothing in the nature of opposition, but a great deal of sympathy in this matter from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I should not like to make a definite statement to-day. A great deal depends on the attitude of the employers, and I cannot help personally expressing the hope that the employers may see their way to agree to such a meeting.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the Prime Minister have conveyed to the employers on the Thames an intimation of the desire which he has just expressed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have stated it in terms which may reach them.

SUFFRAGIST PRISONERS.
Sir JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely Whether, in response to a numerously signed Memorial by Members of this House, he proposes to transfer to the First Division those women who in various prisons are undergoing sentences for offences committed in the agitation for woman suffrage; whether he is aware of and sanctions the treatment they are now receiving; and whether such treatment is not a danger to health and a great additional punishment to the sentences given?
Mr. McKENNA: There must have been some error in regard to the notice, as it has not reached me. I can, however, answer the substance of the question. I do not propose to advise that the suffrage prisoners who are now in the Second Division should be placed in the First Division.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the apparent injustice of giving to the leaders in these regrettable occurrences much more lenient treatment than is meted out to the followers; and does he not think that from the point of view of respect for the administration of justice it is very desirable indeed to remove all impression that there is any favouritism in the treatment of one set of prisoners as compared with another?
Mr. McKENNA: As I explained to the House at the time the change was made, I acted upon the advice of the judge who tried the case. I have always conceived it my duty not to exercise any arbitrary discretion of my own, but to consult the judge. The judge in the case of the other suffrage prisoners did not recommend that they should be placed in the First Division, whereas the judge in the case of the three prisoners referred to did so recommend, and I acted upon the advice.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: As the right hon. Gentleman can understand, this is a matter which excites very deep feeling. May I ask whether, since the mitigation of the sentence on the leaders, he has approached the judge who tried the other prisoners with a view to seeing whether that circumstance does not make a very considerable difference?
Mr. McKENNA: No, I do not think that would be proper. The judge, I assume, would not act upon any arbitrary discretion, but upon the circumstances which became known to him in the course of the trial. The judge who advised me to place the three prisoners in the First Division did so in consequence of what had taken place at their trial. I do not think that any subject circumstance should determine the opinion of the judge.
Mr. DILLON: Has the attention of the Home Secretary been directed to the fact that his predecessors have on many occasions overruled the advice of the judges on this very point, and that they have recognised it to be the function of the Home Office in such matters to correct the idiosyncrasies of some judges?
Mr. McKENNA: I agree fully; but it must be remembered that whether prisoners are placed in the First Division or not is a matter, in the first instance, entirely in the discretion of the judge.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: He did not sentence them in the First Division.
Mr. SPEAKER: This shows the inconvenience of raising these questions without notice.
Mr. McKENNA: In this case the judge did not place the prisoners in the First Division in the first instance, but in the Second, because they declined to give any undertaking that they would not use the opportunities that would be afforded to them as prisoners in the First Division to incite other persons to commit illegal acts; but upon their giving to me such an undertaking—not in those precise words, but having that meaning—the judge advised that they should be placed in the First Division, and that he would, upon the recommendation of the jury, have so placed them himself when the matter was entirely in his own discretion if that undertaking had been given. These are the grounds upon which I have acted. There are no similar circumstances in the case of the other prisoners, although I have been ready for some time, and I am perfectly ready now, to advise the remission of the whole of the sentences of any of those prisoners who undertake not to commit the same offence again.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Home Secretary in a position to say whether, on account of his refusal, a hunger strike has been inaugurated by these prisoners, including those placed in the first division, and whether in the case of the other prisoners he will approach the magistrates to ask if they are prepared to assent to the alteration?
Mr. McKENNA: No. I have already stated that there are no circumstances which would justify my asking the opinion of the judges who tried the other prisoners. I am not sure whether in all the cases, but certainly in a large number of cases, the prisoners have not taken food since yesterday afternoon, but I hope that wiser counsels will prevail amongst them.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is forcible feeding with all its horrors and brutalities to be resorted to? Further, with regard to one of the prisoners, has Mrs. Pankhurst—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really give notice of these questions.
4.0 P.M.
Sir J. ROLLESTON: After the answer of the Home Secretary to my question, and to other questions, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the treatment of pri-

1857
soners and other matters referred to in the question addressed to the Home Secretary.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is altogether too vague. The Standing Order particularly says that it must be on a definite matter that a request for adjournment is made. "The treatment of prisoners and other matters" does not appear to me to be very definite.
Mr. KING: On a point of Order, is it in order for strangers in the Gallery to look at you, Mr. Speaker, through binocular glasses?
Mr. SPEAKER: I can only say what I have heard said in another place: this is not a theatre.
Sir J. ROLLESTON: Would I be in order if I made my Motion more definite? I should like to say, the treatment of prisoners, which it appears involves danger to health and even life, and affects the liberty of the subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: That treatment is a treatment which they have courted themselves.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether it is not competent for an hon. Member to ask leave to move the same Motion, but in a more correct form, namely, to call attention to the refusal of the Home Office to accord the same treatment to all prisoners guilty of the same offence?
Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to have a little more information as to what has been the actual policy of the Home Office in this matter. This question was asked without notice, although a statement was made that notice had been given. Had notice been given in the ordinary way as to the propriety of the conduct of the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman had given an unsatisfactory reply, the matter could have been brought forward at a suitable time. The hon. Member is asking me to give a decision without giving me an opportunity of making myself fully acquainted with the circumstances, and without giving the Home Office an opportunity to make a full statement.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I, on a point of Order, just put this before you? This is a matter which is urgent in this sense, that the prisoners will now, whether it is their fault or not, be submitted to the process of forcible feeding which, without any criticism at all upon the Home Secre-
1858
tary for the moment in carrying out that process, undoubtedly does involve great physical suffering. Under these circumstances, it will not be possible to bring the matter under the consideration of this House until next Thursday unless we are allowed to discuss it this evening. I venture to submit very respectfully, and deeply regretting if any mistake has been made in not giving notice of the question—for which I am not in any way responsible—that this is really a matter of urgent public importance, and I ask whether, under these very exceptional and peculiar circumstances you do not think it is a matter which may be fairly considered this evening by the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the action of the Home Office has been anything extraordinary, then I think that a case would have been made, even though no notice had been given of the question. As far as I understand, the action of the Home Office has been perfectly ordinary, normal, and usual, therefore the hon. Gentleman can make no grievance out of the fact that the Home Office has acted in a normal, usual, and ordinary way. If the Home Office had tried any extraordinary treatment, or had done anything unusual, then I think hon. Members would have been fully entitled to bring it at once before the House.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order, I think the matter arises in this way: As I understand, these prisoners have taken this course as a protest against the differentiation of putting some of them in the first division, and others being given other treatment in another division. Would it not be in order to call attention to the matter as arising out of the differentiation between different prisoners, who have been really tried for what is practically the same offence?
Mr. SPEAKER: That criticism is that the Home Office has treated certain prisoners better than others.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Worse, I should say, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think better, in putting them in a higher division; but I think there may be probably half an hour at the conclusion of business this evening, and if hon. Members really wish to raise the matter, of course they can then do so.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask, on a point of Order, if the leave asked for were granted, would it not be taken

1859
as a precedent that whenever in future a prisoner refused to eat on account of a desire to make a protest against his being convicted of a crime and being sent to prison that it would be then in order for any Member, on any occasion, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House? Would that not be a very great inconvenience to public business?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet has dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's." I did not go into particulars quite so much. I am always anxious, of course, to see in regard to a Motion for Adjournment that I shall not make a precedent that might be improperly used.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the Prime Minister make a statement in regard to the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Report of Ways and Means Resolutions in the order already indicated.
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday will be given to Supply.
With regard to Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will arrange with the Noble Lord opposite the Supply to be put down.
Wednesday, the Board of Agriculture Vote.
Thursday, the Colonial Office Vote.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on Monday as regards the business for Friday. It may be for the convenience of the House if I state that the following week we shall probably proceed with the Government of Ireland Bill.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Will no Supply be taken in the following week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are not quite sure, possibly on Thursday, not before.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not very unusual to take Supply in a lump in this way, spread over several days?
The PRIME MINISTER: Well, we are rather in arrear.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to
1860
make regarding the Trade Union Law Amendment Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down for Monday, and I will try to give him an answer.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend Section 22 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, with respect to the amalgamation of school districts." Presented by Captain WARING; supported by Sir Archibald Williamson, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Walter Menzies, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Hogge; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th July, and to be printed.
  EDUCATION (CONDITIONS OF GRANT) BILL.
  "To regulate the conditions on which public money may be applied in aid of Education in England and Wales; and for other purposes incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. BURT; supported by Sir William Adkins, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Alexander Harvey, and Mr. Morgan; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.
SUPPLY.— [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.—INLAND REVENUE. [LAND VALUATION OFFICE.]
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,045,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." [Note.—£850,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. ROYDS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100, in respect of Sub-head AA (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances in addition to Salaries).
  The public cost of the Land Valuation Department for the current year is estimated at £530,000. In addition to the public cost, we have to take into consideration the cost to owners of land and house property, the subject of valuation. I do not think I shall be accused

  1861
  of exaggeration when I put that cost to owners at double the public cost, namely, £1,000,000 per annum—a recurring cost. Some months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 10,000,000 of Forms IV. had been sent in. If we put the cost of filling in each of these forms at 2s. that alone amounts to £1,000,000, and that is in the first year of this land valuation. We are now asked to make provision for the third year of the scheme. I make this Motion with very great satisfaction, because I hold that this valuation scheme, as administered by the Department, is not only a waste of public money but that the Department's method of administration is inflicting a burden on the owners of land and house property in the country, and is at the same time striking a blow at the credit of our greatest national asset—land and house property. The Attorney-General some weeks ago hazarded the opinion in this House that one-fifth of the task of valuation had already been completed. A few days afterwards I put a question in the House to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked how many final valuations of land had been completed. The answer was that it was impossible to state. I then put a supplementary question asking on what authority the Attorney-General had based his statement that one-fifth of the valuations had been completed. That supplementary question received no answer. We may take it that there is no justification or authority whatever for that statement as to the one-fifth. One-fifth of the number of the provisional valuations of land and small house property may have been issued; but that one-fifth part of the land valuations of this country have been accepted as final I doubt. My humble opinion is that the task undertaken by the Valuation Department, under the so-called People's Budget, will never be completed; I hope it never will.
  We are now entering upon the third year of this valuation, and if the public cost and the estimated cost to owners of land and house property are added together, I believe the total must be at least £1,500,000 per annum, and in a very short space of time we shall find we have had £10,000,000—money spent on a perfectly unjustifiable, unnecessary, and fruitless valuation. I say "fruitless" because the last official information we had as to the money derived from these taxes was, I believe, that in. all it was the sum of £37,000. Whether that is correct or not, it is not of much consequence, because the
  1862
  total is only about one-fortieth part of the annual cost of the valuation. The immence cost of this valuation very largely arises from the endeavour to ascertain the site value of land in this country. Every surveyor and valuer in the country is perfectly accustomed to value all forms of property and all interests in property at its market value; but no surveyor or valuer has ever before been called upon to make a valuation of the site value of property, as he has to do under the provisions of this Act. Therefore I say it is in consequence of the site value of land having to be ascertained that this immense cost is occasioned. I propose to deal with two points only: firstly, in regard to the methods and operations of the Land Valuation Department, and to show the House what ridiculous results are arrived at, and how grossly unjust to owners of laud, great and small. I happen to represent a purely agricultural constituency in the great agricultural county of Lincoln, one of the foremost agricultural counties in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think, I cannot do better than to place before the Committee the position of the owners of agricultural land in Lincolnshire in regard to the site value of their land as ascertained under the provisions of the so-called People's Budget. Of course, these conditions, if they apply to Lincolnshire, which does not differ much from other parts of the country, apply also to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Broadly speaking, site value is the value of land divested of buildings,—in fact in its unimproved state apart from any value added by the community. I think, broadly speaking, that is a correct definition of site value, and the term "land value," which we so frequently hear in this House and outside of it, means practically the same thing as site value. At any rate, I know no distinction; the two terms are synonymous. The county of Lincoln embraces 1,850,000 acres of agricultural land, of which about 775,000 acres are fenland or lowland, 250,000 acres are woldland, and about 120,000 formed the tableland called Lincoln Heath, and the residue consists of miscellaneous lands. The whole of this land has been drained, reclaimed, enclosed, and fenced, and farmhouses and buildings have been erected at the cost of the owners of the land. Two-thirds of the whole area of Lincolnshire consists of heath, wold or fen-land, and the bulk of that land has been drained, enclosed, and fenced within the last 150 years, a very considerable portion

  1863
  of it within the last 100 or 120 years. I take a valuation, which I have here,—it is typical of a very large number of farms in the Lincoln fens which contain some of the finest agricultural land in the country. The farm of which this is the provisional valuation, is in Martin Fen, Lincolnshire. It is part of that fen bounded on the east side by the River Withman and on the west side by the Lincoln Heath. It is a farm of 179 acres, of which I have a provisional valuation; gross rent £263, net rent £178. It is valued at £4,700 for gross value, and with that valuation I have no particular cause of complaint. The site value, however, after allowance for all improvements, is put at only £744 less, namely, £3,956, and of that £744, the sporting value is £200, so that £544 is the only sum allowed by this Valuation Department to represent improvements and expenditure in the past by the owners of that farm in Martin Fen.
  What is the nature of those improvements, and why do I complain that the allowance is inadequate and insufficient? In the first place, on that farm there is a farmhouse and buildings at least of the value of £2,000. Besides that, this farm, along with the rest of that part of the fen, was about ten years previous to the year 1800, drained at a cost which I shall be able to show to the Committee amounted to £10 per acre. Therefore, the cost of improving that farm alone was £10 per acre for drainage in or about the year 1790, which added to £2,000 the cost of buildings makes £3,970. In addition there would be the cost of making dykes, drains, gates, fences, and so forth, and also the cost of paring and burning and bringing the land into cultivation. I put that at the very moderate sum of £3 per acre, which would make £537. That brings the total cost of improvement up to £4,327, and if I deduct that from £4,700, which is the total value of the farm as now valued by this Department, the site value would be brought out at £373, and of that site value £200 represents sporting. The site value of that farm ought to be brought out at £173, whereas it is actually brought out at £3,956. In fact, the site value of that farm is fifteen times as much as it ought to be—that is what it comes to. I should like to give the Committee the authority I have for saying that the drainage of these fens originally cost £10 per acre, and when I say they cost £10 per acre I am only referring to the scheme which was successful, the scheme of Sir John
  1864
  Rennie. It is a matter of history that as regards all these fens previous attempts had been made to drain them, and that many of the owners were ruined by these attempts. There never was any complete and comprehensive scheme for the drainage of these fens until the scheme of Sir John Rennie of 120 years ago. I have here my authority in a book by Smiles, "Lives of the Engineers," and at page 153 the writer says:—
  "The wretched state of these lands may be inferred from the fact that, about seventy years since, a thousand acres in Blankney Fen, constituting part of the 'Dales'—now one of the most fertile parts of the district between Lincoln and Tattershall—were let annually by public auction at Horncastle, and the reserved bid was only £10 for the entire area!"
  and I should especially like to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to that. The reserved bid for the letting of these lands of 1,000 acres one year before they were drained, and now one of the most fertile parts of the Kingdom, was £10 for the entire area. So much for these lands before they were drained. On page 164 of the same book we have an estimate of the cost of the drainage of 60,000 acres of land by Sir John Rennie; the estimate is by Mr. Brown, and it shows that 60,000 acres of land were improved and drained at the cost of £580,705. That is the evidence which I submit in support of my statement that at least £10 an acre was spent upon the drainage of this particular farm of 179 acres, and therefore I claim from the site value a deduction of £1,790 on the ground of that improvement. I am quite prepared to sink the whole of the capital previous to that drainage scheme spent by the owners of this farm or the adjoining farms. Another gentleman at about that time, Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, Arthur Young, also referred to this matter, and he said:—
  "The quantity of land thus added to the Kingdom has been great; fens of water, mud, wild fowl, frogs, and agues, have been converted to rich pasture and arable, worth from 20s. to 40s. an acre. Health improved, morals corrected, and the community enriched. These, when carried to such an extent, are great works, and reflect the highest credit on the good sense and energy of the proprietors.
  "These are the results of that government, which so many living and fattening under its protection wish to exchange or hazard for speculative legislation of a more popular cast.
  "These undertakings prove the reliance of a people on the secure possession of what their industry creates. A farming traveller must examine this country with a cold heart who does not pray for the continuance of a system of legislation which has tended so powerfully to adorn, improve, and cultivate the country, and to diffuse prosperity and happiness through the whole society."
  I think I have satisfied the Committee as to the value of the improvement carried

  1865
  out on this particular farm, and I think I have also satisfied them as to what the opinion was before and after, these improvements had been carried out, as to the state of the land in the estimation of the best experts of the country at that time. It is now sought, in this valuation scheme, practically to ignore the whole of those improvements, not to allow the owners of property to be credited with these improvements on this particular farm, which, as I said before, amount at least to the sum of £4,324. The Government, through its Valuation Department, proposed to credit us with £544. I now leave that particular farm, and I am perfectly ready to show the Committee thousands of valuations upon the same line. This form of valuation, and this method on which the site value of agricultural land is treated, applies to every single farm in the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the owners of agricultural land are all alive to the fact, but I propose, in my humble way, to try and enlighten them, and to warn them not to agree, and, in no circumstances whatever in regard to agricultural land, to submit to such valuation and to insist upon their improvements which they effected in the past being recognised and the site value of their farms and land brought out at their proper, fair, and true value, so far as it can be ascertained. I think the Committee might very well ask how comes it about that the Valuation Department can write off these improvements in such a way. What claim do they make? On what do they rely to write off these improvements? I will tell the House exactly how they make this claim and how it is that owners are to be tricked of their improvements.
  There are two reasons. The first is that the valuers allege that the unit of valuation being occupation the owner of the farm cannot be given credit for the value of the buildings, because that farm might be linked on to or thrown into another farm, and then they might not want my buildings. The valuer does not regard the value of my house or buildings or how necessary they have been to my farm. After surveying my farm he values it with the buildings and fences. He then estimates what will be the value of this farm without those buildings and fences. He sees an adjoining farmhouse and buildings which may belong to someone else, but that does not matter. The adjoining farm might belong to the county council. Then he says, "Look here, there is an adjoining farm, I can put fifty acres without
  1866
  inconvenience to this tenant, fifty acres to another, and then throw the seventy acres into a third farm and so do without those buildings." Consequently, he writes down the whole of my improvements and drainage to £500, while the buildings alone have cost £2,000. Then he comes the next day and values the adjoining farm and the same process is gone through. He values that farm as if all those buildings were gone, and as if all mine were there. In fact, he asks the owners of these two properties to exchange their buildings for those few days for the purposes of this fictitious valuation. That is the position, and neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any hon. Gentleman sitting on the Government Bench can deny it, because that is the course being followed by every valuer at the present time, and if he is not following it, at any rate he says he is, and judging from the actual results of this valuation, they must be following it. The next reason why I got such a very small sum allowed for my improvements with regard to this farm, is because no deduction can be made in respect of dykes and stone walls; so that all drainage is disallowed. As there may be some doubt on this point, I will read in support of my statement a question which I put in the House on the 20th of March this year. I asked:—
  "Whether the valuation of land is still proceeding on the basis that, for the purpose of arriving at site value, no deduction is made in respect of stone walls and dykes, but is made in respect of live fences?
  "The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Masterman): Subject to possible exceptions in cases where the stone walls or dykes are appurtenant to or used in connection with a building the answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1912, cols. 1858–9.]
  In the construction of the Act in that connection placed on it by the Valuation Department, none of these stone walls, drainage, or dykes are used in connection with the house; they allow a paltry drain to the house, but not the great cost of drainage and bringing all this land into cultivation. On the same date I put a supplementary question, and I asked—
  "Would the hon. Gentleman say why properties of precisely the same value are for the purposes of the Finance Act valued upon entirely different basis?
  "Mr. Masterman: We are only carrying out the law under Section 25, Sub-section (2), of the Budget, 1910."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1912, col. 1859.]
  I further asked, "Is not the assessable site value the value of the land?" And the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied, "Assessable site value is the value of the site." All I ask is that the site should be properly valued. I ask that the site of this particular farm and every other

  1867
  farm in the country should be properly valued. If the site is to be valued,—I think it is ridiculous to have it valued at all, because it must be a hypothetical value,—but, assuming that it is necessary to have the site valued, then do let that be properly arrived at. The same conditions I have described apply to every farm in the United Kingdom. And I assert that the site value of agricultural land is being valued at anything from five to fifteen times above its actual value. Take the Heath of Lincoln. There were formerly no buildings on it, and the owner has no allowance for them or for his stone walls or live fences, or other things necessary to bring the land into cultivation. The site value of every farm on the Lincoln Heath and Wolds is being valued at least five times its proper site value. I may be asked why is it so vitally important that as correct a site value as possible should be ascertained, seeing that under the People's Budget no tax is placed on the site value of purely agricultural land? My answer to that question is that I think that arrangement was made to gull the landowners of England in order that they might think this valuation was set up simply and solely for the purpose of that Act. We know it was set up for no such purpose. We know that no money is coming in from the People's Budget. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not under the Land Tax?"] I do not think it was called the People's Budget in any connection except the Land Taxes. We have heard a good deal about the Land Taxes, and the land for the people, and the tax on the dukes. It was called the People's Budget because it placed a burden on the so-called rich owners of land.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that subject.
  Mr. ROYDS: I was trying to impress upon the Committee the danger of the methods now being adopted by the Valuation Department.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Whatever your ruling is, Mr. Maclean, I want to know what is debatable in Committee of Supply? I do not understand whether the hon. Member opposite is complaining of the Act or the administration of it. Does the hon. Member's charge mean that the valuers are not faithfully administering the Act, or is he criticising the Act itself?
  1868
  If he is doing the latter, it is not the place to criticise Acts of Parliament in Committee of Supply; but if his charge is that the valuers are not carrying out the Act, then it is quite another matter.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it will be within the recollection of the House that when the very same question was being discussed on the Committee stage of the Budget Resolution I was called to order by the Chairman for discussing this matter, because it was a matter of administration and not a matter of altering the law. Now I understand an attempt is to be made by the right hon. Gentleman to show that it is a matter of law and not a matter of administration. I submit with all respect, Mr. Maclean, that this matter is so complicated that it is absolutely impossible to differentiate and say where administration ends and the law begins. What we desire to do is to discuss the administration of the law as it is being interpreted by the Valuation Department. Whether that interpretation is right or wrong or involves a criticism of the law is a matter for the Chair to decide.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I interrupted the hon. Member because he had transgressed the Rules of Order on that point. This is purely a question of the administration of the Act, and he must keep clearly off discussing any alteration of the law or legislation.
  Mr. ROYDS: I am confining myself to the administration of the Act, because I know I should not be in order if I did not do so. Every point I have made in the interests of the landowners and against the administration of the Act will be contested and fought inch by inch in the Law Courts. I was proceeding with the point of the necessity of getting the correct site value of agricultural land. I have not got before me the report of a gentleman who, when this Act was under discussion in this House, was very closely associated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his adviser—I refer to Mr. Lumley,—but I remember this gentleman saying:—
  "We shall see when we get the valuation of the agricultural land of England how closely the total value of the agricultural land approaches or approximates to the site value. If the site value and the agricultural value approximate to one another, it will be quite clear that all this talk by the owners of land about improvements they have made in the past is mere moonshine. If, on the other hand, the site value is brought down to a very low sum, then their contention will be borne out as to the improvements which they, or their predecessors, have effected."
  I recall that statement because it shows what has been in the minds of valuers

