CLAUSE 30.—(Application to Scotland.)

HC Deb 18 June 1931 vol 253 cc1971-2095

4.0 p.m.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 29, line 31, to leave out the words "(other than dwelling-houses)."

I move this Amendment under somewhat peculiar difficulties, as indeed is every one of the Amendments on the Paper to-day. I listened a 4.0 p.m. moment ago to the statement made by the Prime Minister as to some Amendments which are be moved to this Measure and which, he assured the House, would be available to Members of this House in ample time. But I find myself under this disability, that they will not be available to anyone in this House to form any conclusion or opinion while we are asked to-day to deal with a Clause which applies this part of the Bill to Scotland. I have often heard in this House complaint made as to the treatment of Scotland and the disabilities under which Scotland works in this Chamber, but in my experience, now well over 20 years, in this House I have never observed any circumstances in which Scotland and the interests of Scottish people of all ranks and classes have been so flagrantly disregarded as they have by the action of the Government in the present circumstances.

This Amendment which I bring to the notice of the Committee raises fundamentally the position of all agricultural land in Scotland. Is it to be said that the matters specifically dealt with are of such small account that we can, in a day, dispose of this Clause, which applies, in very curious circumstances, new methods of valuation and new impositions of taxation upon the citizens of my country? I am glad to observe that at least two members of His Majesty's Government representing the Scottish Office are upon the Front Bench. We have not in the past deliberations on this Bill received much encouragement or interest from representatives of that office; indeed, they have been conspicuous by their absence. Admittedly under this Amendment and the Amendments which follow we are attempting to apply decisions on matters of principle and of fact to the peculiar circumstances arising in Scotland.

The difference of circumstances between holdings of agricultural land in England and in Scotland are, I think, well known to this Committee. I need go back no further than the somewhat lengthy discussions which took place in this House upon the Bating Act, for which I was responsible while at the Scottish Office. It is clear that the circumstances which govern rating principles in England and in Scotland are fundamentally different, and I observe, if I am correct—and I should like to have the Lord Advocate's view upon that particular point—that under Clause 27 agricultural land in England includes any farmhouse, that is to say, a house occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and used as the dwelling-house of the person who is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land;

I do not know why that should be done in England and different treatment applied in Scotland. Of course, a farmhouse is a dwelling-house, and the system which we have pursued in Scotland has always been not only to include in the one unit the farmhouse, but the cottages of the farm-workers, and the valuation as it appears in the roll in Scotland includes all those units. Indeed, the farm is taken as a unit, and I think it will be admitted by those who know Scottish conditions that you cannot properly divorce from the working of the farm the house in which the farmer lives, and the houses in which the farm-workers reside. It is quite true that circumstances differ across the Border, but if the Government are really anxious to arrive at the proper agricultural value of a unit, surely that value is the value entered in the valuation roll of the rental of the farm inclusive of these buildings, which valuation, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman, is an annual valuation, and is in accord with the value placed upon it in an agricultural free market by those who work upon these units. I cannot think of any other system which is more direct, which is more fair, which is devised year by year, which is open to inspection, which places in the hands of the Government for the time being, without entering into hypothetical values formed upon a basis which is, in the main, pure guesswork, but puts in the hands of the Government or the valuer a definite figure based upon actual facts.

It is very unfortunate that the Government have chosen to take the line which they have in this matter. Those who are interested in agriculture in Scotland are watching with very great anxiety what we may do here, but what is our position here to-day? What is the position of every farmer and smallholder in Scotland to-day? We do not) know what the Amendment, which was ruled out of order the other day, may be when it comes upon the Paper. We do not know in the least whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to place his name in support of the Amendment in the form in which hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway have endeavoured to bring it to the notice of the House. Therefore, we are entirely in the dark. We do not know how much exemption there is to be, and how far that exemption may go, what classes of people it is going to affect and what the result may "be. It is really an outrage that this House should be asked to deal with a problem of this kind in these circumstances. We are brought to the position that every farmer and every smallholder, while they have been assured, on a kind of broad basis, that they are going to escape if they have agricultural holdings, they do not know whether their land is going to be valued with or without the house. They do not know whether this kind of hypothetical value is clear of all buildings in one instance, and fences and hedges in another.