  1869
  and the framers of this Act during the whole of that time, and they are now endeavouring by trickery to make the site value of agricultural land approximate to the total value, when they ought to be as far apart as the figures I have mentioned, namely, £4,700 and £179. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde), of course, launched a brand new scheme of land reform during that by-election.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I fought North-West Norfolk on exactly the same policy as I fought East Denbighshire.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we must keep clear of that.
  Mr. ROYDS: I should like, on a point of Order, to put it this way. In order to show the absolute necessity of getting a correct site value of agricultural land I must show this valuation is going to be used, not only for the purposes of the Finance Act, but also for other purposes. I am not going into the scheme of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, because I do not believe for one moment he understands it himself, and I am perfectly certain the electors of North-West Norfolk do not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That clearly is a step outside the limits of this discussion.
  Mr. ROYDS: Perhaps I have said enough to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this valuation is not going to be used only for the purposes of these Land Taxes of the People's Budget, which I consider has proved itself a failure, but is also going to be used for all these other purposes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, may I ask whether it would not be out of order for my hon. Friend to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something which would entail fresh legislation, but whether it would not be in order for my hon. Friend to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to do something which would entail fresh legislation, and whether that is not what my hon. Friend is doing?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point, but that is not the interpretation of the hon. Member's remarks which occurs to me.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit to you, as a point of Order, that the argument of the hon. Member is that this valuation, being wrongly made, is an
  1870
  untrustworthy basis for any future legislation. The fact that such future legislation is contemplated is in itself a special reason for making this valuation accurate and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is nothing I would like better than a Debate on land values and the use which can be made of the valuation for the purposes of future legislation, but I would like to know whether I would be in order, if the question is raised, in discussing the fitness of this valuation for the purposes of future legislation, because there we are entering upon a very large question indeed.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly I must clearly rule that the discussion of that question is entirely out of order.
  Mr. ROYDS: That being the position of affairs, I, of course, cannot pursue that topic any further. I hope, however, I have made it clear that this valuation is not going to be used only for the purposes of these Land Taxes in the Budget, but that it is being pressed forward for other purposes. I think I am in order in arguing that there is no occasion for it to be proceeded with for the purposes of the Budget, and, if there is no occasion for it being proceeded with for that purpose, then I am entitled to ask for what purpose it is being pressed forward, and why 170 of his followers are memorialising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. I think I can supply the answer myself. They are pressing it forward lest the landowners of the country should find out before it is completed what the Valuation Department are about. I have dealt with agricultural land, and I propose to make one point in connection with urban land and house property. The Increment Value Duty on the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, oft repeated, and within the recollection of this House, was only to be levied on the difference between the site value as ascertained under the Act and the site value on an occasion of a sale or transfer. That was perfectly clearly established, and it was understood by every Member of the House and by the country. It was clearly understood that the site value of the land was only to be charged with Increment Value Duty when that site itself increased in value. It was further understood that under no circumstances whatever was Increment Value Duty to be charged on

  1871
  house property; it was only to be charged on the increase in the value of the site.
  The valuers throughout the length and breadth of the land are claiming Increment Value Duty, not only when there has been no increase in the value of the site, but when there has been a drop in the value of the site, and they are also claiming it on house property, or, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call it, the composite value, without regard to the fact whether the land has gone up or down, or whether there has been an actual profit or loss on the house. They are not only claiming Increment Value Duty when there has been no profit on the land, which is irregular, illegal, and against the understanding of this House; and they are not only charging it on house property, which is also irregular, illegal, and against the understanding of this House, but they are also charging it on house property when the wretched owner of it has made a loss. I will explain the matter by giving a very simple illustration. A man buys a plot of land for £200, and builds a house costing £1,200. The total cost is £1,400. The valuers come round and value the composite property at £1,000; that would be a perfectly natural and ordinary thing to do. The man subsequently sells the house for £1,200, and the valuers say there is an increment of £200 because he has made a profit. The man says, "No, the property cost me £1,400, and I only sold it for £1,200." The valuers say, "No; it cost you too much". We have nothing to do with that. It does not matter to us what you gave for it, or what you have spent in building. We were able, in our wisdom some years later to place a value on that property as in April, 1909, and, regardless of what it cost you or what you gave for it, we claim Increment Value Duty on £200, although you have actually made a loss of £200." There is no way of getting out of it, except, of course, by appealing and contesting the matter in the Law Courts, and I need hardly say it will be contested.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I can confirm what the hon. Member says, that this is a general complaint. It is general in all the county of Nottinghamshire. Does the hon. Member, however, know a case where the Treasury has claimed and obtained the money?
  Mr. ROYDS: I only know of cases in which it has been claimed, because wherever a case has come before me I have always insisted on it being fought. Still
  1872
  the point is that every man who owns a house or a bit of land in the country is faced with this unless he is prepared to go to the expense of fighting it. The further point is that a claim is being made which this House repudiated from the first. Now it is brought to the knowledge of the House, I think in common honesty hon. Members, not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side of the House, should insist on the matter being adjusted. I am sure on both the points I have put I must receive the general support of the House, because I am quite sure it is the intention and desire of the House that this Act so long as it is on the Statute Book should be administered fairly. If this system is continued, whether with regard to agricultural land or to Increment Value Duty claimed on houses and land, a practice, of course, is being followed to which this House has never consented, and which this House should never approve or allow to go on. I ask the House, therefore, to support me in the Motion I have made.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has attacked the Act of 1910. I was not very clear during the first part of his speech whether he directed his criticism against the Act itself or against its administration, and I am not even now sure whether he maintained that in the action they have taken the valuers have departed from the principles laid down in the Finance Act of 1910. That is the contention of the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. ROYDSindicated assent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think if the hon. Member will only look at Section 25, which is the Section he is criticising, he will find there is no ground at all for his complaint. I would make this preliminary observation. He says they have departed, and departed very materially, from the principles of that Act in a case which I should have thought was very typical of land in the eastern counties of England. He very properly said that a matter of that kind ought to be brought before the Courts and that steps were being taken to bring it before the Courts. In that case it is in the position of being sub judice, and I should have thought it was rather a departure from precedent, even if it was not strictly improper, when the matter is sub judice.
  Mr. ROYDS: There is no case, so far as I know, at present before the Courts.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see. The action has not been brought. The hon. Gentleman at any rate stated it was his intention to see the matter fought out in the Courts, and I should not have thought it was a very fair beginning for an impartial adjudication of a case of that kind to charge the opposite party with trickery, because, if I were to defend the matter in the same way—
  Mr. ROYDS: I did not charge the opposite party. I charged the Valuation Department.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a challenge, in the Law Courts, of the action of the valuers of the Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] The hon. Gentleman said the case was to come before the Law Courts. He prefaces the proceedings by accusing the Department of trickery in the administration of the Act. If I were to defend the valuers of the Department by the same method it would be a very improper thing to do. I am not sure whether, as a Minister of the Crown, it is not improper for me to enter into the matter at all, but the hon. Member having raised the point I am bound to deal with it. If he will only look at Clause 25, I think he will find that the valuers have acted strictly within the four corners of the Act. Sub-section (1) says:—
  "For the purposes of this part of the Act the gross value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller in its then condition free from encumbrances and from any burden, charge, or restriction (other than rates or taxes) might be expected to realise."
  Again, if he will look at Sub-section (4) (b) he will find it provided:—
  "(b) Any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bonâ fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture."
  Other than agriculture! The hon. Gentleman cheers that, but it shows that his point is a point directed against the Act and not merely against the administration
  1874
  of it. The Act may be right or it may be wrong; at any rate it was debated at great length, and I think these words were introduced in the interests of the agricultural-community. At the time the only complaint was that they did not go far enough, in the interests of agriculture.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: But the Section to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring does not deal with these valuations.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I have not finished reading the Clause. I find it is further provided:—
  "Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land, or for the purpose of any business trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall, for the purposes of this provision, be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes."
  The hon. Gentleman said we deducted the drains near a house, but not the drains which improved the value of land for agricultural purposes. That, again, may be a criticism against this Act; it is not a criticism against the administration of the Act.
  Mr. ROYDS: On this land no houses could have been built until it was drained, under any scheme.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman can maintain that proposition it is one which should be argued in the Courts. It is a question of fact, a question which this House is quite incompetent to decide. It is a fact which cam easily be decided by the Court of Appeal and, as I understand the case is to come before that Court, I repeat it should be tried outside this House and not within its four walls.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask one question, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise to be a fair one? Will he, on his side, facilitate the taking of a test case, and will he agree that the action of the Valuation Department shall follow the decision arrived at in that test case?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say without having time to think it over. On the face of it it seems very fair, but I

  1875
  will let the right hon. Gentleman know later on in the Debate, which, I understand, is going on until eleven o'clock.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a step further? Will he allow an extension of time in those cases where the valuation has already been finally settled before knowing the result of the test case; otherwise people may have their cases adversely decided with no opportunity of remedy.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure as to that. It strikes me that this is a rather typical case which would cover practically the whole of the Fen district, and the decision in it would be of great moment. I was surprised the matter had not been challenged in the Courts. I recognise there is a good deal to be said for the poor owner of a small hereditament, and I think it is quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to say we cannot expect him to go to the Court of Appeal and fight a case of this nature. But that is not the case here. This is a case which affects practically scores and even hundreds of thousands of acres in the Eastern counties. I am very surprised, seeing that the owners have been advised that they should take the case to the Courts, that no action has yet been commenced. I am surprised it was not taken long ago and a decision obtained on the point. It is also clear that this is a typical case, and the decision in it will cover the rest of the cases of the same nature. Seeing that it is a matter which is going to be brought before the Courts—I am very glad it is, and I hope it will be without any delay—then it will not be wise or fair for me to enter into any further discussion in the nature of argument on one side or the other. I have given generally my answers. I was bound to do that, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had challenged the action of the valuers. I was rather surprised to hear his statement that agricultural land throughout the United Kingdom had been valued at five times its actual value.
  Mr. ROYDS: Its site value.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought the general charge was that the land was undervalued, and if I were in order in glancing even remotely at the possibilities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I should say, on the whole, that his remarks show how fair the valuation is. To value at five times the actual site value is to give facilities to get hold of land at something less
  1876
  than its real value. Overvaluation rather than undervaluation surely should not give rise to much complaint.
  Mr. ROYDS: You have overvalued the site value of the land, and it is on the site value that you are claiming the new taxation. The owner of the land wants the true value of the site, and not the value of the site, which includes all his improvements.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is begging the question. I was referring to another part altogether. He seems to think we have overvalued agricultural land instead of undervaluing it. The general charge brought against us was of undervaluation and not of overvaluation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I point out—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, I have been subjected to a good many interruptions.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This is a Committee Debate and we might clear up these points as we go along. There is no charge as regards the total value of agricultural land which is the value at which it will be compulsorily taken that it has been either undervalued or overvalued. The charge is that the site value of agricultural land, which is to be the basis of future taxation, has been overvalued by making no allowance for improvements. The charge of undervaluation is perfectly definite and applies to urban land where there is again a special object for undervaluation, i.e., to obtain the Increment Value Duty when the land is sold at its proper price.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad there is no charge that agricultural land has been either overvalued or undervalued.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As regards the total valuation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regard that as a very valuable admission. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Arthur Young in reference to all these great drainage works in the Fen district. I believe Mr. Arthur Young said that we wanted more legislation of this kind—legislation enabling improvements in the land to be made and the whole charge of those improvements placed on the land improved. There, again, we have a very important admission on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He seems to think it is a precedent that might very well be followed. I agree with him,

  1877
  and he must not be surprised if that precedent is followed in the future. When it is I shall claim his support on the strength of the speech he made a few minutes ago. The second point he brought forward was with regard to the valuations. He complained that they were both irregular and illegal, and he told us that he meant to fight them. He is perfectly right in so doing, and, if they are irregular or illegal, I hope he will fight them. I will just call his attention to what is happening. We have heard a good deal from him—indeed, he worked himself into a state of great excitement with regard to the valuations, and one might have imagined that they were vitiated from top to bottom. I would like to inform him that up to the 31st May last we had 2,588,000 valuations, which represent 26 per cent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 20 per cent., he was only 6 per cent. wrong—a very small percentage of inaccuracy in that quarter.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a monstrous statement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received from the hon. Gentleman about a dozen interruptions. May I remind him he has a perfect right to get up and reply to me after I have finished?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am making a definite charge of misrepresentation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not referred to the hon. Gentleman at all. If I misrepresented anybody I misrepresented the hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Royds), and I think his recent speech proved him quite as competent, and more competent, than the hon. Gentleman to conduct his defence.
  Mr. ROYDS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that my statement was about as correct a statement as usually came from this quarter. This is the first time I have ever addressed the House on this subject, and he, therefore, can have no evidence by which he can judge either the accuracy or the inaccuracy of my statement.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lyell): The only charge I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make against the hon. Member was that he was fully able to defend his own case.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order, Sir, in the interests of the proper conduct of the. Debate, may I call your attention to the fact that the charge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was a charge of misrepresentation by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Inaccuracy."] Yes, it was a charge of inaccuracy.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is there disorderly about that?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I was merely pointing out to the Deputy-Chairman that he had not correctly heard.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing unparliamentary about a charge of inaccuracy. It is a statement made every day by Hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, what is all this excitement about? I am very sorry to have caused it. Let us get to the facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had only valued one-fifth. I did not say one-fifth; I said 20 per cent. Is that inaccurate? As a matter of fact, we have valued 26 per cent., and I said you were inaccurate to the extent of 6 per cent. Is that wrong?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Quite wrong.
  Mr. ROYDS: I only quoted the words of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He quoted the words used by the Attorney-General a long time ago, when it was one-fifth.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Then he was not inaccurate.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself. His excitement must be very painful to himself. The mistake the hon. Member has made is a mistake of more than 6 per cent., because the difference between 20 per cent. and 26 per cent. is a difference of nearly one-third per cent. That is a very considerable percentage. These are the facts. I am giving the valuations up to 31st May last. The total is 2,588,000.
  Mr. ROYDS: Out of a total of what?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Out of the total number of hereditaments in this country.
  Mr. ROYDS: How many hereditaments are there?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will only take a pencil, if 2,588,000 is 26 per cent., he can easily work the answer from that. If I had got the figures I would give them to him, but those figures are all I have got at the present moment. Let the Committee get these figures into their minds—2,588,000 hereditaments. How many appeals are there? Two hundred and sixty-one. I beg pardon—we must be strictly accurate—there are 263. [An HON. MEMBERS: "How many of them test cases?"] How many hereditaments do these appeals cover? Two thousand three hundred and ninety-one, that is all. That is one in every thousand hereditaments. It shows they only relate to small cases, and it means that so far as the great estates that have been valued are concerned, it has been very largely a matter of agreement. It is suggested that the small people cannot contest our valuations, but this means that the big people have not thought it worth their while to contest our valuations. It is not that they could not afford it; it is that the valuations have been, on the whole, perfectly fair. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) has had great experience of rating, and probably the hon. and learned Gentleman who initiated the Debate has had the same experience. I have asked the question, and I ask it again, whether any Member of this Committee, with experience of rating, and who has seen a revaluation of any union, has ever seen a case where there were fewer appeals, one out of a thousand hereditaments, that is all? I have had some experience of revaluation in unions, and some experience of appeals, but I have never seen a case where there was such a small percentage of appeals in a case of a revaluation. I think it is due to those gentlemen, who have undertaken a very difficult task, that they should be treated fairly. They are members of the Civil Service. I have repeatedly challenged the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who certainly has not been remiss in finding fault with everything, to say that these men, on the whole, are not a very able and competent body of men. Let us be fair to them. It is not like a revaluation of a union proceeding upon the same old principles established for a good many years. It is a valuation upon new principles in this country. They are undertaking it, and are carrying it out, and they are doing it so well that there are only appeals in one case in a thousand in respect of 2,600,000 valuations. Is not that
  1880
  creditable to the work they have done? That is purely a general observation I make in reply to the hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that there is no demand ever put forward by a Revenue officer which is subject to contention and criticism. Take the Income Tax, which has. been in operation for over sixty years in this country. In connection with that the Revenue officers are constantly putting forward claims that have to be decided. There are reviews, examinations, and reductions; there are appeals even now, after sixty years of working at it. Is it to be said that every time a valuer puts forward a claim that cannot be supported that that means he has been guilty of trickery, that he is incompetent,. and that the whole thing is simply a dodge and a trick to oppress landlords and owners of hereditaments? It is unfair; it is grossly unfair to a very admirable body of men, and I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for suggesting it.
  Mr. ROYDS: I made no personal charge against any individual valuer whatever. I made a charge of trickery against the Department which is under orders from I do not know whom. I certainly did not make it against individual valuers.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member's speech meant anything, it meant a charge against the valuers in the Eastern counties. He actually used the word "trickery"; I am glad he is ashamed of it.
  Mr. ROYDS: Trickery of their employers.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, at any rate, he might have formally withdrawn it as a charge against them.
  Mr. ROYDS: I never made it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set it up in order to knock it down.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am quoting the very word used by the hon. Gentleman himself. The word "trickery" is not a word I used. It is a word I took down the moment the hon. Gentleman used it. It was a word he used in connection with the valuations in the Eastern counties. I say that a grossly unfair charge has been made against men who have, as the results I pointed out show, on the whole discharged their duties with exceptional fairness.
  Mr. ROYDS: Hear, hear.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad to hear that cheer.
  Mr. ROYDS: It is agreed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the general question, I have already said that 26 per cent. of the hereditaments of this country have been valued.
  Mr. CASSEL: Provisionally?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, provisionally valued. There are 261 appeals, covering about 2,600 hereditaments.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How many objections are there?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by objections?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There are four processes. The first process is to serve a pro-visional valuation. I understand that two and a-half millions of them have been served. The next process is the objection. You cannot lodge an appeal until the objection has been considered by the Valuation Department and a further valuation served, and that further valuation revised. I ask again how many objections have been received?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point, in spite of the triumphant way in which he interrupted me. I have no doubt he will be delighted to know that the great bulk of these provisional valuations have been finally settled. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) tells me that about 85 per cent. have been finally settled. Let the Committee realise what that means. Here is an association working night and day, in every part of the country, whose main business it is to find faults in this valuation, working up cases, stirring up suspicion, and if there is any complaint anywhere, not merely investigating it, but working it up and picking holes, and all it can manage is 260 appeals.
  Mr. CROOKS: Not so bad as a parish union.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is not a new assessment in a parish union where the hon. Gentleman's Land Union could not find more to do than it has found here in a great valuation covering nearly 3,000,000. That is all they have succeeded in doing after working hard during the last two years. I can say that it is in the interests of the Exchequer, and certainly in the
  1882
  interests of the framers of this Act, that the valuation should be a fair one. My right hon. Friend tells me after making further inquiries, that it is not 85 per cent., but well over 90 per cent. of these valuations that have been finally settled. It was an under-statement on my part.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is very unusual.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My inaccuracies are usually on the side of under-statement. That is where they are different from those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is our interest that there should be a fair valuation. The hon. Gentleman said this was not a fruitful valuation. He had better wait a little, and he will find how fruitful it is. But even from the point of view of taxation it is much more fruitful than he is prepared to admit. I gave figures in the last Debate on these valuations showing that we have added very nearly £500,000 to the Death Duties. I gave some glaring cases—the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) admitted that they were glaring cases—where we had more than doubled the valuation upon which Death Duties were paid in consequence of this valuation. There is no doubt that the saving in respect of Death Duties alone will more than justify it. I cannot, within the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair, defend the valuation in all its aspects, because it involves glancing at future possibilities as well. All I say is that, having regard to all the difficulties of the case, the valuation has been a very considerable success. If there are any cases of real grievance we are always prepared to examine them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the case of the farm buildings, the first instance which was cited from my hon. Friend, and the method of eliminating buildings and refusing any credit to the owners in respect of buildings?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not quite grasp that when listening to the hon. Member, but it is difficult to deal with a case of that kind unless I have some sort of notice.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he defends, as in accordance with the Act, the general principle of valuation which was explained by my hon. Friend as practised in the county of Cambridgeshire, namely, that you divest a particular farm of its

  1883
  buildings on the assumption that the buildings on the neighbouring farms remained, you then go to the neighbouring farms, restore the buildings on the original farm which was first divested and assume that the others are renewed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will see exactly what the position is. I would rather give an informed answer. I have another statement to make in respect to something which the right hon. Gentleman said on the last occasion. He suggested that we might have some kind of inquiry into the valuation, and I think I recognised that it might be very desirable. Charges were made of undervaluation, and that the valuation has not been carried out properly. I think it important that there should be absolute confidence in the method of the valuers. I should like this to be a valuation that hon. Gentlemen themselves are prepared to operate with whenever it is necessary to get a valuation for local purposes. Valuation is by no means a matter which concerns one side of the House alone. I recollect well that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) at one time introduced a Valuation Bill I am quite willing that there should be an inquiry into the administration of the Act by experts. The House of Commons or the Royal Commission is the only Committee which could inquire into a question of policy, but a Committee of experts, while not being the best Committee for the purpose of examining a question of policy, would undoubtedly be the best Committee for the purpose of examining the actual administration of the Valuation Department. I suggest as terms of reference, "To inquire into the working of the valuation prescribed by Section 26, Sub-section (1) of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1910, and report whether any modifications of machinery for carrying out the valuation are necessary, and, if so, what modifications." I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that covers pretty well all the points he raised. I framed the reference with a view to meeting his demands, and I think he will find it will do it. I have not quite settled the names of the Commission, but I am proceeding on the principle of securing real experts in valuation. They can consider all cases, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Royds) and other cases which have been mentioned from time to time by the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) and others. I propose that the Committee
  1884
  should be appointed at once in order to get its Report upon these very important matters. It is really almost impossible for the Government to answer specific cases of this kind without at any rate twenty-four hours' notice to look into them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to prejudge a particular case, but can the right hon. Gentleman not say whether it would or would not be in accordance, in their opinion, with the law that such a thing as was alleged by my hon. Friend should be done? Is that their practice?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very fair question; but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I would really rather not answer the question on a point of law which is constantly being brought before the Courts. The Attorney-General will take part in the Debate later on, and if the question is put to him he will answer it. I simply have to say now that I propose that the inquiry shall be set up at once.
  Mr. CLYDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the Commission or inquiry will include some gentlemen who are familiar with Scotch procedure?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is important. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will submit some names.
  Mr. CLYDE: I should be very willing to give any assistance in that way.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have had a very characteristic speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as usual, he has avoided the real points at issue, and has started one or two rather personal hares to draw off the attention of the Committee from the real point of my hon. Friend's speech. I wish to deal with an interruption which occurred just now. My hon. Friend (Mr. Royds) merely quoted the statement of the Attorney-General that one-fifth of the valuations had been completed. That quotation was accurate. The Attorney-General had said so.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In answer to a question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In answer to a question in this House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But when?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend did not state that the amount of the valuation was now one-fifth. He stated, what was the fact, that the Attorney-General, in answer to a question some little time ago, had stated that it was one-fifth. That is all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and says it is not one-fifth, but 26 per cent.—not much of an inaccuracy—only 6 per cent., and coming from that quarter! I interrupted to point out that that was just one of the Chancellor's usual tricks in Debate, if I may use the expression without offence. It is nothing less than a trick in Debate, and I am not afraid to say so. The Chancellor accuses my hon. Friend of an inaccuracy when there was no inaccuracy whatever. It was a perfectly correct quotation. Perhaps, if he had listened to what was said, he would not have taken a course which I do not think is quite in consonance with his position in the House of Commons or what it ought to be. Another point is that we are accused of making a personal attack on the valuers. No one, as far as I am aware, on this side of the House has any desire to make a personal attack on the valuers at all, and I propose particularly to guard myself against any such misunderstanding. I believe the valuers have done their best, according to their ability and with perfect single-mindedness, to carry out the instructions which they have received from the Valuation Department, and if there has been any trickery the person responsible for the trickery is not the valuer, who is carrying out his instructions, but the Chancellor, who is responsible for the Valuation Department and the policy to which it gives effect. He may take any accusations of that kind which are made as made against him and his Department, and not as made personally against the valuers.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does that mean?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The charge that you are making now against the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The charge that we are making against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very plainly put by my hon. Friend, who gave chapter and verse, and it has not been answered.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is rather an important matter. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to suggest either that
  1886
  these valuers are interpreting the law according to their own judgment and are guilty of trickery, or does he accuse me of deliberately trying to trick these people out of the value of their property by some instruction? If he does, would he mind telling me when I gave those instructions?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In the actual instructions to the valuers which were issued. That has been already brought forward, and we have never had an answer to it. The right hon. Gentleman tells us these matters are brought forward at short notice. One of the principal charges on which this question of trickery was based has been the subject of Debate again and again, and the trickery comes in here, that the right hon. Gentleman tells the House of Commons and the country that all he proposes to tax is the actual increase in value of the actual land upon which the building stands. That is the interpretation which the House of Commons and the country has placed upon it. The right hon. Gentleman himself told the builders, in a conference to which he invited them, that no man, particularly no builder, was to be taxed upon his profits. The trickery comes in under the administration of the Act, and by the instructions issued to the valuers by the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. That practice is not being followed, and taxes are being demanded from builders upon their profits. The actual words of counsel for the Commissioners; speaking before a Referee, were:—
  "What I do say is that the Government under the scheme of the Act is entitled to a share of the profit—this being builder's profit—as increment, and I hope the owner will not in future object to share a little of his most well-deserved and ingeniously won profit with the Government."
  I call it trickery to tell the House of Commons that you are only taxing land and not profits, while you are taxing builders' profits, taking builders into Court, and, under the shelter of the most vague language which the Act contains, claiming to distinguish between the value of the land and the value of the land with the building.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That is not the charge which was made against my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It was the second charge. There are so many offences of which the right hon. Gentleman can be convicted in that line that it does not very much matter which we choose. We have had one charge already denied in Debate,

  1887
  and there is the one referred to just now. You are going away from the subject and accusing my hon. Friend of inaccuracy. It is a petty matter if trickery is petty. This matter was raised in this House only about a fortnight ago. The words of the Commissioners' counsel, which I quoted, have been quoted before. The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to inform himself as to what the policy of the Department is; but he has sheltered himself at every other sentence of his speech with the statement that he did not like to deal with this aspect of the question, because the case was, or might become, sub judice. We have asked what is the policy of the Department? The right hon. Gentleman spoke for a considerable time, but we do not know now what the policy is. I may say that for over a year we have been asking the same question, and we have never had an answer. I ask a straight answer to this question: Does he claim to tax builders' profits—does he claim to tax the increased value of the land alone, or to tack on to the value of the land the value of the house, and to charge Increment Value Duty on the land with the house? The right hon. Gentleman has in so many words admitted that the value of the land in the case referred to has not altered or increased. That claim has been made before a Referee, and I think we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state whether he makes that claim in this House.
  The other point to which my hon. Friend referred was the question of buildings. The right hon. Gentleman avoided the point which was raised clearly, distinctly, and fully by my hon. Friend. The first point with which my hon. Friend dealt in detail was that no allowance, or no proper allowance, was made for buildings. Further questions were asked in relation to drains and fences. The right hon. Gentleman saw his way to deal with drains and fences, but he sought to deal with them by riding off on a question of law. He absolutely ignored with great skill the question of buildings, and when my hon. Friend drew his attention to the fact, one would have thought from his tone and manner that he had never heard of the question before. He dealt with the old statement about the number of valuations made, and contrasted them with the number of appeals. We welcome these figures. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the appeals against the valuations were not
  1888
  greater than might be generally expected against ordinary valuations for rates. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the comparisons are absolutely fallacious for this reason. Here is a totally new proceeding which nobody understands, and which in its first stage involves no demand for payment by the taxpayer. The taxpayer does not understand that it will involve any charge upon him. He has been accustomed to believe that a low valuation means low taxes. These valuations are fixed—this is one of the most wicked injustices in these valuations—by the lapse of sixty days. The valuation becomes fixed, not by the assent of the owner on whom the notice has been served, but by the mere lapse of time. My view of the matter is this: Here are 2,500,000 valuation notices served mainly on the owners of small properties in towns, not 1 per cent. of whom have the slightest comprehension of the meaning of the valuation paper. They cannot afford to take professional advice, and by the mere lapse of sixty days over 2,000,000 of valuations are made. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression" Ninety per cent. of these are final." I contradicted him, and said that not one was final. I said so for this reason: Every one of these valuations is subject, or ought to be subject, to amendment.
  There is another question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman with respect to these valuations, which are fixed by the mere lapse of time, and not by the assent of the owner. If any of these valuations are not in accordance with decisions of the Court with respect to parallel valuations, would the right hon. Gentleman assent to their being reopened, as I think they ought to be? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell the House that he is going to allow the valuations to stand? Let us take the case of a street where the houses are of a similar character. Let us take the actual case of Plymouth. You have a row of houses valued by the valuer at £750 each. One of these was sold for £1,000, and Increment Value Duty was claimed for the difference. But as sixty days had not elapsed an appeal was lodged, and the matter came before the Referee, who decided that the value was not £750, but £1,000. Here you have a row of ten houses, let us say. I do not know how many there are, but it does not matter for the purpose of my argument. When the owners of these houses received the

  1889
  valuation paper they did nothing, just as ninety-nine out of a hundred do. The valuation of £750 became statutorily fixed by the mere lapse of sixty days. The tenth house is sold, and therefore "the occasion" arises within the sixty days. The matter is brought before the Referee, with the result which I have stated. Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the valuations in the case of the nine houses as completed? Does he say that the valuation is to remain at £750, although one of the ten in the street when sold was valued at £1,000, and is he going to make the owners pay on the fictitious increment of £250 through the valuations which were forced upon them? That is the policy indicated by the action of the Department, and that is why we call it trickery. I say that not one of the valuations is completed. We have by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own admission 263 appeals coming before the Court. That does not sound much in proportion to the number of valuations, but the value of that comparison disappears in view of the consideration I have brought before the Committee. The fact remains, and I think the Committee should take it into consideration that there are no less than 263 appeals to be heard in the Court.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Some have been withdrawn or disposed of, and the number now is 170.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Well, there are 170 left. Let us see what is the action of the Department in regard to these appeals. I venture to say that one of the most serious aspects of this matter is the enormous vista of costly litigation which is opened up. I say that on two grounds. I will take first of all my two objections to the administrative action of the Department in that respect. First of all, they are carrying cases which involve purely questions of value up to the High Court. Take the Plymouth case, where you have a property which was sold for £1,000. The Valuation Department claimed through their valuer that the amount ought to be £750. Is he a better judge of the real value than the mortgagee? The matter is taken before the Referee appointed by the Government. That Referee is a gentleman of the highest experience, and of great local knowledge, and he decides that the value of the house is £1,000, and yet the Government on that pure question of value are taking the poor owner up to the High Court, and appealing against the
  1890
  decision of their own valuer on the question whether the value is £750 or £1,000.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Referee is not appointed by the Government.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I withdraw that. The Referees are appointed by the Referees' Committee; but, after all, the Referees are appointed under the Act, and they are appointed with special regard to their knowledge of values, and their local knowledge too. To take an appeal to the High Court on a pure question of value does seem to me to be nothing short of bullying by a great Department, which has the whole revenue of the country behind it. The Referee, in this case, has special knowledge of valuation, and he has local knowledge as well, and if he decided in favour of the owner that the value is £1,000, it seems to me that to take the case up to the High Court can only be done to force owners to agree to any valuations however unjust they may think them, because it will be cheaper in the end to accept the valuations made by the Government valuers than to be taken up to the Court. The other point is even more serious. We have had now five or six of what I call test cases, and in every one of these the practical point has arisen as to whether the Government have or have not the right to charge as Increment Value Duty an increasing price, which is purely profit, when they admit that the value of the land has not altered. There are four or five test cases which have been brought on this point. There is the Richmond case, where the chief valuer, Mr. Thomas, and counsel for the Commissioners admitted that the value remained the same and had not altered between the occasion and the original valuation when there was a value of £380. The property was sold for £500, and the whole of the difference was charged with increment, although it was admitted that the value had not altered. In the Newcastle case the difference between £625 and £750 was claimed as increment, although there again the definite admission was made in the Referee's Court that the value of the site had not altered between the two occasions. In the Palmer's Green case the property was bought for £400 and resold, I think in three days, for £425, and increment is claimed on the £25, although it is perfectly obvious that the value of the site cannot have altered in the three days. The most astounding claim of all is in what is known as the Fitz William

  1891
  case, where small licensed premises changed hands, and where there has been a valuation, and the Government claimed three values on which Increment Value Duty was to be charged.
  Here we have the Richmond case, the Newcastle case, the Plymouth case, the Palmer's Green case, and the Fitz William case, all decided against the Valuation Department. And though we have the decision that they have no right to make this claim, yet we have this claim persisted in every other case, so far as I know, and not only persisted in, but the sixty days are being allowed to elapse. Here we have a Valuation Department, and the request is made, and we have the right to make it, in this House, in the most earnest manner, that no valuation shall be allowed to become statutory by lapse of sixty days, and no duty shall be claimed against an owner of property based upon such valuation until these cases, or some of them, have been finally decided. Apparently the claim of the Department is that every case differs from every other case. That is what was pointed out when the Act was under discussion as a Bill, that you have an infinite variety of units of occupation and infinite variety in the circumstances which have attended the growth of the value of those units, and all the infinite details upon which this intricate valuation depends, and therefore it does not matter how many so-called test cases occur, the Valuation Department say that in some particular or other in its situation or previous history, that particular unit varies in some manner from the other unit on which the test case was decided, and thereupon they claim the valuation. I comes to this, that everyone with property in this country has got to fight the Valuation Department in the Law Courts on his own case if this process is to continue, and the vista of expense and litigation is absolutely boundless. I have a list of points here covering nearly two sheets of paper, which have been already brought forward, and which have got to be decided in the Courts before any valuations can be settled. What it is all going to cost is appalling to contemplate. I would like to go now to another point, which is of considerable importance to the country, that is the interpretation by this Department of the Minerals Clause. Here we have a very indeterminate definition of minerals.
  The Committee will agree that one of the most important things for the country
  1892
  at large is that road metal should be cheap. At any rate this House has laid enormous burdens on local rates for roads. I do not know whether the House understood when imposing this duty that they were putting a charge on road stone. The present position in Scotland is that there is a particular kind of igneous rock which is called felsine, which is a sort of granite of the character of felspar, and there is a quarry at which this material is being raised for the roads by, I think, a county council in Scotland. The claim has been made by the Valuation Department that this is a mineral. There has been a judgment before a Referee, and there is an appeal. This is the interesting part of it to which the country attaches importance. What is going to be charged as a mineral and what is not? We have a pronouncement in writing from the Valuation Department. The Surveyor of Taxes writes that earthstone, and firestones derived from the old green sands, flint, Pentland stone, Portland stone, sandstone, firestone, and lowerstone, derived from the lower green sands, are treated as not liable, but all igneous rocks are to be treated as liable, so aqueous rocks are to be treated as not liable for duty and igneous rocks are always to be treated as minerals which are liable. It is rather peculiar that any stone other than coal, which comes out of the carboniferous strata, is to be treated as non-dutiable. I suppose coal is treated as dutiable because it is of vegetable origin. I cannot imagine any other reason. I do not know whether it is the fashion for the Department in their leisure moments to amuse themselves by playing the old nursery game of guessing animals, minerals, or vegetables. It appears to me that that is the only system upon which the decision has been arrived at. But this is the important point in reference to that statement that these particular forms of stone are not liable. Counsel for the Commissioners has explained that the above list was not to be held as extending the list of exempted minerals, but was to be taken simply as a concession made by the. Commissioners in an individual case. That seems to me to be rather a remarkable statement to come from counsel for the Commissioners. It amounts to this, that in one county you mend the roads with igneous rock and in one county you mend the roads with aqueous rock. In one county the county council is to escape payment of duty on minerals, and in the other county it is not, but if it desires it can bring each particular case before the

  1893
  Valuation Department, who are, as a matter of concession and not as a matter of law, to decide the issue. Surely we ought to have a clear statement from the Government of what they claim ought to be regarded as minerals and what they do not claim. It is a very important matter. I happen to come from the Eastern counties where there is no road stone, and where the road stone which is used, amounting to millions of tons, has to be brought by water, and it is nearly all igneous rock—granite.
  Mr. W. M'LAREN: It comes from quarries in Jersey.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman has made a point of importance. A good deal of it comes from Jersey, where there is no Mineral Eights Duty, and a portion of it comes from Belgium, where there is no Mineral Rights Duly. Another part comes from another sensible country, Norway, where there is no Mineral Rights Duty. But a large part used to come, and is still trying to come from Scotland, where there is a Mineral Rights Duty. Does the hon. Gentleman know that?
  Mr. W. M'LAREN: Yes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman will see that the Government by this are penalising the supply of millions of tons of road stone brought from within the United Kingdom, which is subject to this duty, and putting a direct premium on the importation of road stone from, and the employment of labour in, other countries where there is no Mineral Rights Duty.
  Mr. W. M'LAREN: Does the hon. Gentleman complain of the amount of the duty, which is only about one-third of a penny per ton, while the value of the stone is about £1 a ton?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The stone costs about 9s. 6d. a ton in the dock. It costs perhaps 12s. 6d. when carted on the road. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be surprised to learn that even one-third of a penny is an important matter in this trade, these rates are cut so fine and competition is so close for the supply of these enormous quantities. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that millions of tons are concerned in this matter. You have all counties making up their roads and using enormous quantities of metal, and if you take one-third of a penny per ton on all the metal which is being imported into the Eastern counties it comes to a very considerable burden on the ratepayers. And to what
  1894
  purpose is this burden imposed? We have a right to ask that the Valuation Department, along with the Government, shall make a clear and definite statement as to what they claim to be liable to Mineral Duties. I suppose we will get the usual answer—that you must test it in the Law Courts. You have an infinite variety of strata in the country, one grading into another. By the time you have fought out every detail of every stone in the Law Courts the Mineral Rights Duty will be nearly as popular as the rest of the Land Tax.
  One more point and I have done, and it is in reference to the way in which this Act is administered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us in his book that this Increment Land Tax is new; that it is the first time it has been imposed in this or any other country, and that he has great hopes of it in promoting trade and encouraging building. Here is a statement from a newspaper called the "Star," which I think is not unduly unfavourable to the right hon. Gentleman's policy. In this an account is given of the heavy failure of Mr. John Hill, a builder and brick manufacturer. The Official Receiver stated that Mr. Hill began business as a speculative builder in 1881, and in 1887 he began business as a brick manufacturer also. Both businesses had been successful, and still would have been so had it not been for the great depreciation of various properties and the practical stoppage of the building trade and the great depression in brick-making. These circumstances had arisen in consequence of the present legislation in regard to the Land Clauses of the Finance Act. Mr. Hill got into difficulties with the mortgagees of various properties, and, in the building trade depression, was unable to remortgage. That is how the building trade has been advantaged by this tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been content with taking the Increment Value Duty on the land alone it might not have been so bad, but when you come to the builder's trade and profits you increase the alarm. The effect of the administration of this Act is now going on, and furthermore it is driving up the rents of small house properties all over the country. Everybody knows—I have given a definite instance—that this Act has practically stopped the speculative building trade. What is the effect of the administration of this Act? It stops speculative building, and until the demand for houses overtakes the supply there will be no resumption of the trade of the speculative

  1895
  builder until rents have risen to a point when they will pay the old profit, together with the taxes and all the consequences which arise from an interference with that trade, due to the administration of the Act.
  Workmen are now having to pay, and will in future have to pay, a great deal more in rent owing to the worst form of indirect taxation which can possibly be levied upon them. Hon. Members opposite are never tired of objecting to indirect taxation on the necessaries of life, but I say the most important necessary of life to the workman is the house in which he lives. Of the rent which he has to pay for his house, at least half, through this kind of administration and legislation, goes in rates and taxes. That is no overstatement; it has been carefully thought out. At least half of the rents paid by working men of this country are in the form of rates and taxes, and if the whole of the rent is not paid the family lose the roof over their head. This administration is placing on the working men of this country an indirect burden, absolutely inelastic, and in the very worst form in which it can be put upon them. The fact is the increased cost of living and the trouble we are suffering owing to strikes and labour unrest, are mainly due to this kind of administration, and I do appeal to the House to treat this matter as urgent and serious, especially when we produce evidence showing that the Department is costing something like twenty times what it produces in revenue. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I would point out that £38,000 is the amount of the revenue from this taxation, and the Valuation Department has cost £686,000. The right hon. Gentleman will repeat the oft-refuted statement that the Death Duties repay it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have the figures, and I will give them afterwards.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is perfectly plain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before his Budget was introduced, or at the very time it was being introduced, and before his Valuation Department had been created, stated in this House that the valuation of realty for Death Duties had not been accurately made, and there had been a great deal of undervaluation. I have already pointed out that there was not a single word in the Act of 1894 in regard to this, but there was the fullest power to obtain the utmost value of any
  1896
  realty. Before this Valuation Department was created for the purpose of this Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House that he had already appointed valuers, and they were doing their work so successfully that a very large increment had accrued from the Death Duties.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I wish to point out that the hon. Gentleman is charging the whole of the expenses of the Department against the land valuers, but the expenses of part of the Land Valuation Department are due to Estate Duty work, and should not be charged against the Land Valuation Department.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What I would point out is that the Valuation Department are engaged mainly upon obtaining full site values, gross values, assessable site values, and all the other intricate valuations which have nothing to do with the Death Duties. The full site value, the gross value, the assessable site value, and other values could not affect the Death Duties, and all that is required for the purpose of the Death Duties is a small staff of valuers which would cost very little money, and who simply, when the Treasury receive what was supposed to be an undervaluation in the accounts furnished by the executors, send one of their number to furnish an independent valuation. That is a simple matter, and would probably cost at the most £20,000 a year. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows that since this Increment Value Duty came on the tapis an entirely new practice of this Department—which has done so much to increase the value of the Death Duties—is to return the accounts of executors, because the figures were too high, with a request to reduce them. Is that the way to increase the Death Duties? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of a case, previous to this Valuation Department coming into existence, in which the accounts were returned to the executors, who were told that the amount they returned was too high?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Do you object to it?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not at all. But I do object to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that his Valuation Department is to be credited with the whole of the increase in the value of the Death Duties. I say they have diminished the Death Duties, and there is clear evidence of it. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, and I concede that some small part of the cost of £686,000

  1897
  may be fairly attributed to the small additional staff which could be used by the Treasury for the purpose of the valuation of the Death Duties. That is purely a minor matter, and it does not affect the general statement that the Valuation Department costs £686,000. But knock off the odd £86,000 in respect of the Death Duties—and that is far more than ample—you have still left £600,000 as the cost of the Valuation Department, while, so far, the revenue from the taxation is only £38,000.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Gentleman stated last year that half the rent paid by workmen was due to rates, and he quoted the hon. Member for Blackburn in the same discussion last year as we are having now. May I ask him whether in the whole of the United Kingdom the rates represent one-half or even one-third of the total rent paid by the workman? Assume that the rateable value of a workman's dwelling is £10, and the rates are 8s., how does the hon. Gentleman arrive at the result that the rates represent half the rent paid by the workman?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said rates and taxes, and if you take all the rates and taxes which are now imposed, it will be found that there is a considerable list. The main taxes are the Income Tax and the Death Duties, and there are all the new burdens imposed by this taxation. If you add these taxes to the rates which are 8s. and 10s. in the pound—I am willing to accept 8s. as the average—that brings the total burden on the average house of a workman roughly at about 50 per cent. of the rent. I do not think there can be any doubt about that.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it was not fair to attack a very considerable body of Civil servants who have a very difficult task to perform. I entirely agree with what he said. It appears to me that these valuers have to fulfil an almost impossible task, that is to say, they have to set to work a machine which is so complex that I am not at all surprised the results are what they are. I regard with the utmost satisfaction the statement of the Tight hon. Gentleman that he intends shortly to appoint a Commission of experts to examine into this machinery. It seems to me that it is quite time something was done in that direction. The question of machinery is one which I think this House cannot afford to neglect, because it must be remembered that after all that in so far as the machine leads to difficulties in
  1898
  administration and leads to injustice in many of the valuations—I do not mean intentional injustice—this House is undoubtedly responsible for having set it up, and until they remedy this state of things. Of course, the difficulty really is that for the first time, I believe, these taxes are based not on actual facts, but entirely on pure guesses. It is very much as if you were to attempt to impose Income Tax not upon what a man had, but upon what you thought he ought to have, which I venture to say would very soon land you in considerable difficulties. You might as well say that a man should be taxed not on the tobacco he actually consumed but upon what you thought he should consume. The basis, of course, of the taxes is the assessable site value. You arrive at that assessable site value through a whole labyrinth of guesses in which practically no fact, that is no valuation which serves as an actual business transaction, at any time under any circumstances comes into the calculation.
  The way that you arrive at this assessable site value is by taking first of all two valuations which are more or less of a business character, that is to say, the gross and the total which are more or less actual valuations. When once you have got that, you will then proceed through a whole labyrinth of deductions and additions to arrive at the assessable site value, and that has led you into such absurd results that you frequently arrive at that most absurd of all valuations the minus valuation for the actual piece of land. The difficulties are of course very great, and these people have to use ordinary human intelligence, and they are told to wade through difficulties which are of an insuperable character. To begin with, all or almost all sale of land includes something more than site value, and therefore the site value is not an actual thing in itself, but only exists in the imagination of those who are called on to work it out. Secondly, you compare sites which are the subjects of transactions which are necessarily affected by the value of neighbouring sites or neighbouring conditions. Thirdly, the expenditure on sites, which is one of the things which are to enter into the calculation to arrive at the assessable site value, is frequently unknown, and even when it is known, it is not as a matter of fact brought into use for the purpose of this calculation. The instance I have in mind is a question of redemption of the tax on land. In one of the cases of redemption of

  1899
  Land Tax which has actually come to my notice there was a difference between the valuation put on as redemption value and the actual amount which was paid of just 100 per cent. The case in question was on a cottage property, and the redemption amounted to £4 per cottage. The redemption had been paid after the cottages were built. The probability is if the redemption had been effected before the cottages were built, it would not have cost more than £1 per cottage. I think, as a matter of fact, it was settled on at £2 per cottage.
  The point is that even in this case, where you had an actual fact to build upon, rightly or wrongly, and I am not disputing whether it was right or wrong, that fact could not, or was not allowed to be, brought into the calculation, nor did you deduct what you believed would have been the amount if the cottages had not been built, but you had a compromise of a pure guess between the two. As a matter of fact, I am not quite sure whether the Land Tax is easily leviable on anything but the land, but that is a point which would take me rather wide of the issue. I am not sure if the tax could be attributed to the cottages at all. In that case the amount to be paid would be the amount deducted from the greater valuation, in order to arrive at the assessable site value. You have another series of difficulties which arise when you come to estimate the assessable site value on an occasion. The difficulties which arise here are of course somewhat different from those which arise on the original estimating of that value. First of all, you have the difficulty which comes from the parts or sub-division of certain areas of land which have been divided since the original valuation took place; and, secondly, the estimates of similar deductions from those which were made in the original valuation. Each of those estimates is always a weak link, and as a chain is no stronger than its weakest link you are relying on the relation of one estimate to another, or otherwise you are placing taxation on the relation of one weak link to another weak link. First of all, there is the question of sub-division into parts of land or of the sites.
  You have the case, and I do not know how you are going to deal with it, of a plot of land which is valued at, say, originally £1,000—that is, building ground. One-tenth of it, probably the most desirable part, is sold for £150, and so on it is
  1900
  sold in tenths. As you get to the least desirable parts of the original site of course the price declines, but in each case with each sale there is to be a sub-division and re-estimation of the original value. There is duty chargeable in the case of the part which has been sold. The point is this, that when you come to the sale of the last tenth of the whole site the amount that the whole site has realised may be only £1,000, or exactly the amount of the original valuation, but, nevertheless, the sites which were sold in the first instance—the most desirable sites—showing as they did an increased value in proportion to their area, will probably have paid years before the Increment Value Duty. Yet when the whole transaction is finished there would be no duty payable at all if the duty had been deferred until the end of the transaction. I do not know how you are to overcome such a difficulty as that. I am not blaming the valuers in that respect. When you come to the question of estimates of similar deduction how are the valuers to be expected to deal with cases of that kind? You have the case of a genuine increase in the value of the site accompanied by a genuine loss in the value of the buildings. Take as an illustration the case of cottage property which originally is valued at £1,000, the site having an original valuation of £100. Mineral is discovered, or a railway comes near, or some manufacture becomes desirable, and that particular piece of ground with the advent of that manufacture or mineral or railway enormously increases in the value of the site, while at the same time the very cause which has brought about the increase in the value of the site renders the cottages not wanted and valueless. We will say, then, that the factory or the railway or whatever it may be buys that site for £1,000, which it has become worth.
  There is thus a genuine increase in the site value from £100 to £1,000, or an increase of £900, from which you deduct 10 per cent. on the original site value of £100, which means £890 of increase, which is subject to Increment Value Duty of £178. That is perfectly chargeable, though the whole sale has only fetched £1,000, because the buildings on the land have become valueless. The point is, what do you mean by the words, "Subject to like deduction"? If you mean by those words, which, I think, are in Section 2, that on each of those occasions, that is to say, the original valuation and the valuation on