It is treating the agricultural industry, at a time when it is going through grave disabilities, with the greatest disrespect, and I would urgently ask the Government to consider whether they ought not to adopt the suggestion which my Amendment makes, that at least, whatever the further Amendments may bring in the way of relief to certain units, as far as agriculture is concerned in Scotland, we shall proceed by the usual, recognised and well-established methods of long standing recorded year by year in the valuation roll, and thereby relieve the individual citizens of a great deal of unnecessary labour, expense and anxiety, and, on the other hand, relieve the Government of a great deal of unnecessary expenditure.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison)

This Amendment raises a very important point indeed. We are dealing here with the ascertainment of cultivation value for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill says that when you are dealing with the ascertainment of cultivation value, you are not to take the dwelling-house on the farm into account. That is the effect of the words which this Amendment proposes to leave out. The position is this. We are defining agricultural buildings and we say that agricultural buildings are those buildings included in any agricultural lands and heritages, but excluding the dwelling-house. The effect of that is that if there is a building which you can reasonably say is an agricultural building it is brought into account in ascertaining the cultivation value. That means such a building as a barn or a stable, but, on the other hand, you do not take the dwelling-house into account. In that respect the position in Scotland, as we propose under the Bill, is precisely the same as the position in England.

I agree that there is a difference, and a material difference, between our system of tenure and the English system of tenure, and I hope hon. Members will not forget that when we come to deal with later Amendments on the Paper, but for the purpose of ascertaining the cultivation value the view of the Government is that you should apply exactly the same rule in Scotland as is applied in England, and that is to exclude the dwelling-house from the computation. May I answer a specific point put to me by the right hon. Member. He pointed out that in Clause 27 buildings were included, but the right hon. Gentlemen must have failed to notice that in Clause 27 we are defining agricultural land. The definition with which we are dealing in this Amendment is that of agricultural buildings, quite a different thing. For these reasons, I have to intimate that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT

We have been waiting for some time to discover whether the Lord Advocate has followed any of the discussions which have been going on in connection with this Bill, and we are astonished to find that he has not even read the Debate on the English Bill. Would the Committee gather from what he has said that only last night the Solicitor-General offered to make this concession which he is now refusing in the case of Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE

The hon. and gallant Member is quite inaccurate. The Solicitor-General said that the matter would be considered. That is a different thing from offering to make a concession.

Major ELLIOT

I am perfectly willing to leave it at that. I have a better belief in the bona fides of the Solicitor-General for England than the Lord Advocate, who now refuses to make any observation similar to that made by the Solicitor-General. Why does he deny for Scotland what the Solicitor-General is willing to offer for England? We have a right to ask this question, and to demand an answer.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I said that the view of the Government was that there should not be one rule for Scotland and another rule for England, and it necessarily follows from that, if the hon. and gallant Member will take the trouble to think, that if the Government decide to alter the rule as regards England there will inevitably be an alteration also as regards Scotland.

Major ELLIOT

This indeed is reducing the discussions on this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned to a farce. I call the attention of hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee)—to the position.

Mr. McGOVERN

You must not bring us into your quarrel.

Major ELLIOT

I know that the hon. Member for Shettleston will not stand up for Scotland. The proposal before the Committee is that the Scottish system should not be torn up, should not be destroyed, by the Lord Advocate in his desire to run at the tail of the English cart. He will run at the tail of the English cart whether he makes this con- cession or not. He does not propose to argue with his Scottish colleagues, or give any justification. All he says is that what my English allies say must be observed. If they say cottages shall come in, they shall come in, but if they say cottages shall go out, they shall go out! [Interruption.] That might meet with the applause of English Members but I shall be surprised if it meets with the applause of Scottish Members. Do hon. Members below the Gangway consider this is a reasonable way of carrying on the discussion of Scottish affairs? The Solicitor-General said that he would consider whether the Government could do anything in Clause 8 to extend it to include cottages. Surely that was an offer made in a well-recognised Parliamentary form, with the understanding that something would be done, and it was reasonable to suppose that a reasonable case had been put forward and that he was willing to consider it. If that was not the meaning there was no point in the offer of the Solicitor-General. It was on that understanding that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) withdrew the Amendment.