  1901
  the occasion, the same amount shall be deducted, then, of course, the answer to that is that all the increase in value is in the site. Obviously the cost of material and labour as to the dwellings would increase or decrease in value, and therefore the question of what the like deduction is that you are to make in that case seems to me to be one of very considerable difficulty. There is another difficulty which seems to me to face those gentlemen who have to make these valuations. If the fixed charges which are contemplated in Section 25, Sub-section (3) and in Section 41 are leviable on the total value, and not on the site value, then those charges are entirely deducible to arrive at the site value, because they come off the gross to equal the total. That is one of those difficulties which arise, and I think an honest attempt at valuation may sometimes lead those gentlemen into an absurd position. Take a case, say, in which the gross value of a factory standing on, say, five acres of land in an out-of-the-way part of the country is £50,000, and the site value of those five acres is £500. The total value equals the gross value less the burden, not of rates and taxes, but any burden imposed by Act of Parliament, such as tithes, I would take it, or certainly anything like the Thames Valley drainage. Suppose that charge amounts to £37 10s. per year on the site, and that payment at twenty years' purchase is capitalised at £750, this is what will occur. The total value in that case would be £49,250, and the assessable site value, which is the total value less the difference between the gross and the full site value, would be £49,250, less £49,500, or a minus assessable site value of £250, which, of course, is absurd.
  This result may be perfectly honestly arrived at by the valuers. I do not see how they could possibly get any other result, given the machinery they have to work. It seems to be due to defects which have crept into the machinery through certain omissions, so that the way of arriving at the value has not been what was intended by the House. Not only are these taxes in many cases necessarily based on guesses, but the guesses themselves are based on information derived in a rather imperfect manner. The way in which information was expected in the original Form IV. may have led to extraordinary results. I know a large block of buildings in London in which the ground floor is divided vertically into shops and the floors above are divided horizontally into flats. A separate Form
  1902
  IV. was required to be filled in to arrive at the site value of one of the shops without taking into consideration the flats which stood above it. Obviously you could not arrive at the site value of the shop without considering the building which stood over it. With that sort of basis it is not surprising that considerable difficulties have arisen. I think that in many cases the faults of administration and, I will not say the irregularities, but the injustices of the valuations which have been referred to this afternoon, are due to the extraordinary difficulty to which these gentlemen are put in endeavouring to administer machinery which, so far as I can see, is incapable of comprehension by the ordinary man, and must necessarily be capable of different interpretations by different valuers. In many cases two gentlemen of equal capacity and experience, if put down to make a valuation of a property, with the machinery here provided and on the data at their command, would perfectly honestly come to absolutely different conclusions, and each would be able to show that his conclusion was equally well founded.
  Mr. H. D. M'LAREN: I agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Mason) in his reference to the extreme difficulty of some of the provisions of this Act; but I would point out how some of the complications arose. When the Bill was passing through this House a great many hard cases were brought forward by hon. Members opposite against the system of taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as a rule, went out of his way to insert provisions to meet those cases. A great many of the deductions from the total value were inserted with that particular view. Take the striking case in regard to minerals. When the Bill was introduced there were no exceptions in the mineral Clause. The Mineral Duty applied to all minerals equally. A deputation came and urged the claim of the users of brick-earth or brick-clay for an exemption from the Mineral Tax, and the exemption was put into the Bill. Then came a deputation from the builders, who use sand and gravel, and those minerals were exempted. Then came the makers of Portland cement, who complained of chalk being included, and that also was exempted from the Clause. Therefore, it is through the concessions made to hon. Members opposite that the somewhat anomalous position to which reference has been made arose, and calciferous

  1903
  minerals are exempt while igneous minerals are subject to the tax. But that cannot be charged against those who administer the Act at the present time. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said that the tax on granite was a hindrance to industries in this country, and put them on a bad footing as compared with Belgian and Norwegian granite. It has already been shown that the amount of the duty per ton of minerals is a very small proportion of the actual cost to the consumer. I may further point out that in the great majority of cases the one-third of a penny or a halfpenny which this particular tax may work out at per ton of granite does not add to the cost of the stone at all. Nor is it a deduction from the quarry-master's profit, because, as a matter of fact, the Royalty Tax is deducted from the royalties paid. Unless the worker of the quarry is also the owner, the cost of producing the granite is not affected in any way by the Mineral Rights Duty. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I have been to some extent a victim of the Act, the passage of which I desired, but when in my capacity of victim—
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not been a victim.
  Mr. M'LAREN: I meant liable to the incidence of the tax. When I have come in contact with the officials of the Land Valuation Department I have always found them most ready to meet fair and reasonable claims in connection with the valuation of any land. I have found them most conciliatory even towards unreasonable claims. But I would urge upon the Government one risk in connection with the working of the Act. The valuers, however able, however much they desire to carry out the valuations on perfectly fair principles, are always liable to err. When a man has access to those who understand the Act, and is in a position to fight any valuation which he thinks is not fair, there is no harm in such errors; they are easily corrected. But I rather agree with some hon. Members opposite, that in the case of small men who do not understand the provisions of the Act, or who think their property is not of sufficient value to justify their going to a solicitor, or surveyor, or some one who understands the Act, there is in certain cases a risk that the provisional valuations may be allowed to become definite valuations by the lapse of time, and these persons may,
  1904
  in some cases where an accidental error is made by the valuation staff—I do not put it higher than that—pay duty to which, if they were in a position to give closer attention to their property, they would not be fairly liable. I would therefore urge the Government that, not only now, but at any time, when a claim for Increment Duty arises, if it is proved that the provisional valuation was allowed to go through by default on the part of the small owner, who thought it would not be reasonable to go to the expense of legal assistance, the Valuation Department should be instructed to remedy the error and not claim the full amount of Increment Duty. I should be glad if the Government would consider that suggestion, because I think it would remove the only possible source of hardship under the Act.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I did not quite follow the first part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. M'Laren). As far as I could make out, he argued that all the blame for any hardships arising under the Act were entirely due to Members on this side, because when the Bill was passing through the House we brought forward cases of obvious hardship, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did his beet to remedy the grievances complained of. The obvious conclusion is that the hon. Member would have preferred that none of those hard cases should have been brought forward, but that the Act should have been allowed to proceed full of the gross anomalies which we felt it our duty to point out. I can hardly follow that course of argument. I was glad to hear the hon. Member appeal to the Government to instruct the valuation authorities to have some sympathy with the small people who allow valuations to pass through without really knowing what those valuations mean. That is a very reasonable appeal, and I hope the Government will pay some attention to it, seeing that it comes from one of their ardent supporters. That grievance, however, is not confined merely to the small owner. Many of the valuations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says have been accepted are valuations of property belonging to gentlemen who own a considerable, area of land, but who have allowed the valuations to pass through for exactly the same reason as that urged in the case of the small owner, namely, that they did not in the least understand what the valuations were or what was the obvious course for them to take to get the errors remedied. If you are going to remedy the grievance of the

  1905
  small owner, which both sides agree exist, I submit that you must also revise all those other valuations which have been made without accurate knowledge on the part of those who have allowed them to go through.
  7.0 P.M.
  I cannot say that I was much impressed with the conciliatory tone of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think he meant to be conciliatory, but I cannot say that to accuse hon. Members on this side of the House of being in the habit of making gross misrepresentations is the right way to answer, or the right way to conciliate, hon. Members on this side. I was rather glad to hear one or two things he said. In the first place, I was glad to hear that an inquiry is to be held into the general administration of this valuation. I should like to know a little more about that inquiry. Who are the people that are going to make it? Will they have real expert knowledge of this kind of valuation; because it is rather difficult to find real experts in valuation who can honestly say that they think that any valuation of this kind is at all practicable or feasible. I remember when the Act was first passed that practically every surveyor of importance, or who had a recognised position in country or town, said that this kind of valuation was absolutely impracticable. What will be the result of this inquiry? If these experts do, as a result of their inquiry, come to the conclusion that great hardships have been inflicted, and gross injustices have taken place, and that thousands of these valuations have been made upon a basis which is quite unfair to the people concerned, who in a great many cases let the thing go because they did not in the least understand the subject, will the Government, if their experts so recommend, say that a revaluation shall be made?
  I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that this valuation ought to command confidence. It is most important, if this is going to be a second Domesday Book of the site value of all the lands of the country, that the valuation ought to command the confidence of everybody who has to do with the land. It is because the manner in which valuations are now being made does not command confidence that I think there is so very large a demand for a further and complete inquiry to take place. It has always appeared to me to be absolutely impossible to get a valuation of the whole of the land that will command confidence, for the very simple
  1906
  reason that you have not got one man, or one set of men, trained in the same school to value the whole of the land of the country under the same conditions. You have got a lot of gentlemen of whom it is nothing derogatory to say that they had not had a very large experience of land valuation before they undertook their duties under this Act. I do not say that this is so in all cases, but I think the right hon. Gentleman admits that a good many of these gentlemen have not had a very large expert experience in the valuation of land. Everyone also agrees that there are very few persons with whose ideas and estimates as to valuation other men will agree. We all know that a purchaser employs one valuer and the seller employs another, and I do not suppose that in one case out of a hundred these two valuers, without consulting each other's figures, come to the same opinion as to the value of the particular site in question. Therefore I am still of the opinion that the valuation of the land of this country will not be satisfactory, because you have so very many gentlemen, whose opinion of value is so different, valuing the same kind of thing in different parts of the country. I hope that as a result of this inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has promised means will be found to make the valuation as uniform as possible and so ensure the real confidence of everybody associated with the land.
  I would like some information, too, as to the methods by which the site value of agricultural land is now to be taken. I did not quite grasp what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about deducting the value of buildings on agricultural land. If I understood him correctly, he said that under Clause 25 of the original Act in Subsection (4), paragraph (b), there is a sentence as to the deduction of the value of the buildings connected with any other industry than agriculture—that therefore implying that the value of agricultural buildings ought not to be deducted from the gross value of the land for the purpose of obtaining the site value of agricultural land. I do not know whether I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, but I must point out to him that if that is so it does not at all carry out the intention of the House during the time the Bill was going through. So far as I remember, the whole intention of inserting the words "other than agricultural" in this particular Clause was to save agricultural land from having anything to do with valuation for Increment Duty.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Sub-section (2) deals with that point.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I say what I want to? It is very difficult to understand Sub-section (4), and indeed a good many other Clauses of this Act. But surely if you are going to have site value of the whole of the agricultural land of the country it must be done in a uniform manner. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Norfolk back again. I believe he has been very active in his campaign in urging the imposition of a single tax on the site value of all lands.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: No.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Well, that is the opinion of a great many people inside this House that a site value tax should be imposed for all purposes of rating upon the site value of land, including agricultural land. If that is so it is very important that this site value on agricultural land should be actually and uniformly got at. I am given to understand that the Valuation Department has carried out the site valuation in different ways in different parts of the country. I hope I am inaccurately informed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There will be no difficulty in the matter.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: In some cases they are deducting the value of agricultural buildings, the cost of putting up fences, the value of trees, etc., while in other cases there is no deduction allowed for agricultural buildings, nor for the improvement of the agricultural value of the soil as opposed to the original site value of the land. I think the Chancellor understands what I mean. The original prairie value of this country was very different from the agricultural prairie value of the same land which has been vastly improved by many means, including that of scientific cultivation. There is another point which affects that part of the country that I know. No deduction is allowed for the cost of erecting dry stone walls. In parts of the country where the land is much stronger and capable of growing strong thorn fences they are grown, but in other parts where the land is very poor it is necessary to put up these dry stone walls. I do urge very strongly that if you are going to allow for the erection of a thorn fence you should also allow deduction for the cost of erecting these dry stone walls,
  1908
  because they exactly correspond to the thorn fence in another part of the country. I hope that point will also be inquired into.
  I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of minerals. Owners of land have been asked to answer the question as to whether there were valuable minerals in the soil. I do not suppose many owners have been able to answer that question as to what is the value of the minerals, which, indeed, they possibly did not know existed. They had not the slightest idea on the point, or as to whether a strata might not be a false-strata or whether there was really a large amount of minerals of any kind in the soil Again, they had not the least idea, if minerals did exist, as to whether they existed in sufficient quantities and of such a character as to be worth the working. I suppose a great many people responded to Form IV., and said that though there might be minerals they did not know the value. Form IV. has been held to be illegal.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is there an appeal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A certain number of these Forms had been served outside the proper time, but that is a very small thing. There was no decision that the Form was illegal.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was in the case, and my recollection is that the Form was declared' to be illegal in all cases where the person: was also the occupier.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I said.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: The point, then, is the illegality of a certain number of these Forms IV. I do not think anybody ought to be made to suffer in the least if he fails to make any return upon a form which the Court has held to be illegal. Now as to the practice of the Department. A man, in his reply, may have said "I have no minerals," and thereby have no value in that respect upon the land. Afterwards it may occur to somebody that there are minerals beneath the surface, and that they are capable of being worked. Inquiry is made. The thing has actually occurred in at least one case, and the minerals are now being worked. What I believe the practice of the Department has been is not only to charge the owner on the mineral rights,

  1909
  but also to charge him Increment Duty upon the increase of value of his property after the discovery of these minerals. If that is so, it is going greatly beyond the intention of the House of Commons when this Act was passed. The Mineral Rights Duty suffered a great deal of transformation from the time of its introduction. It was first put upon undeveloped minerals. Then is was transformed into Mineral Duty, but that duty had only to be exacted when the minerals had been extracted from the soil, and then upon the tonnage. It was not the intention of the House to impose Increment Duty as well upon this kind of land in relation to its increased value brought about by subsequent discovery. That is, at least, my recollection of what took place in the various discussions. I hope that whoever replies upon this general discussion will give us some assurance that that is not the intention of the Valuation Department. I hope they will also give us some definition of what is a "mineral," and what is not a "mineral." That point has already been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, and therefore I will not pursue it further; but it is of great importance to people to know what is a mineral and what kind of mineral is charged Mineral Rights Duty. I hope that the Government in relation to this inquiry will be able to give us some assurance upon some of these points.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not desire to go into the policy of valuation. I approve of valuation and I have all along, but there are valuations and valuations, and this is not the valuation that I ever intended. We have often been told that there are only two or three thousand people in the country holding land; that they are a small number anyhow. Then how comes it that 9,000,000 forms have been sent out? Of course, they have been sent to everybody who has any interest direct or indirect, present or future, in any land. Every one of these people has received a form of value and a great deal of time has been wasted and a great deal of money has been spent upon land valuations. I have got one of the forms here. It was sent to me by one of my clients, but it is not of the slightest interest to me or my client. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me, how is it possible that there can be any increment value on an improved ground rent? My clients have plots of land worth £20 or £30 a year.
  1910
  They built houses and sold them with an improvement of another £20 or £30 a year. They got papers to fill in for the site value of the land. The land will never increase and cannot possibly increase in value so far as they are concerned, yet they are served with notices and there are thousands of people in the country who have got similar notices. I wonder if the Committee has ever seen one of the forms which the assessors are asked to fill up. When the Scottish Valuation Bill was introduced into this House the then Lord-Advocate said, "all we want is another column; one column is enough; from that we can deduce all the values we want from the rolls." It is quite true now we have got some sort of scientific value which requires the addition of about twenty columns. I am anxious that these valuations should be completed, and I go so far as to say that with a little additional information to what you have already in the valuation rolls this valuation could have been in the hands of the country to-day. Yet here we are spending enormous sums of money to find out valuations, which, when we get them, are not of the slightest use to us or to anyone else. My right hon. Friend has said there were only 260 appeals; he has forgotten one class of appeal, those of the minus quantities, I understand there are 36,000 of these.
  Mr. CASSEL: Sixty-four thousand!
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: At all events there are over 30,000 in Scotland. The judges have decided in the Court of Appeal there that there is no such thing as a minus value. I quite agree with them. There are many concessions which make it easy to say there are no appeals. This is what they do. I do not know who advised or directed it, but there is no doubt whatever that they are knocking the values, down as low as they can. I have a case here of a man who wrote to me. He bought twelve cottages a few years ago; he paid for each £225; he bought them subject to a mortgage of £150 each; he sold one for £235. A little while after he was sent a valuation of £170. He went to the assessor and remonstrated and the assessor said, "Well, I will put it at £190." What sort of valuation is that, when a man will value at £170 one day and the next morning put the figure at £190? It really cannot be relied upon as a valuation. My point is this and I wish my right hon. Friend will take notice of it. There is an enormous quantity of information being obtained

  1911
  which neither now nor at any future time can ever be of the slightest value to the Exchequer or to the country at large. People are being put to enormous expense, hide it how you may, to get these values which they have got though they are not of any use. In this particular case I do not believe the site valuation which is put down at £3,000 to be correct. I have not the slightest doubt I could get it raised 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., but it is no use to me. A person says, "Why send me this? Can you suggest any increase that can come to me on my improved ground rent."
  I do not see how there can possibly be increment upon improved ground rent. There may be a decrement because the property here afterwards might not be of sufficient value to meet it, but in no circumstances can the improved ground rent be increased. The only man interested is the landlord and the present tenant. You get what you want from the landlord and you get what you want from the tenant, and why are all these notices sent to thousands of intermediaries who cannot possibly have to pay Increment Duty. I suppose it is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has got into the hands of the surveyors and the lawyers, and if you get into the hands of the surveyors and the lawyers it takes a long time before you can get out of them. Here is an enormous expense gone through while two or three business men would have got all the information you want with comparatively little cost. If the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the advance of Estate Duty I would point out that to lower valuation would only tend to decrease Estate Duty. Take the 36,000 cases of minus quantities. All these are manifestly driven down. It was said just now that 25 per cent. of the valuations had taken place. All I know is I sent in about twenty, and I have only received three, and I am quite sure that from what I have seen of the Scottish valuations most of them will be minus quantities. I feel quite sure that all this money spent is very much in excess of what would have been required for decent valuation that would serve all purpose, both for the present and for the future. You have gone far too elaborately into the matter, and made it an algebraic proposition instead of a simple question of valuation. I hope the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is appointing will persuade him to adopt the simpler
  1912
  plan, and will not require valuers and assessors to give such an enormous quantity of valuation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All the elaboration of which my hon. Friend speaks are entirely due to deductions made and concessions made in the Committee Stage of the Budget. Does he suggest that all these should be swept away? If he does, it would simplify valuation enormously, and I will consider it.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The concessions made cannot affect the valuations!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: My simple plan is this. Take all the house property. You have the rack rent and the ground rent. Ask the landlord what his rack rent is and what his ground rent is, and what are his repairs, and you have the whole thing. There may be other questions in individual cases. Lord Shaw, when he was Lord Advocate, said all we want is one more column.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is all right, and I am in accord with the then Lord Advocate that it is very much better to have a simple valuation without any of those deductions. But I want to know if my hon. Friend objects to these deductions being made in consequence of concessions made in Committee. Does he suggest that all this should be swept away? If he does we have a simple valuation, and the suggestion he has made is very well worthy of consideration.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That suggestion would involve legislation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: At all events, I feel quite sure that the Committee sees that there is a simpler way of getting at all the facts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, even making provision for all these allowances, and I am quite sure that if he had given me £1,000,000 I would have done this valuation before now.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We always listen to the hon. Member who has just sat down with instruction. I do not profess always to agree entirely with his views, but I think, in the few observations he has made this afternoon, he has shown how wise is the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I am glad to see is now to be translated into action

  1913
  at an early date, to have an inquiry into the valuation carried out, and into the methods and results of that valuation. I merely rise to ask a few questions, and to place a few suggestions before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to that matter, but before I do so I would like, in a few words, to bring to his notice two other matters, both of them of immediate administrative importance. One is quite general. It is the announcement already alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford in a case which came before the Referee when counsel gave a list of exempted minimum, not by way or in course of an ordered list, but simply as a concession made by the Commissioners in this individual case. I think this was actually taken from the judgment of the Referee.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: From the reference by the Referee.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: From the reference by the Referee on an appeal in Lanarkshire. The name of the case would be supplied to the right hon. Gentleman privately, as for obvious reasons I do not wish to mention the name. I do not want in the least to prejudge the case; I only want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what legal authority the Commissioners make a concession in an individual case which they withhold from the generality of the public. That seems to me to be a new view, and a very dangerous one, which places the property of the subject, not at the mercy of the law, but at the mercy of the discretion of the Commissioners. I am not suggesting that the Commissioners were actuated by any improper motives in this case, or would be actuated by any improper motive, but clearly taxation ought to be governed by law and not by whim, and this seems to me to be an assertion of the right of the Commissioners to act upon their own judgment and not upon the law. The second point I want to bring forward is another case, most of the details of which my hon. Friend will also supply. Here in a provincial town is the case of one agent acting for certain properties. In the month of January he receives 288 valuations, in February 251, March 218, April 203, and in May 342, making in all 1,302 provisional valuations in six months. It is impossible to deal with all these within the limited time allowed, and this man has twice appealed for an extension of time. Such an extension is provided for in the Act, but it is left to the discretion of the Com-
  1914
  missioners to grant it or not. It does seem to me that it cannot be the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it can hardly be the desire of the Commissioners, themselves, that in a case which prima facie is one of hardship on account of the accumulation of work the necessary time should not be given to the agent in the case. That is a specific case, but I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay down for the guidance of the Commissioners that where great numbers of nominations are in the hands of one agent, and there is no evidence of dilatory conduct, he should be allowed a generous measure of time to deal with them. There will be no escape from taxation in those circumstances, and it is in the interests of everybody that he should deal with those cases as rapidly as possible.
  I now come to the question of the Committee which has been suggested, because it is by far the most important matter which has arisen in the course of our discussions. The announcement that such a Committee is to be appointed really does mark an advance. I frankly admit that our discussions on this subject have been very unsatisfactory. We have brought up case after case, and it is not easy for any one on this side of the House or on the other, to deal with such cases by way of debate, even when introduced to illustrate a principle, and it is very much more complicated when the cases themselves are under appeal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer escapes at one time by a plea that he does not know the individual case. At another time he escapes by a plea that the case is sub judice, or that it ought to be sub judice, and ought to be taken into Court. We are more concerned, not so much with the statement of a case upon its merits as with the policy of the Government in respect of certain general principles, and this is what I hope we shall have given in evidence before this Committee. Of course, much depends upon the names of the gentlemen chosen. I do not ask for those names now, because I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consider the matter very carefully, and the responsibility must be his. The right hon. Gentleman is interested in securing a tribunal which will command the confidence and respect of the country, and unless he gets such a tribunal it is not worth having.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As to the nature of this inquiry, I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not use the word policy in

  1915
  respect to the Act, because the experts will not consider that point. What they will consider will be the general policy of administration under the Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to make my meaning quite clear. A mere examination of whether a particular valuation was too high or too low, multiplied over a series of instances, would teach us something, but I do not think it would give us all the information we really want. There is a general charge against the valuation that where the land is urban it is undervalued, and where it is agricultural land it is overvalued. That is the general charge, and I understand that that would come within the terms of the reference to this Committee. But we want a little more. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself said, it is very important in the public interest that this valuation, if it is to be made at all, should be one which commands confidence, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in the course of this Debate, that he hoped it would so secure the confidence of the country that a Government drawn from either side of the House would be prepared to use it and base legislation upon it. We need not go into what the legislation is to be on one side or the other, but clearly it is of great importance when we are spending so much money, and nominally getting a valuation which is serviceable for the purpose of taxation or rating, because it represents the real facts of a real situation that the valuation should be a true and a real one corresponding with facts. Of course, I cannot criticise the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reference, because I only heard them as he read them across the Table, and I am not sure how far they carry us. I want them to be wide, and I want him to make sure that the valuation he is getting corresponds with the criterion which he himself has laid down. They should see whether it represents real facts, and whether it is a valuation on which you can confidently build for all the purposes which it is expected to serve.
  One thing, for instance, which is of enormous value is that the valuation should be uniform throughout the country. Let me take one or two illustrations. You deduct the value of the improvements in the case of urban land, but you do not deduct them in the case of agricultural land. Under those circumstances, what common basis is there in your valuation
  1916
  of urban and agricultural land, and how are you going to base any system on that? You may have deliberately chosen it for the purpose of the particular Act now on the Statute Book, but when you claim that your valuation is going to be serviceable for other purposes as well, then I say that such a disparity strikes at the root of any valuation and tends to destroy its value. Take the case which was alluded to by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and my hon. Friend from Gloucestershire. He pointed out that you are allowed to deduct for one thing and not for another, although they are of the same nature. It has been shown that this deduction depends to a large extent upon the part of the country you are in. Now any common valuation, to serve a common purpose, ought to treat things which are like in character, and material which serves the same end, in the same way. But you are treating them differently. In this way you destroy the homogeneity of your valuation if you make it mean two different things in two different parts of the country, not on account of any difference in the facts, but merely a difference of climate or soil.
  There is one other point which I wish to raise in regard to this matter. There is a considerable number of very material questions under appeal. There will be other questions brought before the Committee of Inquiry, however narrow its scope may be, which affects a great number of cases. They will be brought on one case, which will be a test case, but that case will affect a great number of others. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, this is experimental legislation. It is quite possible, and if I were willing to take up the time I could prove, that the Commissioners are claiming in the Courts that the law says that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer when discussing the Bill in the House said the Bill does not mean, and they are claiming that it does that which the right hon. Gentleman disclaimed all intention of doing. That involves legislation, but those are matters which must be brought out before this Committee. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognising the experimental character of this legislation, and recognising that every individual cannot take his case into Court, and that certain test cases must be tried to settle what the law is, will instruct the Commissioners, in the first place, to facilitate the bringing of test cases as soon as possible; and, in the second place, I hope

  1917
  he will instruct the Commissioners, if a test case is decided against them, that it is to govern all similar cases, and that they ought not to renew the same claim in similar cases which are waiting to be decided and not enforce a valuation which has been proved to be illegal and unjust. Those are only claims of equity. If those taxes are lucrative, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes some time they will be, he can afford to lose any revenue at stake, and in any case revenue ought not to be got by injustice to individuals. I hope I have made clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the various points I wish to bring to his notice. The most important of them is that the test cases should be made available as soon as possible, or, rather, the results of them, and the decisions should be made retrospective. The Committee of Inquiry should not be too narrow in its terms of reference, and they should be able really to test the question whether the valuation you are getting is one which corresponds with any real facts in our present state of civilisation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman need not apologise for giving us an opportunity of answering such relevant points as he has put before the Committee, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering them. Firstly, I will deal with the point raised in connection with minerals, which has been made one of the subjects of the speech delivered earlier in the afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). I cannot trace the case to which he alludes at the moment, but I quite agree that it is unsatisfactory in a Debate of this nature, to discuss cases which are brought forward without notice, and in regard to which we cannot trace the facts. On the main principle I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be no discretion on the part of the Commissioners to allow one subject to escape taxation and another subject not to escape taxation on the same kind of property. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a very long discussion in 1909 about minerals, and there was a great difficulty in regard to the definition. We tried to make out lists on both sides, but we found them very unsatisfactory, and we could not find a legal definition under which we could classify what were minerals as distinct from what were not minerals. I understand that the Commissioners have proceeded on the analogy of the list made out
  1918
  by this House, or rather by the list which this House decided to exempt from duty. There may be cases before the Referee and the High Court, and if there is any uncertainty as to what particular stuff is a mineral it must be made the subject of a legal decision, and immediately that is done it will be widely circulated to all those affected by it. The second was about the appeal for extensions of time, and there I entirely agree with the appeal which was made by the right hon. Gentleman. If at any time he or his Friends can give us any case either by way of question and answer or privately which they think is hardly dealt with, we will have it investigated.
  The general policy of the Valuation Department has been to give an extension of time in any case where any genuine reason is given, such as a number of valuations having to be made or checked by one person, or the owner being abroad, or the necessity of dealing with trustee property on a large scale, or any other reason. Of 131 applications for an extension of time, received in April and May, 100 were allowed, and five partially allowed. They only refuse an extension of time when they think they have reason to believe the excuse is not a genuine one and that the applicant is endeavouring to break through the exception as laid down in the Act. I can freely offer to investigate any case of hardship if that case is brought before me. With regard to the Committee and the reference to it, I am glad the right hon. Gentleman in his speech agreed with the kind of reference suggested and that the Committee was the kind he wished. I think he will agree with us that it will be impossible to allow a Committee of that kind to criticise the provisions of this Act of Parliament. That would have to be done by a Committee of quite a different nature altogether. We require a Committee to take this Act as it stands and find out whether the valuation is being carried on as it should be under the Act. I do not see how we can refer to such a Committee the question whether deductions in agricultural land laid down under Clause 25 should continue to be different from the deductions in the case of urban land. That is a question of policy, and it is a question of policy which has been decided by this Act. It is a question of policy which would require legislation in order to alter it. I entirely agree it would certainly be one of the functions of the Committee to see Lincoln is valued, say, under the same system as Worcester is valued, and if

  1919
  possible to take test cases, not of a single valuation, but of valuations on comparatively a large scale, to see whether there is any justification in the belief of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which I agree is sincere, that there has been a systematic undervaluation of urban property and a systematic overvaluation of rural property. All those questions and any questions as to the machinery that has been set up under the Act for dealing with valuations are proper questions for the Committee to deal with.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We want to know what is the value of the valuation. Could they not report whether the valuation is uniform throughout the country and produces comparable results in different cases? Could they report whether, when you get the site value of one property or one kind of property, it is comparable with what is called the site value of another kind of property? That is very important as affecting the usefulness or otherwise of the valuation as a whole.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree that may be an important point when you are dealing with any subsequent legislation in connection with valuation, but it is not the particular point for which the Committee was pressed, and I think it is far more a point to be dealt with in connection with any legislation which may be proposed in the House of Commons than by a technical committee of surveyors. My right hon. Friend says, if you once allow this Committee to go behind the Act as it stands, then you will also require it to report on these questions of deductions from site value, and there you are referring to a technical committee the whole of the site value controversy, which I do not think is the object of the right hon. Gentleman. We fully agree the Committee may perform very valuable work—as valuable to us if it endorses the general system of valuation as to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite if it endorses his criticism—in ascertaining whether the valuations as laid down have been made accurately, and whether they have been on a uniform system. That we will gladly promise.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has just said the Committee might do very valuable work by saying whether it endorsed the system of valuation. I shall be satisfied if that question is referred to them. Do the
  1920
  Government terms of reference cover that question? And would they permit the Committee to give the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: "The system of valuation, as laid down under Clause 25 of the Act." That, I understand, will be the reference. Is the Valuation Department, in spite of the various criticisms we have heard, not only in the case of independent valuations, but in the case of the general policy of the Department, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite thought was directed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the instructions given to the valuers in different parts of the country, really being carried out as designed by the Act in a fair and uniform manner? That, I admit, is a matter where a committee of experts might serve a useful purpose. With regard to some of the other questions raised this afternoon, I think those who have sat through the Debate will agree with me that if I am to interpret my function this afternoon, as I ought to interpret it, as that of the defence of the administration of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, my duty is very light indeed, because really the great bulk of the criticism this afternoon has not been directed against the administration of that Department. It has been directed by hon. Gentlemen, who, for good or bad reasons, hate the whole Act and the system of valuation against the Act, and it has been supported by prophecies of evil, owing, not only to the administration of the Act, but to the working of the Act itself. Let me take the first case raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Royds). I think his criticism of the administration of the Act should, if I may say so with respect, have been accompanied by a demonstration as to how those who are working under the Act have violated the provisions of it. That was not in the least degree demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman. I quite knew what he was about and what he was leading up to, and in a Debate, where we were not limited to administration, it would be a very interesting subject for discussion. His criticism is not merely that the valuers have not been carrying out Clause 25 as instructed, but that the values which are set down as the assessable site value of the land are not accurate values under the Act and under Clause 25. He objects that these values should be taken for the purposes of some future legislation as the site values of the

  1921
  land, or that these assessable site values should be regarded as site values appropriate to some future legislation. That is a question I cannot argue at all; but in so far as he was criticising the site values which were set down I think he will agree with me he certainly did not make out any case at all for saying that the assessable site value, as defined by Clause 25, which is the directing Clause, was not the assessable site value being produced in his own district.
  Mr. ROYDS: If I did not say so, I meant to say so, and I say so now. I understood we were discussing the administration of the Act, and I therefore confined my remarks to the administration of the Act by the Department. The assessable site value of agricultural land, as found by the valuers under the Act is not the assessable site value which should be found under the Act, if properly administered.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree that is a perfectly clear statement, and I am sorry if I misundestood the hon. Gentleman. I think a large part of his argument, including his citations from history, was devoted to a criticism of the fact that we were not deducting the value of improvements made for the purposes of agriculture. Yes, but the valuers are forbidden to do that by the Act, and therefore it was not a criticism of the valuation, but of the Act.
  Mr. ROYDS: I maintain they are allowed to do it by the Act. I did not go into much detail, because I did not think it was necessary, but I thought it right to fortify my opinion of the law by showing I had justice on my side, and that they were being tricked out of their improvements.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I want to avoid controversial subjects, and we will not go into the question of trickery. If the hon. Gentleman can get cases we shall be only too pleased if the matter is challenged in the Courts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) criticised the inadequacy of the money received from the Increment Value Duty compared with the amount spent by the Valuation Department. That is not a question of administration. It is a question of the Act itself. Everybody who listened to the Prime Minister when he moved a Clause dealing with the Valuation Department in 1909, knew what the Valuation Department was going to cost. The valuation has not materially exceeded the
  1922
  cost he laid down, and therefore I would submit that the question of the initial cost or the final cost of valuation is not one for criticism of the administration of the Inland Revenue Department. I think I can show him, with regard to one question on which he challenged me, that some of his statements were not altogether consonant with the facts. Let me just take one example. He said the Valuation Department had been founded before the Act was passed, and that it was quite wrong on our part to ascribe to the valuation what gain had been got from increased Estate Duty. He also said that, in his opinion, that gain was not substantial, because in some cases the Estate Duty had been lower. He said £20,000 or £40,000, and I think he ultimately rose to £80,000, would fully cover all the work of the Valuation Department outside the work of making valuations. That is very far from the facts. Let me give him one or two figures which show what the effect of the Valuation Department has been since it has been in operation in connection with the valuation of Estate Duty. From May, 1909, to March, 1912, nearly three years, there have been 57,700 odd cases of valuation in connection with Estate Duty. The value claimed by those who were trustees of the estates was £122,000,000 odd, and the value which was finally settled was £130,000,000. That means an increase of £8,000,000 on the value, which is 6.6 per cent. of the total value of these estates. It is perfectly true that under the previous system, at some considerable expense, assessments were challenged by the Inland Revenue Department, but the greatest increase the Department was able to make was 3 per cent. They therefore claim, and rightly claim, that there must be credited to the Valuation Department an increase of 3.6 per cent. of the value received from these estates over and above what would have been received if the old system had been continued. The original value of real property passing every year through the Estate Duty office is something like £80,000,000. An increase of 3.6 per cent. would represent something like £3,000,000. The increase of Death Duties due to the valuations of the Department would be a quarter of a million a year, and that quarter of a million must be a first charge when reckoning up the value to the State of the Valuation Department.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Does that include property?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, these figures deal with real property. There are many other uses to which the valuers of the Department are put. They value for Stamp Duty purposes, they value land subject to voluntary conveyance, they are entrusted with the duty of ascertaining the annual value of licensed property under the Act of 1909, they value reversions for duty, and they have other miscellaneous duties in connection with valuations under the Old Age Pensions Act. The figures given me by the responsible authority, the permanent head of the Inland Revenue Department, show that of the two and a quarter millions which it is estimated will be spent in these five years on the Valuation Department, nearly £900,000 is the proportion which would be required for the separate performance of the duties of the Valuation Office which arise while the general valuation is in progress, but which are in addition to that valuation. That brings the total net cost of the initial valuation down from two and a quarter millions to £1,350,000, a sum which will be many times repaid to the nation in a very short space of time.
  The hon. Member said that already the effect of this Act and its administration, was being experienced in the destruction of the building trade, and the only thing he quoted to demonstrate that was the plea of a builder who had gone bankrupt and had asserted that this was the reason for his bankruptcy. Builders who go bankrupt are apt to assert any reason for their bankruptcy except perhaps the real one, and it is not the first time that evils to which flesh is heir have been referred to the legislation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Had we better not get at the facts? What are those facts regarding employment in the building trade as revealed in the Official Reports? I will take the Returns from the latest months possible from the Board of Trade Official figures affecting the building industry. When I last made a statement on this subject I was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire to give the numbers which were referred to. The right hon. Gentleman stated that, although the unemployment might be less, there might be many fewer persons affected by the Returns. In May, 1909, of 60,000 persons dealt with in the trade in the Return the percentage of unemployment was 9.6. In May, 1910, of 57,000 persons the percentage was 7.4. In May, 1912, which was a disturbed month, of 66,000—or 6,000 more than in the cor-
  1924
  responding month of 1909—the percentage was 4.3, showing that after three years working of the Act the unemployment has considerably decreased.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: The building trade has not been so brisk for eight years.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Board of Trade, speaking of these figures, say they clearly indicate the upward and downward movement of employment, and there can be no doubt that in the last year employment in the building trade has been considerably better than in 1909–10. During 1911 the percentage was 5, as compared with 8.6 in 1910, 11 in 1909, and 11.5 in 1908, years when the building trade was flourishing unaffected by the legislation of my right hon. Friend. Against plain and substantial facts such as these showing that the building trade, in spite of the operations of this Bill, is flourishing more than it has done for the last five years, it is really monstrous for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask us to take the verdict of a bankrupt builder. As to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), who takes peculiar joy in having discovered the existence of minus site values, and who asks what would happen when a judicial decision is come to on that subject, I may point out that the case is now before the Courts and I am not entitled to deal with it, but let me enlighten my hon. Friend on one point. The decision of the Court will, however, have no effect on the valuation at all. It will simply alter the figures in the valuation, but no one will be prejudiced one way or the other. As hon. Members know, the minus site value only arises when the charge fixed on a composite property, house and building capitalised, exceeds the value of the land alone. It is perfectly easy to translate a minus site value into a plus site value. It can be done by a simple process. The same result can be obtained by an alteration in the valuation roll, and the same amount will be paid as if the minus site value did not exist.
  Referring to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, I may say we entirely accept it on this side of the House. There are one or two test cases—cases which have not been before the Court, but before the Referees—which cover very big questions of principle. We are only too anxious to assist in settling these test cases. I believe my hon. and gallant Friend knows that in one of these cases

  1925
  this organisation has agreed with ourselves to consider it as a test case on that point. I am referring to the new class of case, which I shall deal with presently. In that case our valuers followed what they believed to be the clear interpretation of the law. The same question will certainly be raised in other cases, and if the decision should be against our valuers their action in other cases will be guided thereby, and every effort will be made to deal with anyone damnified through a decision having been given otherwise. Our only anxiety is to get all these test cases settled as speedily as possible. I must repeat what I said a few months ago, that in dealing with estimates of values at the moment, and considering whether Increment Tax is due or not, the valuers have interpreted the simple directions set forth in Clause 25. I said then, and I say to-day, that the full market value of the building is deducted before any Increment Duty is asked at all.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: How can you separate the two?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is done daily. The normal full market value of the building is deducted, and any increase will be an increase on the site value. And so also if there is an increment on the composite property, which is above the full market value, and therefore is in the nature of a windfall, that is subject to Increment Duty. You cannot say it belongs to the building, because the full market value of the building is deducted. It cannot belong to the land, and therefore as a windfall it is clearly a subject for Increment Duty. On both of these points, however, we shall be glad to get an authoritative decision.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Am I to understand the full value of the building is taken, and if there is any increase in the value of the property owing to shortness of land in the district, or the price of land rising, the owner of that property will have to pay Increment Duty on the increase in the price of the buildings?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Full market value means the market value of the building at that time, and any increase in the value of the building due to there being a land monopoly or to the building being particularly suitable to a special class of tenant, or to the ingenuity of the builder, or to the particular design of the house, that will be deducted, and will not be subject to Increment Tax.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In the Newcastle case, for instance, we have the original value fixed—the original site value fixed. The claim of the Commissioners is that when the house and land together are sold subsequently, and very shortly after, at a higher value, although the demand for and value of land has not altered at all and the increase in value is just as much due to the buildings as to the land, the whole of the increase is liable to Increment Duty. The increase is on the site value; although it has been definitely stated that the site value has nothing to do with the value of the site. That is the statutory conception under which the whole of the increased value becomes liable to Increment Duty. Two statements made by the right hon. Gentleman were hardly compatible with each other. The first was perfectly clear, and in accordance with what he has just said, and I was glad to hear it. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say what he meant by "market value." Where the price fetched is higher than the statutory market value, in other words the value fixed by valuers, the whole of that increase is treated as liable to Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not so. The market value of a building is defined by the Act. The fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, is deducted, and no increment value is levied at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How is that got at?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is got at by valuing the market value of the building.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: When?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: When the occasion arises. I say without any hesitation the value of the house may rise from £1,000 to £5,000, and if it was sold for £5,000 that would be the market value of the house at that time, and none of that would be subject to Increment Duty.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: But how can you ascertain the market value of a building which never can go into the market? It cannot go into the market without the land. It is ridiculous.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is really not the point. May I remark the decision is not that of our valuers, it is that of the Referees.

  1927
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.— [By Order.]

    TRACKLESS TROLLEY SCHEME.
    [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words, "now considered," and to insert instead thereof the words, "recommitted to the former Committee for the purpose of considering the liability of a corporation for alterations and maintenance of roads used by trolley vehicles."
    I had hoped up to the last moment that there would have been no need but to move this Amendment formally, because a settlement would have been arrived at between the conflicting parties, and the terms arranged would have rendered it unnecessary to do more than move the Amendment in order to make a general statement. I am sorry to say that at the last moment I understand that a settlement is not agreeable to the Keighley Corporation, therefore I have no option but to press the Amendment. I may say at once that there is no desire whatever on the part of the county council in any way to harass the Borough of Keighley. The borough is in the county council area, and the county council wish to do nothing to retard their progress or harass their trolley system. All they wish to do is to secure fair play for the rest of the county when a system of trackless trolleys is put on the roads in the Riding. I have put the Amendment in as unaggressive a form as possible. We do not in any way wish that the main question as to the liability between the county council and the boroughs in matters of this kind should be decided upon an isolated issue. All that we ask is that this matter should go back to the Committee for reconsideration, with a view to some settlement between the parties. We do not ask that the main principle should be settled now.
    1928
    This is a matter which is most important to the West Riding, because from the growth of large boroughs throughout the Riding, there is constantly, and, in the near future, there will be far more constantly, the demand for new systems of trackless trolleys, and it is absolutely necessary that the county council should learn in what position it is to stand as to the contributions which will be made by the boroughs that are putting these trackless trolley systems on the roads towards their maintenance, and towards the cost of widening the roads because of those systems. The county council ask that the extra cost of maintenance of the roads which will be thrown upon the county ratepayers shall be paid by those responsible for putting the trolley system upon those roads. They also ask that the cost of any extra widening rendered necessary by the existence of those trolleys should be paid for by the corporation putting them upon the roads. We suggest that the amount of work necessary and the cost which will be thrown upon the respective parties should be decided by the arbitration, if necessary, of the Board of Trade. I think the House will agree that it is an eminently reasonable suggestion. The corporation get the profits on the trolley system, and we say that if the general county ratepayers suffer any loss it should fall, not upon the county rates, but upon the body which is receiving the profits of the undertaking Just as other businesses are compelled to make good any damage they inflict on the roads, so in this case the same principle should prevail in the case of Keighley. These trolleys are estimated to weigh about five tons, and they are to run nine miles six furlongs on the main roads, and four miles five furlongs on the district roads. We ask that in each case, whether it be a main road or a district road, that the body which bears the cost of putting the road in order shall be recouped for the extra expenditure incurred by the placing of those trolleys upon them.
    This is a different case altogether from that of a tramway or motor 'bus system. In the case of a tramway, it can be rated, but it also has the obligation of maintaining its track. In this case, it is urged against us that the trackless trolley plant can be rated, but we say that, like the tramway, the trackless trolleys shall be made to maintain their own repairs. As regards the motor 'bus, it is different. It does more harm to the roads than probably the trolley system does, but the motor 'bus can be got at. The West Riding roads

    1929
    cost in urban districts, such as those in the immediate neighbourhood of Keighley, an average of £291 per mile, and in the rural or less urban districts the average cost is £130 per mile. I say this to show that the ratepayers throughout the greater part of the county in the West Riding are already paying in excess of what they want for their own roads because of the expense of the roads in such places as the neighbourhood of Keighley. It is very unfair that this extra burden, which is thrown upon the county ratepayers as a whole, should be increased by the starting of a system such as this without any adequate compensation being given to the county as a whole. It is said that the borough of Keighley pays a very large contribution to the West Riding, and more than is actually required to keep its own roads in order. That may be true, but the traffic of Keighley is not confined only to roads actually inside the borough of Keighley. The traffic extends all over the roads in the immediate neighbourhood, and it is only fair that they should pay something towards the maintenance of the general roads, besides the maintenance of the actual roads within the borough. A large amount of traffic appertaining to the borough itself comes over a great many roads, and is of no particular advantage to the ratepayers of those districts, therefore we say that the corporation should have this burden put upon them.
    The Bill gives no compensation for the extra cost of maintenance to the county. It only makes the corporation pay one-third of the cost of any widening operations which may be necessary, and it prescribes that the roads should not be of excessive width; not more than twenty feet in the case of main roads, and not more than seventeen feet in the case of district roads, widths which we contend are not adequate, and which certainly represent a minimum of what ought to be in the case of a trolley system of this kind working among considerable traffic. We ask for the cost of maintenance, of widening and of alterations. We ask that the amount of the work to be done and of the expenditure thrown on the respective parties should be subject to arbitration by the Board of Trade. I believe the argument is used that the plant of the trolley system can be rated and that that ought to be brought into consideration. Obviously it would be in any arbitration, but that only affects a general rate. The extra money produced thereby could not be earmarked for the roads alone, and
    1930
    therefore it does not represent the same balance of contribution. You can only rate a system of this sort on its profits, and, therefore, supposing there is no considerable profit, the power of rating would be a very small compensation. I ask that the question shall be reconsidered, especially as a different decision has been arrived at in the case of the more general legislation which has passed the Committee stage. The matter was not decided upon by the Committee with any unanimity, and I understand they had considerable doubt about it, and I hope the House will allow the matter to be reconsidered, especially in view of the fact that up to the very last moment we hoped for a settlement. I hope even now some settlement may be arrived at and that this will not have to be fought out.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to give reasons for recommitting the Bill which are in accordance with what the hon. Member has said, but which raise a very much larger issue, which, I think, can only be decided in this House and not in the Committee. I am reluctant to oppose the decision of a Private Bill Committee so long as it relates to local conditions and does not effect either any alterations in the general law or anticipate or prejudge any alteration in the law which is certain to take place in a little while. Therefore I wish to present to the House certain reasons which appear to me to apply to this Bill, but which do not apply to many Bills of this character, as to which the defeated party upstairs desire to get a reversal of their fortunes on the floor of this House. If this were merely a question between the desires of Keighley and the West Riding Council on a matter which affected only those two authorities, whatever my opinion might be on the merits of the case, I should certainly not support the rehearing, but it so happens that this matter is quite different. Trackless trollies are a comparatively new invention, and they have only quite recently become the subject of private Bill legislation. I am quite sure every Member of the House, especially if he has made any study of local government, will agree that it is very desirable that there should be some general law, adequately discussed in Parliament before it is enacted, which deals with the identical problems which arise all over the country in connection with Bills like this. It is obvious that any vigorous and pro-