Surely the Lord Advocate might have gone as far as the English Solicitor-General allowed himself to go last night. If they can bring in this proposal for England, where it is alien to the system, surely they can bring it in for Scotland where it is natural to the system. If it can be administered in England it can be administered in Scotland. We can leave it to other Scottish Members to press home the importance of this matter on the Lord Advocate. He has made a poor beginning on such a controversial Clause as this in taking the view that the affairs of the Scottish nation are to be discussed merely as ancillary to the discussion between) the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and the English Solicitor-General. It is a bad look-out for Scotland. [Interruption.] I know hon. Members opposite are much better at interruption than in looking after the interests of Scotland, but Scotland knows it and will know more about it when it reads the Debate of this afternoon.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The Committee is indebted to the Lord Advocate for the clearness of his exposition of the point the Committee is now discussing. It is quite obvious that the purpose of this Clause is to ascertain what is called cultivation value, and he has taken the point that the whole trend of the Bill is to find the cultivation value by getting rid of the dwelling house as far as land is concerned. It is an old established usage in Scottish law and custom, when you are dealing with agriculture, to include the dwelling house and cottages in the land and I, therefore, looked for an explanation from the Lord Advocate, and I think I got it. It may be right or it may be wrong, but his explanation seemed to me to be perfectly clear and I was astonished at the indignation shown by the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). I showed the same indignation, but with far more reason, during the five years they occupied positions in the Government. What happened in the case of the De-rating Act?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It relieved them of taxation.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I agree, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) supports me. The hon. Member for Kelvingrove with needless acidity attacked the Lord Advocate because, as he said, he was running at the tail of the English cart. That is exactly what happened, so far as Scotland was concerned, during the five years of the last Administration. Take the De-rating Act. During the discussions on that Measure we said, with less acidity I hope than the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has shown to-day, that the main propositions were settled in accordance with the law of England, and Scottish Members had to follow the tail of the English cart during the whole of those Debates. If that Act is bad—and there are signs that it is working badly—it is due to the fact that it followed the English Bill. There is a good deal in the point made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok. I think it would have been wise if we had had what is called the Liberal Amendment before us. In a discussion of this kind, when we want to be fair between all individuals in the State, we should know exactly what the Government intend to do with regard to the proposal put forward in the proposed new Clause, but so far we have had no indication of the Government's intentions. The Lord Advocate was quite accurate in his statement as to the sug- gestion of the Solicitor-General. He did not go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has suggested, but the Lord Advocate might well consider, as this is a very important Amendment, whether he is not prepared to take the same line in regard to it as the Solicitor-General took on Clause 27. That would be a wise proceeding and I hope the Lord Advocate will take it.

The LORD ADVOCATE

May I make it perfectly plain in case there is any ambiguity in the matter, that so far as Scotland is concerned we are prepared in this matter to take the same line as was taken by the Solicitor-General yesterday, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove had not indulged in a display of sham indignation he would have been well able to appreciate the point, and it would not be necessary for me to state it again.

Mr. BOOTHBY

In the first speech which the Lord Advocate made, he said that the Government were unable to accept this Amendment, and he left it at that. In his second speech he said that the Government would do in regard to Scotland whatever the Solicitor-General for England did in regard to England. Now, in a third speech, he says he will consider the matter himself. Which of these three courses does he propose to take?

Mr. MacLAREN

With regard to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), and also the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), that we shall be in some dubiety as to this Clause and its effects, unless we have the Liberal Amendment before us, I would point out that the Liberal Amendment does not affect this Clause at all. If the Liberal Amendment has any meaning, or if it has any effect at all, it will have an effect upon land outside the agricultural area altogether. Therefore, this new-found difficulty has no substance in it. I was very much distressed to see my genial colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), working himself up into such a hot passion. I was born in Glasgow and I am proud of some of the representatives who come from Glasgow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only some!"] Yes, of some of them. There is much truth in the statement that in the House of Commons Scotland is treated as a sort of appanage of the British Empire, something which has got in by mistake, and which we would rather be without, and I quite agree that it is time that the question of the opportunities for the discussion of Scottish affairs should be more seriously faced. But looking back at the past, I do not know that the conduct of Scottish affairs under the previous Administration warrants the passion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove, or the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour). I well remember that when the Conservative Government were in office I wondered many a night if Scotland had any identity or individuality at all.

Coming back to the discussion of the Amendment I agree that there was point in the promised concession of last night, but surely there is point also in the Lord Advocate's contention of to-day, namely, that there must be uniformity of practice in valuation whatever happens. If there is going to be a valuation, it is merely a technical point that there should be uniformity in the valuation as between England and Scotland. I think it would be a mistake if the Committee began the discussion of the Scottish Clause of this Bill with the idea that the practice of rating is to govern the practice in the valuation of the land. That cannot possibly be so. The valuation under this Bill is for a specific purpose, and the valuation of land for the purpose of the Bill must be entirely divorced from anything in the nature of the law of rating as it now stands. I feel that the Lord Advocate, with his characteristic reticence and his Socttish disposition to be quiet, should not be left alone to meet the frontal attack made upon him by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove.