    1931
    gressive urban authority which feels that it has, in the promotion of a Bill to enable it to put up a system of trackless trollies, an opportunity of doing good in its area, will consider, and in some cases decide on trying to get Parliamentary sanction for running these trollies, not only within their area, but in adjacent areas as well. And when that is the case, as it is in the case of this Bill, it is obvious that the same problem arises, namely, what are to be the terms on which one local authority is to be permitted to carry on its laudable enterprise in the area of another local authority, and if you get an enterprise of this kind which affects the user of roads, which affects the cost of the maintenance of those roads, which complicates the problem of road administration but complicates it in precisely the same fashion, whether it may have arisen in Yorkshire or in Kent, it is surely reasonable that Parliament should lay down some rule of general application, and it is desirable for another reason to avoid the enormous expense of public money.
    If this is to be decided, as is pleasantly but somewhat inconclusively phrased, on the merits of each case by Committees upstairs, it means that there will be prolonged discussions, in which the particular details are emphasised to the partial concealment of the principle, and in which the fortunes of each case depend partly on the composition of the Committee, partly on the persistence of persons interested, and partly on other Parliamentary considerations. Accordingly, has not the time come when there should be general legislation on this point, and when no class of local authority, be it county council or borough council, should prejudge the character of such legislation by getting a particular decision in a particular case? Not only is that a position which, I hope, will appear reasonable to the House, but it is a position which coincides with the present position of affairs. The Light Railways Bill, which now awaits the Report stage, a Bill for which the Board of Trade are responsible, is intended to deal with this very condition of affairs and to lay down conditions of universal application throughout England under which trackless trollies are to be regulated and under which authorities seeking to develop such things are to act. And therefore my plea to the House is not to take sides either with Keighley or with the county council, but to see that this particular Bill does not pass into law, or, at any rate, become
    1932
    operative, until both Houses of Parliament have had a reasonable opportunity of settling the general law on the subject.
    In saying this I hope the House will credit me when I state that I am not speaking for the county authorities against the borough authorities or for the borough authorities against the county authorities. I have the good fortune to be associated with the authority of one county in England, and I represent two non-county boroughs in another county in England, and therefore I have opportunities of hearing both points of view from those who know them best. All I am anxious for is that we should not come to a decision which one class of authorities would like and another class of authorities would detest, but that we should get a general decision, to which I am confident all loyal authorities, whether in counties or boroughs, would agree. You have a Bill dealing with this matter on general lines. It has had its First and Second Readings, it has passed through Grand Committee, and is waiting the Report stage in the House. At the same time you have the Bill with reference to which this Amendment to recommit is made, and which in some of its Clauses deals with precisely the same problem. This Bill deals with the question as it applies to only one borough and county, and decides in a particular way. Is it not desirable, in the interest of good government, of hindering wanton expenditure of public funds and of getting a general rule detached from local controversy, that we should get our general Bill passed into law before particular legislation is brought into effect in any particular locality? May I anticipate the possible answer? It may be said that the Committee bring up this Bill after careful consideration, whereas the general Bill has still to run its chances in this House, and both Bills, of course, have their fortunes elsewhere. May I point out that all who are interested in local government and in municipal enterprise are alike anxious to get the general question settled promptly. There is no question of hanging up a private Bill—of proposing to reconsider it in order to destroy it. If this Bill is recommitted with the view of bringing its provisions into harmony with general legislation there is no risk whatever of its being postponed indefinitely. Every one of the boroughs and counties are interested in this form of enterprise, and I imagine the authorities of both Houses know how important it is to get some general rule.

    1933
    From every point of view it is now urgent that the general question should be settled. If that be the case, as I really believe it is, I ask the House—I do not say to accept my belief but to investigate the causes of it. If they did so, then I think they would share it. Is it desirable on a private Bill to make a precedent which will be embarrassing to general legislation which, if it takes one form, may put the borough of Keighley in a position of undue advantage, and, if it takes another form, may put the West Hiding in a position of unfair advantage as compared with others? Is that a reasonable thing to do? I second the Motion to recommit the Bill because, as I understand the forms of the House, that is the only possible opportunity of getting this controversy—as to which I do not myself take sides—solved by bringing it under general legislation of application throughout the country. I do hope both my hon. Friend and the Chairman of Committees, who is the authority on this class of problem, will agree that this is a reasonable thing to do. If that be the case, the only way of getting to that conclusion is by having the Bill recommitted. I earnestly support the Amendment, not disregarding my hon. Friend's particular argument and not disregarding the particular argument which may have led to the Committee's decision, but for the purpose of putting before the House the far wider issues raised. I earnestly ask the House to take this, the only, means of preventing the problem being prejudiced in a particular instance, and of showing how anxious we all are to get settled as soon as possible general legislation which would prevent controversies of this kind in future.
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Lane-Fox) put the matter fairly and squarely from the point of view of the county council. I have not much to complain of in respect of what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), except to say that it seems to me there is great risk of the Bill being hung up if this Amendment is carried. No doubt the Light Railways Bill is before the House at the present time. It has passed through the Committee stage and is awaiting the Report stage, but it is by no means certain that it will pass during this Session or next Session, and in the meantime we think it is rather hard that Keighley Corporation should be called upon to wait until the Light Rail-
    1934
    ways Bill has been passed. At the same time, I am very glad this matter has come up for discussion, for it seems to me the matter is one of very considerable importance, both as affecting local government and transit. It is bound to affect all the big towns in the near future. At the same time it is a matter of regret that it comes up on a private Bill. I should have very much preferred that the point had been raised on the Light Railways Bill, but as we have to deal with things as they are this Bill comes up for our consideration now. I should add that the decision of the Local Legislation Committee on this point is the same as the attitude taken up by the Government on the Light Railways Bill, upon which, I understand, the Government were defeated in the Grand Committee. The point is raised in connection with the construction of a trackless trolley undertaken by Keighley Corporation to run outside the boundary of the borough.
    Trackless trolleys are an entirely new idea. They were first undertaken by the towns of Leeds and Bradford, but in neither of these cases was power asked to run outside the boundary of the borough. At the same time we must consider whether in a case where that is proposed the authority which ran the trackless trolley should be liable for part of the cost of the repair of a road outside the boundary of that authority. I understand that a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade did actually sit on this question, and they arrived at this conclusion, that it was impossible to settle a definite sum per car mile as a proper contribution to be made towards the repair of the road which would be applicable all over the country. If the House will consider the point for a moment, it will be seen that the sum which would be sufficient contribution for the hard roads of the North would be manifestly insufficient when you are going to run trackless trolley-cars over the soft chalk roads of Kent and Sussex. The Departmental Committee, I understand, came to the conclusion that each case must be dealt with upon its own merits. The counsel appearing before the Local Legislation Committee (Mr. Hutchinson) has had great experience in all these cases. He went through all the precedents, and I may divide them up under their separate heads. It must be remembered that Leeds and Bradford are both county boroughs controlling their own roads for which they are responsible, and for the repairs of which they are compelled themselves to provide. I understand that

    1935
    in Bradford no damage has been done at all to the road, out of the ordinary course. The same thing applies to Leeds, over half the road on which the trackless trolley runs. The other half of the road had never been properly made up, and there was consequently a certain amount of damage done, but the damage was small. The next case that came up was that of Newcastle. Here, again, the Committee which considered the Bill struck out all the portions of these trackless-trolley roads which lay outside the county borough. Consequently the Newcastle case fell into the same category as Leeds and Bradford. The next case was Aberdare. In that case the application was originally for tramways; it was refused by a Committee of the other House. Here there was a small piece of county road which the urban district council of Aberdare had done up out of their own funds—why they forgot to say to the Committee. There was subsequently an application to run trackless-trolleys over this road. The county council claimed that the urban district council should continue to do the repairs; but the Committee of the other House declined to put upon the urban district council the duty of maintaining this county road, which is exactly the case of the Keighley Corporation at the present day.
    The next case is Rotherham, which is a county borough, and there was an application for a trackless-trolley outside the borough. This was again opposed by the county council of West Riding on the same ground, and the corporation made an agreement to pay the county council three-eighths of a penny per car mile, or £150 per annum whichever should be greater. This was an agreement, and not a condition imposed by Parliament. In fact, I do not know that the matter was even discussed before the Committee, and also it must be remembered that this agreement covered many other points, and it does not follow that the three-eighths of a penny covers the cost of the repairs of these roads, but that many other circumstances may have affected the case. There was one more case in the Session of 1911, that of Brighton and Hove. Here again an agreement was arrived at by which the company are to pay the Sussex County Council a halfpenny per car mile. In this respect it is on all fours exactly with the case of Rotherham. It will be seen then that up to the present Parliament has never imposed this burden upon any corporation desiring to run these trackless-
    1936
    trollies outside their boundaries, and it is obvious that if the obligation is to be imposed, a check will probably be given to this, which is undoubtedly a cheap form of traction at the very time when we are all wanting to make it easier for the poorer classes to live outside the large towns amid healthy surroundings and at cheaper rents, and when every encouragement ought to be given to corporations to undertake this work and every check that is possible removed. In the North Ormsby Bill this year the other House decided against the claim of the county council. They say: "The Committee regret that they cannot grant the protection asked for, but we feel strongly that there is a certain amount of injustice involved under the present arrangement, and hope that the whole position will be considered on its merits, and perhaps there will be legislation on the subject before long." In considering the merits of the Keighley case the Committee's decision was no-doubt influenced by the fact that the corporation already have power to run motor omnibuses over this particular road for which they pay nothing at all. The corporation are now proposing to substitute trackless trolleys for these motor omnibuses. So far as my experience goes, and I think every one will admit, the motor omnibus does more to damage the road—
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The question is extraordinary traffic.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: There is no doubt that the motor omnibus does more damage than the trackless trolley, and it is quite natural that it should be so, for the motor omnibus weighs twice as much as the trackless-trolley car, and also carries double the number of people. It seems to me, therefore, that this change will have the effect of reducing the cost of the repair of the roads. And it is unfair to call on the corporation to contribute, especially when you have Keighley as a non-county borough already contributing considerably to the upkeep of these very roads. If and when it becomes a county borough, the point will have to be reconsidered, in view of the Report of the Committee on Financial Relations which was laid before the House last year. My own impression is that a great part of the damage done to this particular road is not caused by motor omnibuses or trackless trolleys, but by the huge motor lorries which are run from Bradford and all the big towns of the immediate neighbourhood, which contribute nothing at all to

    1937
    the up-keep of the main roads. And this is an additional reason why no contribution should be placed on the ratepayers of Keighley. In fact the whole question of repair of county roads urgently needs consideration. It becomes more complicated every year; and if these bargains as in Rotherham, and Brighton, and Hove are allowed to go on, the matter will become more and more complicated still; and I may urge on the Government to consider whether the time has not arrived to appoint a Commission to settle what are the main roads of the country and to take them off the rates and to put them on the taxpayers, as it is only in this way you will get the burden evenly distributed among all the users of the roads.
    I now turn to the question of widening. We have to consider what is the proper width of roads for a trackless trolley and not for any other form of traction. So far as I can judge, very little widening was necessary for this purpose, and we considered that the Clause we inserted was sufficient contribution for the corporation to make. It was decided after a very long controversy in Committee. There was very much doubt whether it ought to go. Eventually we arrived at a compromise, which was carried by the unanimous vote of the Committee. The decision was that in no case should a trackless trolley be run on a road on which the carriage-way was less than fifteen feet. In case of district roads along which the traffic was naturally less than county roads, we decided that if the authority wished to have the carriageway wider than fifteen feet and the corporation agreed, the corporation should pay one-third of the cost of widening. And if the road and the road authorities and the corporation would not come to terms the width of the road between fifteen and seventeen feet should be settled by the Board of Trade. With regard to the county roads, the Committee decided that the same conditions as to cost shall apply, but that the road might be widened up to twenty feet at the discretion of the Board of Trade if the parties could not agree. Beyond that, however, I felt that, in view of the heavy traffic I have already described, the road probably did require widening, and that the county council ought to have done the work before now, and were seeking to recover part of the cost out of the fact that the Keighley Corporation were changing from motor omnibuses to trackless trolleys. That seems to me to be unfair to
    1938
    Keighley. I may be wrong, but it is the impression I have formed, for it is very hard to see that a road which the county council thought was wide enough for motor omnibuses was not wide enough for trackless trolleys, although the wheel base of the trackless trolley is less than that of the motor omnibus. All these matters have been very carefully considered by the Committee; in fact, I think they spent six days on this portion of the Bill. I am inclined to think sometimes that these Committees go too closely into many matters which come before them. But in this case I do not in the least regret the time which, has been given, because it is a matter of very considerable importance for the future, and the decision which this House gives to-night will naturally settle the procedure for the future, and I sincerely hope the House will confirm the decision which the Committee has given.
    Mr. BUCKMASTER: After the very full and clear statement of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) it will not be necessary to detain the House at any length in placing before them the reasons why I ask that this Motion should not be accepted. Let me say, in answer to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, that this question should not, and, I suggest, cannot be properly decided by consideration of a prospect of general legislation on the subject. The real question for the House is whether or not, in relation to this particular instance, the matters which form the subject of objection, and which led the hon. Member to bring forward his Motion, should or should not be entertained. If I can satisfy the House that in this particular case harm would be done were this Motion assented to, that should in itself be a sufficient reason why the whole question of general legislation should be disregarded in the formation of our opinion upon this matter, which is isolated and confined to this particular case. I think a few facts should be stated about the position of Keighley Corporation in relation to this Bill. Keighley is essentially a district exclusively manufacturing. It is of the utmost importance for all people in the district that there should be established some means of cheap and speedy transit between Keighley and the surrounding districts. This has already been recognised, and at this moment there is established by the corporation of Keighley a system of motor omnibuses which it is now desired to replace with a system of track-

    1939
    less trolleys proposed to be substituted in the place of motor omnibuses.
    9.0 P.M.
    It is a system which in no way interferes with the user of the road surface beyond that which they now have the right to avail themselves of under the power to run the motor omnibuses. Of course all Members of this House know that the trackless trolley system is one by which by means of a wire a tramcar can use the road without having a tramway. It is because Keighley has attempted to adopt a more efficient method of transit over the road that the opportunity has been taken to raise this objection to their Bill. The objections are twofold. One is that the cost of widening of the road, rendered necessary by the use of the trackless trolley, should be thrown upon the Keighley Corporation, and the other is that they should contribute to the upkeep of the road. Let me deal with the first objection first. It is perfectly clear that the road when widened is to the advantage of every form of traffic which uses the increased facility. It is unjust, simply because in the legitimate use of the highway, there has been introduced a new vehicle and a new method of using the road, that therefore there should be thrown upon the authority which has introduced that new form of vehicle the whole expense of widening the road. The Bill as it stands provides that one-third of the cost of widening should be borne by the local authority. That is a full and very generous burden for them to undertake. It is quite impossible to say that the benefit of the widened road, however caused, will be enjoyed only by one class of traffic. Secondly, as to the point as to whether this particular form of traffic should cause particular expense to be thrown upon this local authority. I submit that it is impossible to distinguish between one form of traffic and another for this purpose. The trackless trolley has been designed for the very purpose of conveying the working population from place to place, yet it is sought to throw upon it a burden of expense that is not borne by any motor vehicle. Motor traffic of all kinds may use this road without such an obligation being thrown upon it. The contribution at the present moment paid by the Keighley corporation for these roads is £3,400 a year. I submit that is abundant, and I very earnestly hope that the House will not accede to this Motion and go back upon the careful and deliberate judgment of the Local Legisla-
    1940
    tion Committee, and the Committee before whom this Bill was considered, but that they will allow the Bill to go forward in the ordinary course.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I would not have intervened in this Debate if I had not happened to be a member both of the Local Legislation Committee and the Select Committee which considered this Bill, and also of the Standing Committee which considered the question of light railways. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, that this is a matter of more than local importance. These trackless trollies are at the present moment in there infancy. Before very long a large number of local authorities will adopt these trackless trollies and run them as feeders to their tramway system, and, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the House to-night should come to a very careful decision, and, whatever decision it comes to, that decision undoubtedly will affect, not only this case of Keighley, but every case where trackless trollies may be adopted in the country. The Local Legislation Committee, after very careful consideration I agree, came to the conclusion, in the first place, that the Keighley Corporation was not to pay anything towards the maintenance of the county or district roads. In the second place, we came to the conclusion that they were to pay one-third of the cost of improvements, the remaining two-thirds to be paid by the outside authorities. That was not a unanimous decision, and we actually had a Division, a very rare occurrence, on our very peaceful and non-party Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) so ably presides. A short time afterwards I attended as a member Standing Committee (B), which was considering the Light Railways Bill. That Committee came to the following decision. We inserted the following Clause:—
    "Provided that any such Order shall contain provisions requiring the company, body, or person upon whom the powers thereof are conferred to pay the cost of any alterations or improvements in the road or street made for the purpose of, or rendered necessary by, the trackless-trolley system, and to make a contribution towards the cost of maintaining the road or street, regard being had in determining the amount of such contribution to (amongst other things) the additional expense incurred by the authority by whom the road or street is maintained."

    1941
    We came to that decision, and, I think, we carried that provision by a fairly large majority. I may say we would have carried it by even a larger majority if the Parliamentary Secretary, who represented the Board of Trade, had not, just before the Division was taken, sent messengers to other Committee Booms and recruited some of the Members who had been considering the Scottish Temperance Bill, and who had not heard the arguments on light railways, to vote on this particular matter. The House will agree that the principle involved in this Bill and in the Light Railways Bill is exactly the same. Therefore it is absolutely absurd for the House to refuse to recommit this Bill, which contains a principle entirely contrary to the principle which was adopted by Standing Committee (B). I should like to refer to one or two points made by the hon. Member who spoke last. He told us that at the present time the Keighley Corporation had the power to run omnibuses. That is perfectly true. They came here, two or three years ago I think, and got power to run motor 'buses. Those motor' buses have not proved a success, because, as one of the witnesses of the Keighley Committee said, they were not properly run. That is the only reason why those motor 'buses have not been successful. They come now and ask for powers to run trackless trollies.
    What is the difference between trackless trollies and motor 'buses. The trackless trolley is very much like a tramway. If a corporation or company runs tramways in an outside district, that corporation which runs those tramways have got to pay both for the cost of widening and for the maintenance of the roads. For instance, the London County Council puts down tramways in London and the local authority pays one-third of the cost of widening, and the county council as the tramway authority pays two-thirds. Under this Bill you are reversing that, and you are making the local authority outside pay two-thirds, while the tramway authority is only to pay one-third. In the case of a tramway, the tramway authority has got to maintain not only the track, but also nine inches on each side of the track. What is really our point? The Keighley Corporation are running these tramways for the benefit of people who live at Keighley or work there. If there is a profit, and we are told by the witnesses for Keighley that this is going to be run for profit, that profit goes to the Keighley ratepayers. I do not think any-
    1942
    body will deny that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do the county council want it?"] I am not saying the county council want it, but what I am saying is this, that you have in every county a very large number of people who live in the agricultural parts and who will never use, and probably never see, these particular trackless trolleys. They certainly will not use them and they are asked to pay towards the cost of maintaining and running those trackless trolleys, while the profit, if there is a profit, goes not to them, but to the Keighley Corporation.
    I am told that we ought to see that our roads should be paid for by one authority. I think that would be desirable, but that ought to be done by the Imperial Exchequer. As long as you have your present system, when one authority is responsible for one part of the road and another authority is responsible for another part of the road, you certainly ought to provide that if one authority uses a road maintained by another authority that that authority so using it should contribute towards the cost. There is another and a great difference between the motor 'bus and the trackless trolley. If you give a corporation power to run motor' buses, that does not prevent a private company from running motor 'buses on that road too. If you give a corporation power to run trackless trolleys, to put up standards and all the other apparatus, then you practically give them a monopoly of that particular road. If you do that you ought to see that no other authority shall have to pay for the maintenance of that particular track. The hon. Baronet the Member for Doncaster said it was impossible to settle the exact amount which each authority ought to contribute. All we are asking the House to do is to refer this back to the Committee to allow us to insert a Clause that the exact amount should be settled by arbitration. I quite agree it is absolutely impossible for the House to settle what should be paid in each particular case. That can be only done by arbitration. I do ask the House to recommit this Bill, so that, in any case, we shall be able to settle it on the same lines as the Light Railways Bill was settled in Committee. I hope that the Light Railways Bill will pass in its present form. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to strike off particular Clauses which are contained in that particular Bill at the present time.

    1943
    If it is their intention to strike out those particular Clauses, I agree that the matter is on an entirely different footing, and the provisions of this Bill will be on exactly the same lines as the general law in the Light Railways Bill. But as I have no information to that effect, I sincerely hope the House will agree to recommit the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The Order Paper contains a Motion standing in my name to recommit the Bill, but for entirely different reasons from those urged by the hon. Member opposite. My Motion suggests that the Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee for the purpose of considering the provision of accommodation for workmen employed on the construction of reservoirs. One would almost imagine, from the speeches which have been delivered, that the. Bill dealt entirely with trackless trollies. The Bill deals with other subjects as well, and I was particularly interested in placing before the House the claims of a very deserving body of men, whose interests have not always been looked after in matters of this description, as prosecutions for want of decent housing in different parts of the country plainly testify. I do not intend to move the Motion standing in my name, but I wish to use this opportunity for the purpose of placing on record an arrangement which has been made with reference to housing accommodation. Since the Motion appeared on the Paper I have received from the promoters' agents, Messrs. Sharpe and Pritchard, a communication on the subject. Amongst other things, they say:—
    "We further understand that you will be satisfied with an undertaking from us that we shall insert such a Clause when the Bill is in Committee in the Second House, and we accordingly hereby undertake, subject, of course, to the sanction of Parliament, to insert a Clause in the Bill similar to Clause 14 of the Fylde Water Board Bill as introduced into the House of Lords, a copy of which we enclose herewith."
    I have read the Clause referred to, and find that it is substantially in the words which I propose. Having placed the arrangement on record, I have no wish to deal with the matter further.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I can claim to have one qualification to speak on this matter which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldsmith) does not possess, and that is that I know Keighley most intimately. I was for some years a member of the Keighley Corporation, and I am proud of the fact that I took an active part in the establishment of the admirable municipal
    1944
    service which it is now proposed to extend. There seems to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of certain Members of the House as to why they propose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). The proposal to refer the Bill back to the Committee was moved in order that the Committee might consider an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. The hon. Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins) took an altogether different line. Personally, I think it is desirable that there should be general legislation governing matters of this description, but, after all, that is not the question that has to be settled to-night. The Keighley Corporation Bill cannot stand over until the House of Commons has had time to deal by general legislation with a highly controversial question of that importance. Any Member of experience knows what the fate of the Keighley Corporation Bill would be if it had to wait until this House settled the question by general legislation. Five or six years ago the Constituency which I represent had before this House a private Bill containing some novel proposals for giving to the Corporation the control of the milk supply. There was at that time a proposal of the Government to deal with the regulation of the milk supply by general legislation, and my corporation were asked to allow the deletion of their provisions on the ground that the Government expected to pass their Bill into law before the end of the Session.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: That Bill had not gone through Committee.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not my point at all. We had the pledge of the President of the Local Government Board that the matter would be dealt with by general legislation. That is five or six years ago, and the matter has not yet been dealt with. Therefore I think we are perfectly right in assuming that if we accepted the argument of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division it would mean that all the expense incurred by the Keighley Corporation in prosecuting this Bill would be lost, and the Bill would not become law during the present Session. In regard to the general position taken up by the hon. Member for Middleton, the hon. Member spoke very impartially to-night, but I believe he is associated with the County Councils Association, and I can hardly

    1945
    remember an occasion upon which there has been a conflict of interest in this House between county councils and municipal bodies when the hon. Member has not intervened on the side of the county councils.
    Sir RYLAND sADKINS: I represent in this House boroughs and urban districts exclusively, and I am sure my hon. Friend has not been so unfortunate as to be here always when I have spoken, or he would not have said what he has.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think we shall have to consider this question on the grounds advanced by the Mover of the Motion, and I do not think it necessary to add much to what has been said already by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson), and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Buckmaster). Personally, I think the proposal of the county council a most outrageous one, which cannot on any ground be justified. The Corporation of Keighley are not likely to get much financial advantage even if this trolley tramway system is a success. The hon. Member who spoke last on the other side admitted that the motor 'bus service had not been a success. The only people who have gained an advantage from that enterprise of the Keighley population are the people who live in the rural districts and the people in the surrounding villages. The hon. Member said that the trolley tramway system was solely, as I understood him, for the use of the workmen who live in the villages and work at Keighley. Yes, but who is going to get the advantage of that? The Keighley population provides facilities by which the men who do the work can live outside the rating area of the Keighley Corporation. These men are going to get their wages in Keighley, but they will not spend them in Keighley. They are going to pay rent to the landlords in the rural area, and add to the rateable value of the rural area, that is, to help the exchequer of the county council and the rural district authorities. There is no doubt about it whatever, that the result will be an advantage mainly for the people who live, not in Keighley, but in the villages around, who are going to be served by this trolley tramway service.
    It is the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash that the entire cost of the road improvements shall fall upon the Keighley Corporation. My own opinion is that the proposal in the Bill as it stands that one-third of the cost
    1946
    should be paid by the Keighley Corporation is altogether unreasonable. It is not likely that any road improvement will be carried out which is not necessitated by the general traffic which passes along the roads. A reference to the Bill will show that the county council ask for the right of imposing upon the Keighley Corporation the cost of widening the streets up to 20 ft. But country by-lanes are very much in the nature of country roads. They are the main arteries which, if they are to be increased where the road is less than 20 ft. wide, show that the county council or the road authorities have been neglecting their duty in the past. On a road where there is so much traffic as there is on these roads there ought to be no case where the road is less than 20 feet wide. It seems to me that the motive behind this proposal is simply to relieve the landlords. The motive and the idea is the same as that embodied in the Agricultural Rates Act, that is to attempt to relieve the rural ratepayer at the expense of the urban ratepayer. If for no other reason than that I should oppose it, on the ground that I am going to give no vote for the further endowment of the landlords. I do not think there has been a single argument advanced from the other side which can influence a single Member who has an unprejudiced mind upon this question.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It is a matter for regret that the position in regard to this Bill is as it is, seeing that the dispute is after all not a very bitter one, although the case is being fully argued out. The case being as it is the Board of Trade cannot support the Motion for the recommittal of this Bill. The hon. Member for Stowmarket Division supported that proposition as a way of bringing this Bill into harmony with the Light Railways Bill, that having been altered in Committee upstairs. In the first place, I do not see any prospect that the recommittal of the Bill would bring that about. There is no security at all that the Committee would do as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash wishes. In the second place, the hon. Member for Stowmarket no doubt realises that it is far from certain what will be the final form of the Light Railways Bill as regards the particular question which we are now discussing. The hon. Member ascribed to some personal activity of mine the comparative smallness of the majority for the

    1947
    change which he and his friends were able to make in the Bill. If my memory does not deceive me that was because in the Division, which was quite regrettably on party lines, the particular policy of the hon. Member and his friends gained by the accident of a temporary distribution of Members in different Committees. I merely say this, since the hon. Member raised it, though it is not strictly relevant to the Debate. As the hon. Member realises, the final form of the Light Railways Bill is far from fixed, and as he granted in his closing words, the case for the proposal to recommit the present Bill on that view is rather weakened.
    On general grounds the Board of Trade cannot give any countenance to the general line followed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash and those who support him in this matter. It has been pointed out that the promoters are taking the opportunity to penalise one form of traffic to make good the injury done to the roads by other forms of traffic which make no contribution. I do not pretend even that if this Bill goes through in proper form you will have an ideal solution of the question. There may have to be some general legislation on this subject of the maintenance of roads; but, as another Member has pointed out, you cannot secure that ideal by merely recommitting this Bill. It cannot be secured even by passing the Light Railways Bill in any form, for the Light Railways Bill does not lay down general legislation. It merely empowers the light railways authority to authorise such undertakings. It sets down certain conditions under which they are to be authorised, but as it at present stands it will not interfere with any scheme or system authorised by Parliament. That is a very different thing from a general argument for an all-round readjustment of liabilities and of assessments for the maintenance of the roads. That ideal cannot be obtained by any course we may take upon this Bill. It seems to me that the course taken by the Committee was, on the whole, substantially and notably the better course. They had decided that the trolley system should not be penalised in the way that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash wishes. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash himself does not deny, I think, that the trackless trolley system would not cause such injury and wear and tear to the roads as is caused by other forms of traffic actually going at the present time.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Other forms of traffic are liable to pay compensation for extraordinary traffic, but the provision which makes that possible is expressly excluded in Clause 57 of this Bill.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Certain other forms of traffic do come under the principle of extraordinary traffic, but the kind of traffic which is represented by the trackless trolley is not a kind of traffic that you can justly penalise in that way. The trackless trolley system is really in danger of being excluded, steam-rollered out, by the provision that the hon. Gentleman would like to establish. The Board of Trade has actually authorised one or two schemes in which by an agreement a certain rate per mile was paid. It cannot pretend to lay down a fixed rule for a mileage payment. We must set our faces against the very definite and very emphatic assertion of the principle for which the hon. Member contends, that you should enable road authorities to tax these undertakings to the extent to which he proposes. As has been shown, Keighley already contributes in a large degree. Further, all these trackless trolley systems are rateable on their installation, and can to that extent be made to contribute, whilst other traffic may use the road and not undergo any charge at all. In view of the careful discussion and the careful handling that the subject was given in Committee upstairs, and also in view of the decision that the Committee has taken, I can do nothing but advise the House to refuse the Motion for recommitment, and allow this Bill to go forward in the proper way. Let me remind the House this is not merely a Bill dealing with a trackless trolley system. The Section dealing with trolley traction and motor omnibuses is only one part of a Bill which contains nine parts. The other parts deal with water supply, street work, loans, electricity, and so forth, and it would be a very serious matter indeed to hang up such a Bill as this quite indefinitely, for that would be the effect of the course proposed, simply to secure one disputed point upon which there is no agreement between the Keighley Corporation and the county authority. I think the hon. Members urging the recommital of the Bill will see that even if this matter is not settled to their satisfaction it would be a more fair and publicly expedient course to let the Bill go through and to leave to future legislation or future arrangement any adjustment what they may

    1949
    still think to be necessary as between the Keighley Corporation and the county authority.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: After hearing the explanation on behalf of the Government, and more particularly as several of those supporting the Bill are not here, owing to a misunderstanding as to a possible settlement being arrived at I shall, if hon. Members are agreed, withdraw my Amendment. I hope that the Government itself, if it does deal with this question as a matter of general legislation, will see that all the municipalities shall receive absolutely unanimous treatment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered. Amendments (proposed by promoters) agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY.— [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  INLAND REVENUE.—LAND VALUATION OFFICE.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,045,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." [NOTE.—£850,000 has been voted on account.]
  Which Question was, "That Item AA (Salaries, Wages and Allowances in addition to Salaries) be reduced by £100."—[Mr. Royds.]
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My remarks will be brief, and I would not trouble the Committee further but for the fact that at the moment when we passed out of this Debate the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman) attacked what I said was the interpretation put upon the law by the valuers of the Inland Revenue. I want it to be quite clear what it was exactly I was trying to demonstrate. We were not on the question of policy at all; we were on the question of deduction proper to the assessment of the Increment Tax as paid from time to time. This particular point is especially
  1950
  interesting, and it is not ascertained on a point of fact, but on a point of law, a point of law which, I agree with him in the circumstances, must go again to the High. Courts for decision. I want him to be quite clear what the policy was that our valuers were pursuing in their interpretation of their duty under Clause 25. It is not the case, as he seemed to think, that, the policy of the valuer has been to deduct from money received on the occasion the mere cost of the building, or even the mere value of the building, as set down in the original valuation. What the valuers deduct is from the consideration of the money received for the composite subject as a whole, the amount of money that can be attributed to the building at the time or the occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Apart from the site."] Attributable to the building. That answers the question which the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield put when he said, supposing your building increases in value apart from the site since the original valuation, supposing there was a house or a particular type of building more sought after, despite the fact that no more bricks or mortar were put into it, would the full value attributable to the building, apart from the site, be deducted? I say without hesitation, yes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The market value.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The full value of the building as sold.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Take the concrete case we have here, the Richmond case. It is admitted the land has not increased in. value between the time of the original valuation and the occasion. It is admitted definitely by the Department that there is no increase in the value of the land. It now follows from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that there was also no increase in the value of the building, because he stated if there was an increase in the value of the building that would be allowed. What is really done is what has been done in every case that has come to my knowledge. If the right hon. Gentleman will state a case where there has been a difference I should be glad. In every case all that is taken is the difference between the value of the land on the occasion which is arrived at by a process under Clause 25, and the actual selling price on the occasion, and the whole of that difference has been attributed to the site value in every case without exception. In the Richmond case the original total value assessed was

  1951
  £380. The sale price was £500, and the entire difference between £380 and £500 was debited or credited whichever it is to site value and treated as increment and taxed. Exactly the same process happened in the Newcastle case. The original site value was £625, the property was sold for £750, and the entire difference was treated as increment and taxed. In the Plymouth case £750 was the original value, the, property was sold for £1,000, and the whole £250 was deducted. In the Palmer's Green case the same thing happened. The whole £25 was debited to land value, and it now follows from the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made in these cases the deduction made was identical. In all these four cases I have quoted the deduction was made for building on the original valuation and on the occasion. They were absolutely identical, because not a penny of allowance was made, and the policy now is that had there been an increase in the value of the building it would not have been credited. Therefore we have now established these two facts that there was no increase in the value of the land, and we have it also established that in neither case was there any increase in the value of the building. Therefore what you have is pure occasional profit. It is neither increase in the actual value of the land nor an increase in the actual value attributable to the building. It is a pure and simple occasional profit in the market which the owner has obtained by selling a composite site. It is not obtained by profit on the land or the building, and therefore it is obtained by an occasional profit in the market by selling a composite subject. What we now establish is that by these four definite claims that are being carried to the High Court the valuers are claiming occasional profit in the ordinary market from the composite subject is to be treated as site value in regard to house property, and taxation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to deal with all the cases which the hon, and gallant Member has raised, but I will take the Richmond case. The composite subject was sold for £500, and it was claimed that that must be taken as the market value of the composite subject. We stated that that was not so, and an impartial Referee said the market value of the composite subject was £456. Our people instead of appealing decided
  1952
  to take the Referee's decision. As the Referee says the market price is £456 we will reduce our statement that it is any other amount, and we will assess duty on that basis. Take another case where the facts are really accepted by everyone, and therefore a very suitable case to take. In this other case it is perfectly true that the land was sold for £750, but the market value of that land has been settled by the Referee not at the same value we put upon it, but as £625. I hope that point is clear. The Referee distinguishes between the particular consideration paid for that house and land and the market value of the house, and he makes that distinction by saying the market value is £625. We agree on the matter of price. There is only remaining the decision on the point of law, and the case has been stated.
  Our valuers claim that under the Act the Commissioners, in order to arrive at the assessable site value as defined by the Act on an occasion, must deduct from the consideration the full market value attributable to the house at the time of sale. That means any profit the builder can get by making a better house or a more desirable house sold by a willing seller in the open market, and none of that profit is being subject to a claim for Increment Duty. You contend that we must deduct from the price paid the difference between that price and the value of the site. That is the case stated by the Referee and that is the case that will go to the High Court. We cannot see any other interpretation in the Act than that which we have put upon it. We will accept that as a test case, and future claims for Increment Duty will be made on that decision. It is not fair for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the costs have been given against the Government in this case. The Referee has decided that the costs shall be paid by whichever party is unsuccessful in the appeal.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Referee definitely decided that the value is as we claim, that there is no Increment Value Duty in that case, and he gave costs against the Government. But, he says, if the Court reverses his decision the costs are to go to the other side. He gives the costs against the Government, but he says that if the Court decides against him on that point of law then the costs are to follow the judgment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not the statement given to me.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: But I have got the actual words here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am willing to withdraw my statement if the hon. and gallant Member says I am wrong, but I do not regard the point as important. The important point is the question of fact, and in this the Referee agrees with the Government valuer's statement. It is purely a question of law, and it is a suitable case to make a test of upon that point of law. I think it is unfair for any hon. Gentlemen to go about the country saying that we are taxing builders' profits, or that we are not deducting the whole value attributable to the buildings before we begin to tax anything at all. My hon. Friend can make that point perfectly clear, and by that we are prepared to stand.
  Mr. MOUNT: Has that been done in any case?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In every case the whole value attributable to the building has been deducted from the consideration. If the hon. Member will read Clause 25 he will see that that is the only possible interpretation to put on the law as it stands.
  Captain WEIGALL: How do you arrive at the original valuation unless the property is placed in the market? Otherwise you get a purely hypothetical valuation, and to say that your original valuation is the market price is absurd unless the property comes into the market.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Surely the hon. and gallant Member realises what valuation means. Does he mean that under the circumstances which obtain in the British Isles, in which thousands of valuers make valuation, that none of them can estimate any value unless the property is actually sold in the market?
  Captain WEIGALL: For twelve years the whole of my bread and butter depended upon my acting as a valuer, and I feel that unless you take the land and the buildings on it there is no value to offer to any willing buyer. You cannot divorce the two, and to say that you can do it is, to my mind as a valuer, absolutely non-sensical.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to make the point I alluded to just now perfectly clear. The Referee, in his decision, said:—
  "I am of opinion, and I decide, that contention (a) of the appellant is correct, and I accordingly award and decide that the appellant is not liable to pay any Increment Value Duty on the occasion in question,
  1954
  and that the expenses of the appellant of and incidental to his appeal be borne and paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  "If the Court should be of opinion that the contention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is correct, then I award and decide that contention (b) of the appellant was not made good, and that the appellant is liable to pay the Increment Value Duty claimed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that the expenses of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of and incidental to the appeal of the appellant be borne and paid by the appellant."
  Therefore the Referee says that if the Court reverses the decisions the costs are to follow the judgment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I merely wish to bring home the point that that there was by mutual consent to be a test case on a point of law, and the Referee decided that whichever won the case the other side should not pay the costs. On the point of market value, let me give the hon. Gentleman just one example of the kind of way in which the State, as I think quite rightly, receives Increment Value Duty from a windfall which may not be the market value. I will lake the case of a piece of land. Take the case which recently came before us. Nine and a-half acres of land valued a few years ago for Estate Duty purposes at £254 was also valued in the Provisional Valuation, 1909, at £254. In November, 1910, one acre was sold for £605. I need hardly say it was sold to a public authority. The owner accepted, the apportionment of that acre as the apportionment applicable to the whole nine and a-half acres, and asked for no special apportionment, and that acre was therefore valued at £26 10s. The Increment was therefore £578, and the Increment Value Duty was £115, and all the parties agreed that was fair. Nobody imagines the actual value of that acre when it was sold was £605. It was money extorted out of the local authority, and money therefore which quite properly ought to pay substantial Increment Duty. I am glad to say the Committee upstairs over which we have no control, and which is largely represented by bon. Gentlemen opposite, have decided that land being sold under that condition would henceforth be obtainable by the local authority for something approximating to the actual value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not, nor has the Land League, attempted to contest any case where it is simply land. The Act says you have to tax the difference between the value as fixed originally and the price fetched. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the whole

  1955
  contention. Where the price of land alone has to be contrasted with the originally agreed value, the duty is payable, and we have never contested it. The right hon. Gentleman brings that case forward as if it was an answer to my contention. I have never contended that the duty would not be payable under such conditions, and we have never attempted to fight such a case. Where there is an occasional profit on house and land, it is the small owner who is being hit. Where he has made a profit on the composite subject, the actual practice which never varies is to attach the entire profit to the land alone and charge that as Increment Value Duty on the land alone.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not accept the last statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it is not so. The value attributable to the buildings is deducted, but not the profit. In this case the value was £26 and the consideration claimed from the local authority was £605. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the consideration is now largely taken out of our hands. We have found a case in which we agree as to the figures, and the only question is as to the intrepretation of the law. That will go to the Courts, and either of us will abide by the decision. Some strong criticism was made as to the money spent on the valuation and as to the inadequate results being obtained, and, even after my right hon. Friend had stated that of the number of valuations which were given by him 90 per cent. were final valuations, there seemed to be some criticism of the amount of work which was being done. There have, as he has already said, been 2,338,000 provisional valuations made in this country and 249,000 in Scotland, and 90 per cent. have been accepted as final valuations without any dispute at all.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Are those figures owing to the lapse of time, or do they represent cases of actual assent?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They are final valuations.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Final, by the lapse of the sixty days?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Well, no protest has been made against them. Is it not idle to imagine, if there was a general system of unfair valuations going on in this country, stirred up as it has been now for
  1956
  three years by all the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with a great and wealthy corporation behind him, that more than one-quarter of the valuations of the country would be accepted without any protest at all? The hon. Member for Gloucestershire in a very fair speech stated that he thought the valuers under the Act were not fully competent for their duties. I am perfectly sure I can establish an exactly opposite conclusion, and I am glad to see that is endorsed by an hon. Gentleman opposite who has had great experience in this matter. The majority of them have been valuing land all their lives, and the sole object of the Inland Revenue Department was to obtain the very best valuers that could be had. From all I hear, owners who were formerly hostile are now willing to work in conjunction with the valuers and they are quite free from any charge of incompetency. The original valuations already completed involve a total sum of well over £700,000,000. The promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the valuation should be completed by the early months of 1915. The Valuation Department accept that promise still. They are willing to provide this valuation complete by that time. There have been allusions to possible uses of the valuation after that time, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that by that time the valuation would be useless and would all have to be done over again. The authorities at the Inland Revenue say that is an entire misapprehension, and that this first valuation will make the work of keeping the valuation up to date comparatively easy. They say, if this valuation is finished by 1915, they will have no difficulty in providing by the beginning of the following year a full site value of the land of England if Parliament in its wisdom then desires to use that site value for any legislative purpose.
  Mr. EDGAR HORNE: I think some of the difficulties which surround the valuation of the property may be explained when we consider what it is which has to be valued. Land or building may form nothing but a basis on which to construct the valuation of the whole. But what is bought by the investor or by the purchaser is, generally speaking, the income which is to be derived from the land or the building. For instance, if you take three plots of land all exactly similar and ripe for building, not let to anybody, and estimated by those best qualified to judge to

  1957
  be worth, any one of them, for ground rental £1,000 a year. One of those lots is sold on the 5 per cent. basis, at twenty years' purchase, for £20,000 the speculator is fortunate enough within a week to find someone willing to build on that plot at £1,000 a year. The building agreement is signed. The £1,000 becomes worth £22,000. Six months later the building is put up and completed, and the £1,000 a year is worth £25,000. But you cannot say that the value of that piece of land has varied from £20,000 to £25,000. There are the two other plots still in the market at £20,000. What has been bought in that case is the security of the income, and I think if we looked on property not so much as land and building, but as what is to be drawn from it, we shall be able to understand the prices that are obtained. Generally speaking, what is looked for from land is income in money. But that is not always what is bought by people. A piece of land may be bought for the purpose of providing a view or of keeping a private house from annoyance by undesirable neighbours. That piece of land commands for a short time a high price for that purpose, though it brings nothing in beyond securing privacy and quiet. Possibly the house is, later on, converted into workshops and the value of that piece of land is gone. Therefore I wish to point out it is not the land or the buildings together which represents the value, but it is that which is to be derived from it.
  In the old days large estates commanded high prices. What was bought, in a small degree, was a limited income. What also was bought was perhaps the satisfaction of the position which attached in those days to the ownership of large estates. What also was purchased was the satisfaction which, thank goodness, a great many men still have of being able to try and improve and look after a large property in the country. These two intangible forms for which men gave money are now being taken away from them. They are breaking up their estates and, instead of the limited income which they were content to obtain, the latent value is being expressed on the rentals by purchasers by interests and mortgages, and money spent on land bought represents a great deal more than the income which the landlord in the first case obtained. Another reason which affects the value of property in land is that it is not now so easy to dispose of as it was some years ago. I believe that
  1958
  the interest which is to be obtained from property is as high now or even higher than then. But if any man buys property in this country now, though I think he can be assured of a very fair rate of interest upon it, he must not expect to be able to put it on the market and find a purchaser for it without much trouble. And it is the want of that ability to turn it into money when he wishes that makes for a lowering of prices. I believe that is one reason among others why Consols at the present time are at a low figure. In the old days, ten or twenty years ago, you could go into the Consol market and sell a quarter of million Consols without hardly moving the price. But if anyone did that now and the Treasury broker was not present to buy them up, I fancy there would be a very heavy slump in prices before the whole amount was got rid of. This question of the alteration in prices on occasion seems to me may act unfairly between one set of people and another. For instance, if a row of cottages is situated in a country district and waterworks are going to be constructed in that neighbourhood, there arises a large demand for cottages, and the land goes up in price. If the owner of one of these cottages dies, or if he wants to sell it, there will be an increase in the value which will be estimated, and probably he will have to pay a large sum to the State. But if he does not want to sell, or if he is fortunate enough not to die, as soon as the waterworks are completed the high rents will fall, and that fortunate man will have obtained during those years high rents for his cottage and will have paid nothing to the State. I think nearly the whole of the difficulties which have come from this land valuation are entirely due to leaving the good principle of taxing income and trying to tax imaginary values. We all recognise that whatever is wanted for carrying on the business of the State it is the duty of everyone to pay. But I think it should be paid from the actual income which is coming in.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the remarks of the hon. Member are well outside the limits of the Amendment. We are discussing the administration of the Act in its relation to land valuation.
  Mr. EDGAR HORNE: I was trying to point out the difficulties of making a valuation on a basis which, I imagine, must be illusive. I am prepared, as I believe a

  1959
  great many of my professional brethren are, to tell, with a certain degree of accuracy, what the value is at a particular moment, but I absolutely refuse to say what the value is going to be in a year or six months' time, because it is impossible to know what the conditions will be at that time. I think it would have been very much better if the valuations which have to be made under the Act had more regard to the income that is derived from the properties than the imaginary valuations which have so often been put upon them.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to refer to the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the valuation of cottage property. I am sure his statement will be received with great satisfaction in my own constituency, where a large number of workmen have their own houses. I am not quite clear about one word he used, namely, "windfall." I will put a case to him. Assuming that the value of the composite subject is represented by £250, £50 of which is due to the value of the land, and £200 to the house. What I want to know is this: if that property rises in value and is sold for £300, and if there has been no increase due to the land, but all of it is due to the buildings, would Increment Value Duty be payable on the increased value of £50. According to what was said during the Debates on the Budget, there was to be a taxation of land values only. The case put to me by a number of my constituents is this—I have not got the particulars with me, because I forwarded them to my right hon. Friend, but I have most of the cases in my mind. A man buys a piece of land in my constituency from the local authority. Two years afterwards the Government valuers come along and value this same land, although no other land in the district has been sold at 30 per cent. lower than the price he gave for it. It is a very extraordinary thing that all urban land seems to be undervalued, while all rural land seems to have been overvalued. In the case of the workman who buys a piece of land and builds a house upon it, the cost to him was, say, £250. The value put on that by the Government valuer, on a new house and new land, is £200, or £50 less than the man actually paid for it. What my Constituents say is this, "It is all very well for you to say this is a tax on land values. We are working men, who by self-sacrifice have scraped a little
  1960
  money together to buy land and build a house upon it, and here we see a difference between the valuation of the Government valuers and the actual cost we have paid out of our own pockets. If we leave the district and sell the property, will any of that difference between the cost to us and the valuation of the Government be charged with Increment Duty?" My right hon. Friend just before the adjournment stated that if the value of the buildings rose from £1,000 to £5,000 no Increment Duty would be payable. I have given the case of a property of £250 which has risen to £300, where there cannot be said to be an increase in the value of the land. Will Increment Duty be payable on the £50?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Baronet has given me rather a complicated case, in which a double question is involved. One is that the site value of the land as valued on 30th April, 1909, is less than the man paid for it. In that case, as I expect the hon. Baronet knows, by Section 2, Subsection (3), the substitution value, what he actually paid for it, can be put upon it, and until the site value has risen above that no increment attaches to the site value. The other point is this: If the man sells the composite subject in the open market, if it is sold by a willing seller, there is deducted from it the full value attributable to the building, and if it is a willing seller that value will be the full amount less the site value, and in that case he will not pay any Increment Duty at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: You have not answered the question.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Very nearly, I think, though I should like to see it in writing before I express an opinion. May I refer to another subject? In the valuation of minerals I should like to ask whether the Government carry out a verbal promise given in answer to a question, that the Inland Revenue Commissioners shall in future separate in these valuations the amount paid to the landlord and the amount actually received as royalties which are the property of colliery companies. A certain amount of minerals are owned by colliery companies, and they make returns to the Inland Revenue of the total royalties that they have paid, but they do not state whether those royalties are derived from their property, of which they are owners, or whether they are derived by them from working their seams. It would be very desirable that the House should know in these valuations the total

  1961
  amount of royalty paid to the landlords in respect of minerals that are worked. We have no information whatever. The total amount was separated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question I asked, in which he showed that the total royalties received amounted to something like £6,000,000, but he gave no information whatever as to where this sum goes, how much is paid away to the landlord, and how much is vested in the companies themselves. If that could be done at a very small cost by the Inland Revenue Commissioners, the information would be very valuable.
  I wish to ask another question as to the Increment Value Duty on minerals. A great many valuations are being made at the present time, and I state unhesitatingly that a large amount of minerals which have been leased are evading duty. I known it is done, but I am not going to tell my right hon. Friend how it is done. It is only my duty to point out to him that Increment Duty is being evaded. If I were to explain how it is done, it would take a long time, because it is a very complicated question. I think the Inland Revenue Commissioners should have their eyes opened in regard to this matter.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean Increment Duty?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I refer to Increment Duty on minerals. It is a very complicated question to deal with. The next question I wish to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Inland Revenue Commissioners to give us information in next year's Accounts as to who are the real owners of mineral royalties in this country?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask one question about procedure? The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to-night that he was going to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of this system of valuation. He read out the terms of reference, but, of course, we have had no real opportunity of considering them, and I could not pretend to offer an opinion upon them. He did not give the names of the Committee, and I think he said he was not yet prepared to do so. We did not press him on that point, but we are anxious on this side of the House to reserve to ourselves an opportunity, if we should think it necessary, to discuss either the composition of this Committee or
  1962
  the reference to it when we know what the composition and the reference are. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is that he should agree not to attempt to take the Vote to-night. Let the Committee settle this Amendment by all means, but not attempt to take the Vote, so that if we require an opportunity to discuss the composition of the Committee or the reference to it, we may get it by asking that the Vote should be put down again.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I know no reason why we should want to take the Vote tonight. I am exceedingly anxious that we should take the Opposition with us in this matter. I am willing to consult them as to the terms of the reference, and to ask them to help us as to the names of the Committee. We want an impartial Committee of experts, not politicians, who have knowledge of surveying. As to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), I will certainly consider the way in which the Mineral Tax is stated at present, and if I can give separate figures they will be given. As to the hon. Member's other point with respect to which he says he cannot communicate the information to the House, I would say that if he will communicate it to me, and tell me how we can get in taxation which is now being evaded, we shall regard him as a benefactor of the Revenue.
  Captain WEIGALL: Although no charge whatever can be made against the valuers who are now acting under the Valuation Department, it is perfectly apparent that the duty imposed on them by the Statute is a superhuman duty. The whole of the chaos in which the Valuation Department now is arises from the fact that these men are asked to value something which does not exist. Although the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that it is done every day, I maintain that you cannot divorce the value of a house from the land on which it happens to stand.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of the merits of the Act is not one with which we can deal on the Amendment.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Is not my hon. Friend perfectly in order, when dealing with this question as a question of administration, in saying that the way in which the Valuation Department is carrying out its duties is hot in consonance with a true system

  1963
  of valuation, and that that valuation could be applied with greater skill and accuracy if certain principles were adhered to?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I understood he was not doing.
  Captain WEIGALL: I am not a legal luminary, as is my hon. Friend, but that is exactly what I intended to say. My whole point is that in asking these men to carry out the system imposed by the Finance Bill you are asking them to perform a superhuman task. Up to this afternoon as an agriculturist I have always looked with a great deal of apprehension on the effect of the Finance Act. Since hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary that apprehension has been increased. I understand now that we as agriculturists are in this position, that under Section 25 of the Finance Act, all valuations of agricultural land are now being made, and, in future, will be made without any deduction for improvements. I remember the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech in which he said that the work of man's hands will always go free. Now, so far as agriculture is concerned we are in future not to be allowed to deduct the work of men's hands. I also remember that that adept at accuracy, the Lord Advocate, when he came into my Division told all the agriculturists, "You need not be in the least afraid of the administration of the Finance Act. All your improvements, your drainage, your fences, your farmhouses, your buildings, will be allowed you. Nothing but the prairie value will be used for taxation." From this afternoon, we understand, Section 25 does not allow us to deduct those improvements. My hon. Friend made the point perfectly clear in regard to a farm which I happen to know very well, because it is situate on a property which I have had to look after for a great number of years. He showed clearly that so far as agricultural land is concerned that improvements under the administration of this Finance Act, are not allowed to be deducted, and were not in fact deducted. If under Section 25 we are not in future to be allowed, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to "deduct the work of men's hands," how can you possibly avoid having to face the agricultural community in regard to their fear of the effect of future legislation. For nine months last year I was the only Member on this side
  1964
  of the House, who sat on a Departmantal Committee to inquire into the breaking up of large agricultural estates, and the only point I wish to make is this, that the mere fact of the administration of this Finance Act was the primary and fundamental reason why those estates were broken up. Directly those forms were thrown broadcast among owners and agents, then, and then only, were they brought face to face with the Act. Not one single witness of any sort, whether he represented the landlords, the tenants, the farmers, or agricultural labourers, was shaken in cross-examination in the statement that had it not been for the passing of this Finance Act and its administration we should not have been sitting on the Committee to which I have referred, to inquire into the grievance which was placed before us. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others will say, "Oh, no; the administration of the Finance Bill has nothing to do with the question; it is a mere matter of sordid finance. The landlords saw that there was a demand, and they naturally sold." I will only quote part of the evidence of one witness, Mr. C. P. Hall, a witness representative of the Land Agents' Society, who control 10,000,000 acres of land in this country. I will only give one question and answer:—
  "Do you consider, had we had improved agricultural land prices, and had we not had the action of the Government, that there would have been this enormous acreage in the market?—Most certainly not."
  Surely that shows that the administration of this Finance Act was the main and the primary reason for all the insecurity that has been created throughout the whole of the agricultural community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon made a tremendous parade of the improvement which has taken place under the administration of the Finance Act. He neglected to inform the House that on 13th June, 16,800 of those Death Duty cases were held up owing to the confusion caused by those valuations. We had this afternoon from the hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Royds) a very clear, very concise, and very detailed statement of how the ordinary agricultural valuation is made. He clearly showed the House in that case that the valuation was very far above the market value. When I say market value I mean the value that has always been understood by the country that would be put on when the ordinary deductions of the work of a man's hands has been allowed. I desire now to give the opposite case. I know

  1965
  that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Oh, I am delighted to hear that we are accused of placing the values too high, because I have always been accused of placing values too low." In rural properties the valuation has been placed too high and in urban properties the valuation has been placed too low. In the one case the Government are out for Undeveloped Land Duty, and in the other case they are out for Increment Value Duty. The hon. Member for Sleaford has given a valuation that is placed far too high, and I propose to give an instance where the valuation is far too low. Eight months ago I happened to desire to own a certain acreage of land. The land had been in the market for eighteen years. Everybody had been offered it at six thousand sovereigns. Everybody in the country knew that they had only got to pat six thousand sovereigns into the hands of the owner and the land was theirs. On the passage of the Finance Act the owner altered his terms. Urban land, agricultural land, and the whole of the speculative building industry had come to a stand still. This case is still sub judice, and I am not going into it beyond stating the facts which are absolutely patent to everybody. This land had been in the market for six thousand sovereigns for eighteen years, and the owner had given six thousand sovereigns for it eighteen years ago, and out of it he received an income of £17 per year for those eighteen years. He sold it to me for five thousand sovereigns, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Department come down on him and say, "You have found a mug. The land is worth only £4,000, but because you happen to have found a simple bucolic to give you £5,000, you have to hand over to us £200 for Increment Duty." There is a clear instance of property being undervalued. There have been heard before official referees nine test cases as to the administration of the land clauses of the Finance Act. I know that those referees are not appointed by the Treasury, but they are official referees. Every one of those cases has been decided against the Valuation Department.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Captain WEIGALL: Whether that is so or not, I ask that, as these test cases come before the Official Referees, information concerning them should be given to all interested. Three weeks ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a short record of these test cases, in which
  1966
  every owner in the country is concerned, could be sent to the Surveyors' Institute and the Land Agents Society, all the members of which are keenly interested. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that if those who were immediately concerned in the cases had no objection he felt sure that the members of those two societies, if they applied, would be allowed to attend and listen to the cases. That is no possible use to anybody really interested. With the chaotic confusion in which the Valuation Department necessarily finds itself, there must be an endless vista of litigation to come before the Courts. For the convenience of persons interested, the least the Valuation Department can do is, as these test cases come before the Referees, to see that information concerning them is placed at the disposal of everybody concerned.
  Mr. PERKINS: There are three practical points on which I want an expression of opinion from the Treasury. The first is as to the attitude of the Department and of the Valuers as regards the treatment of ground rents. Whether the Department be right or wrong remains to be proved, but, as a matter of practice, at present the Department is valuing ground rents—of which there are an enormous number to be valued—on a system which does not commend itself to the surveyors of the country. In fact, the Department's Surveyors are valuing ground rents at between one and two years' purchase less than the market value of ground rents. Are the Treasury prepared to endorse that action?
  The next point is a sin—if sin it be—of omission, not of commission; the only sin of omission charged against the Department to-night. I have reason to know that, at any rate, one property of considerable value and area, has not even yet received the attention of Form IV. The owner is well-known; he is registered as a ratepayer. If this is an instance within the knowledge of a Member of this House, how many other instances may there be within the knowledge of other Members, and the outside public of Form IV. not having yet been served, and as a result the properties concerned not having been valued? I ask the Treasury to consider this point also: If the surveyor who has to value that property approaches it now for the first time after the Act has been in operation, and after some years have gone by, how is he going to arrive at the site value of that property as it stood at the

  1967
  date of the passing of the Act? It is almost impossible for the surveyor to tell unless he has a personal knowledge of the property. The third point arises out of my own practical experience; it refers to a single case, uncomplicated by any question of minus site value, the case of a man buying in the open market a composite property, land and house, and selling it at an enhanced price half an hour, or even a few days afterwards. He is asked—in some cases I know it is insisted upon that the whole of the increment between the purchase and selling price should be regarded as increment for the purposes of the Act. He is asked to pay his share of the Increment Duty. Does the Treasury think their surveyor right or wrong in asking for a share of increment, when, as a matter of fact, there can be no possibility of increment in the value of the land arising from the efforts of the surrounding population. There are three plain, practical questions, to which I want three plain, practical answers.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: The hon. Member who spoke last but one has certainly removed many reasons for anyone on this side intervening in the Debate, but I wondered whilst he was speaking for how long the gentleman from whom he bought the land for £5,000 would have held it had it not been for the Budget? One thing that strikes me as curious about this Debate is we are still, whether in order or not, hearing exactly the same stories we heard at the time of the Budget, when the real reason why valuation is not altogether satisfactory is that the valuers were set to do a perfectly impossible task. It is a little difficult to imagine why a task done with the greatest possible success in New York for many years, and done in Australia and New Zealand also, should not be done here—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called an hon. Member to order a little while ago on this point. I hope the hon. Member therefore will not pursue it.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I bow at once to your ruling, Sir, and shall not pursue that particular point further. On the question of valuation I think I shall not be straying beyond the limits of order when I say that the real difficulty of the Valuation Department in not completing this valuation arises almost entirely from two reasons. The greatest of all the difficulty we have in this valuation scheme has arisen from the great concessions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer largely prompted by the desire to conciliate Members upon the other side. Another reason why we have had great difficulty in completing the valuation is that the particular valuation proposed in the Act was accepted at the wish of the Front Bench opposite, and that the very much more convenient form of private valuation, as it was called, was abandoned. It is entirely because the Government gave way on this matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are now having very considerable difficulty in completing the valuations. As a matter of fact, the difficulty seems to be gradually and to a very considerable extent diminishing. There are also other reasons why this difficulty has been great. Take the case of mineral rights. A great deal has been made in the Debate to-day about the difficulty of aqueous and igneous rocks. As a matter of fact, no question would ever have arisen upon the question of aqueous and igneous rocks if the Government had not been persuaded to vary their original scheme of taxing mining values instead of taxing mining royalties.
  Mr. ROYDSrose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,045,730, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 194.

  Division No. 104.]

  AYES.

  [10.53 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Campion, W. R.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ashley, W. W.

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Cassel, Felix

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Baird, J. L.

  Bird, A.

  Cave, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyton, J.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Barnston, H.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin, Univ.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Falle, B. G.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Stanier, Beville,

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Starkey, John R.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Grant, J. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Royds and Mr. Perkins.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Adamson, William

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

  Alden, Percy

  Goldstone, Frank

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Strand)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Armitage, Robert

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Martin, J.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Guest, Hon Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hackett, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Bentham, G. J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Boland, John Pius

  Hayward, Evan

  Muldoon, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Munro, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Brady, P. J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Clough, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Malley, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notes, Rushcliffe)

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Keating, M.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crooks, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kelly, Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cullinan, John

  King J. (Somerset, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lansbury, George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  De Forest, Baron

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Radford, G. H

  Delany, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)'

  Doris, W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham).

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Falconer, J.

  McCallum, Sir John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  1970

  1971

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Rowlands, James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Shorn, E.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wardle, George J.

  Young. Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Webb, H.

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 24th June.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

SUFFRAGISTS IN PRISON.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to refer to the question which was raised during Question time this afternoon on the case of the women political prisoners and the action of the Home Office in differentiating between one class of political prisoner and another. The House will remember that the leaders of the women's suffrage movement were sent to nine months' imprisonment for inciting others to commit offences, and that subsequently to the sentences being pronounced the Home Secretary removed the three prisoners from the second division, to which they had been committed, and is having them treated as first-class misdemeanants. He did so, I believe, on the understanding that the three accused persons should give an undertaking that they would not abuse the privilege of being treated as first-class misdemeanants by conducting the movement while they were in prison.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No, no; incite.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Then, I understand, the undertaking was that they would not incite others to commit acts of violence during the time they were confined in prison. A demand has since been made that the rank and file of the movement, who had carried out the instructions of the leaders, and were
1972
sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from two to six months, should also be transferred to the first division. The Home Secretary refused to make the transfer, and we are entitled to ask why, if the leaders who gave the advice which the rank and file carried out are to receive special treatment, the others should not also do so? When the matter was first raised in this House the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward) asked the Home Secretary whether there would be any distinction of class in connection with these prisoners, and whether rich women would not receive special treatment, or the poorer women receive inferior treatment. The Home Secretary at once gave an undertaking that that should not be the case. I submit that one reason why the leaders were treated as they have been, and the rank and file were treated differently, is because the leaders moved in higher social circumstances for the most part. I hope the House will agree, if a political offence is to receive special treatment—as I hold it should—that that special treatment should apply impartially to the rank and file alike. The result of the refusal to transfer the rank and file to the First Division is that a hunger strike has again broken out. I would ask the House to remember that the object which the hunger strikers have in view is to secure that their treatment shall be that usually accorded to political prisoners in all other countries and now being accorded to their own leaders. The Home Secretary may reply that if this concession is now made it will be followed by other demands. That is a possibility which I am not called upon to discuss. We are called upon to discuss the particular case now before us, which is that the rank and file offenders shall be placed in the same category as their leaders. May I mention to the House what forcible feeding means. We are told it is frequently applied to lunatics and to persons who are too weak to take food in the ordinary way. But these cases are entirely different from that of the women who

1973
refuse to take food in order to accomplish a certain end, and who violently resist the insult that is heaped upon them by this method of forcible feeding. Already one man has gone mad under the treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I do not want to go into controversial points. I thought the point was universally admitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] It is by those who know the facts.
Mr. McKENNA: There was a special inquiry.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I will leave that for a moment. I do not wish to raise controversial points. The man went mad under forcible feeding. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen find that a joke I do not envy them their sense of humour. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Home Secretary denied it."] I am not concerned with what the Home Secretary denies; I am concerned with the facts of the case. Will the House allow me to refer to a case, the facts of which have been supplied to the Home Secretary on more than one occasion, as illustrating what forcible feeding under the present administration may mean. One lady was sentenced in connection with the women's movement to a term of imprisonment on 9th March. She took part in the hunger strike. It commenced on the Tuesday following her conviction. On the Wednesday the prison medical officer, Dr. Sullivan, decided to have her forcibly fed. The lady pointed out that to feed her by the nose, which is the usual method, was a physical impossibility owing to a fracture, but despite that the medical officer and the attendant three successive times forced the food down from the nostril, but it came out through the mouth. I ask the House to realise the horror of that kind of thing for a refined lady. It is no use asking why she did not take it. The point is that the strike was on. [An HON. MEMBER: "She was a blackleg."] The point is the terrible method of feeding by the nostrils and never by the mouth. Surely even those who laugh at a case like this will admit that if feeding by the nose was found to be impossible, the mouth method ought to have been tried. On the next day four separate attempts were again made, and then had to be given up, blood and mucus coming from the woman's mouth as a consequence of the efforts. I ask the House of Commons is this the kind of thing to be made a joke of and treated as a matter of no account? The
1974
leaders of the movement themselves who are receiving forcible feeding are joining with the rank and file in the hunger strike. Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, when committed to prison, had this letter sent on her behalf from her medical attendant to the prison doctor. Dr. Katherine Chapman, who has been Mrs. Pethick Lawrence's medical attendant for some time, wrote as follows:—
"I have known Mrs. Pethick Lawrence for some years and know that she has a chronic gastric condition which from time to time becomes acute. A few months ago I had her under my care, when she was suffering from ulceration, and she exhibited symptoms of gastric ulcer. She was somewhat relieved by treatment, but I believe the condition is still latent, as some of the symptoms remain. I trust the contingency of forcible feeding will not arise; but in the event of such an experiment being tried on Mrs. Lawrence, I can safely say, without fear of exaggeration, that her life will be placed in immediate danger."
I ask the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to take the risk which that condition of things implies by insisting upon forcible feeding rather than transfer the rank and file who are in prison to the same status as their leaders. [An HON. MEMBER: "Threats."] There are no threats about it. I am alluding to the Report of the responsible medical authority pointing out what may be the consequences. She has pleaded several, times for permission to see Mrs. Lawrence. That has been refused. Mrs. Pankhurst has on several occasions asked that her medical adviser shall be allowed to see her. That has been refused. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right, rich woman."] Unfortunately, Mrs. Pankhurst is not a rich woman. She works for her living, and earns it. I want to ask the House whether it is prepared to say that these women, rich and poor alike, are to be subject to this kind of treatment. The Home Secretary has the matter in his own hands. If one of these women should happen to die under this treatment no justification whatever will satisfy the people of England that such an occurrence should be allowed to take place because of the harsh administration of the law and the refusal of the Home Office to treat leaders and followers alike and have them all consigned to the first division.
Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid, in reply, I shall have to express myself somewhat shortly, and I hope the hon. Member will not think I am unduly curt. He has given me notice of a number of other points that he has raised, but the particular case in which he described circumstances of particular cruelty he has given me no notice of, and in the absence

1975
of any further information on the subject he must forgive me if I do not accept his statements until I am able to verify or contradict them. He has raised the case of Mr. Ball, who, he alleges, went mad through forcible feeding. That charge was made in this House, and in consequence of it we had an independent medical inquiry, and the doctor found that Mr. Ball did not go mad in consequence of the forcible feeding.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why was he removed to the asylum?
Mr. LANSBURY: The man never went mad in prison until he was brutally and. cruelly fed under the prison treatment. Everyone knows that.
Mr. McKENNArose—
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why was he removed from the prison to the madhouse?
Mr. LANSBURY: Of course he went mad after you forcibly fed him. [An HON. MEMBER: "Keep quiet."]
Mr. McKENNA: Hon. Members expressed a desire that an independent medical inquiry should be held. The conclusion of that inquiry was as here stated—
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Did he find what drove him mad?
Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member would put a question on the Paper I will give him the fullest information on the subject. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil charged me with having drawn a distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact among those who are called the rank and file there is one rich enough to buy up all the rest. There is no distinction made between rich and poor as regards forcible feeding in those cases. Whether they are leaders or rank and file precisely the same course will be taken as in other cases. If the medical adviser of the prison advises me that the state of health of any of the prisoners is such that forcible feeding could not be administered with safety forcible feeding will not be administered, but in every other case, be they leaders or rank and file forcible feeding will be adopted if they do not take their food in the ordinary way. What is the case that the hon. Member brings forward in regard to Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and the hunger strikers, who at
1976
the same time provide my hon. Friend with a medical certificate, which I am asked to accept as an assurance to me that she is not fit to be forcibly fed, in order that I may destroy in her case the prison rules. There is not much courage in a hunger strike dictated by the leaders on those terms. If the medical adviser of Holloway Prison advises me that Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence or Mrs. Pankhurst, or any of the rank and file are not in a state to be forcibly fed, I will deal with them as with others. But if they can stand it they will have to submit, as the doctor is bound to submit them to such measures as will secure that they shall remain in life. They cannot be allowed in prison to starve themselves. We can never allow a prisoner, by refusing food, to be the cause of his own destruction. The hon. Member describes them as political offenders. A political motive neither aggravates nor extenuates an offence. They are committed to prison for having broken the law. We do not recognise in the law of this country political offenders. They must undergo their term of punishment like any other prisoners; they must submit to the ordinary prison rules, and they will receive the same consideration upon the merits of every case as would be given to any other prisoners who have committed a like offence. The hon. Gentleman stated, it is true, that before Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Mrs. Pankhurst were placed in the first division they had given assurances that they would not use the privileges which they received to renew the offence. Upon that undertaking I placed them in the first division upon the advice of the judge, who told me that he would have placed them in the first division on his own responsibility when passing sentence if they had given him that undertaking at the trial. No similar circumstances exist in the case of the other offenders. They are not charged with inciting others, and so long as they remain in prison they cannot break the windows of inoffensive tradesmen; but I have said this to them, that if any of them will give me an assurance that they will not again break the law they shall be free of prison to-morrow.
And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.