Mr. SKELTON

Apparently the position taken up on this Amendment is that whatever England does, Scotland ought to do it also. If the learned Solicitor-General for England says "Yes," then the learned Lord Advocate says "Yes"; and if the learned Solicitor-General for England says "No," then, curiously enough, the learned Lord Advocate says "ditto." My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) treated this Amendment as if it dealt with a mere detail of technique. I cannot accept that view. If that were the only issue involved, it would not be worth while continuing the Debate, but in my opinion the Amendment is of considerable importance, and I should like to place my view of it clearly before the Committee. We are told that if England says that cottages are to be exempted, Scotland will say so too. The matter is apparently under consideration but I submit that that is not the test.

The first test is that the Scottish agricultural system with regard to buildings on farms is quite different from that which exists over the greater part of England. I think that one can speak almost without qualification in saying that on all farms of any size in Scotland there are cottages in which the farm workers live, but, in England, until you get some way north of the Trent, that system is almost unknown. In the South and Midlands of England cottages on farms have no part in the cultivation value of land. Speaking generally, all through the South and Midlands of England the farm workers live, not in farm cottages on the farms, but in villages outside the farms. If the question of the exclusion or inclusion of dwelling houses is to be decided by England, and if the cultivation value of a particular farm is to be considered, in view of the number of dwelling houses on it, then that is a condition which does not exist over the greater part of England. It is therefore no mere detail of technique.

We shall be shutting our eyes to the whole system under which Scottish agriculture is worked if we pretend that dwelling houses in Scotland have nothing to do with the cultivation of the farm. Supposing that the Solicitor-General says "No" and that the Lord Advocate says "ditto," the result will be most unfortunate. In the first place it will increase the tendency—I do not say very largely but quite obviously—to have "led" farms, instead of farms cultivated by the man in the farm-house. If you include the farm-house among the elements of the cultivation value, you raise the cultivation value, and you give a distinct impetus to the system of the farmhouse being occupied by the farmer. The case is still more clear in regard to the cottages. We know the difficulties which exist in regard to providing sufficient farm cottages in Scotland, and keeping them in proper repair. The last Parliament tried to deal with that subject. You want to have in this Bill some sort of device in favour of an adequate number of farm cottages, and not to put the bias on the other way.

If you include farm cottages as an element in the cultivation value of the farm you stimulate the increase of farm cottages. If you exclude them, you get the opposite result. It may be said that this is a matter of comparative detail, but, at a time when agriculture is depressed, when all questions of the return from the capital which is put into the land are of great interest, when the land is being stripped of capital, you ought to include any element which will tend to increase rather than decrease the number of dwelling houses on farms. This is a situation to which we cannot shut our eyes, and that is why, apart from any question of national prestige or the position of Scotland in the House of Commons, I do not regard this as a suitable occasion on which to approximate the Scottish system to the English system. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, therefore, to believe me when I say that I am not spinning out this matter for any purpose except to make it quite clear to the Committee. If you start with the assumption that the method of the cultivation of land in Scotland differs, for the most part, from the English method, why should you not have a different method of estimating the cultivation value as between the two countries?

There is one other consideration. As I understand the Bill, the only agricultural land upon which the tax will fall is land near the towns, and, speaking broadly, the greater number of agricultural subjects in Scotland which are going to be valued will never have any tax imposed upon them. I believe that the total number of agricultural subjects in Scotland is about 76,000. Let us assume that not more than 20,000 of these are sufficiently near towns to run the risk of having to pay the tax. I think that is an overstatement. It is far more likely to be 2,000. The valuation farms which are far away from towns is not going to be followed by taxation. Surely, therefore, in the interests of ordinary administrative common sense you want a simple system of valuation, and a simple system of ascertaining the cultivation value is to take, as a basis, the figure in the valuation roll—that is to say, in Scotland, a figure which includes the dwelling houses, the farm and farmhouse there being treated as unum quid. On the Lord Advocate's own view, unless our Amendment is adopted the position will be that whereas in England you have a valuation roll to help you, which you can make your foundation and your jumping-off place, in Scotland the valuation roll is no use to you because it includes the farm as unum quid with the dwelling house, and we have to start off there to ascertain an absolutely fresh value, namely, the value without the house. When we consider that the bulk of these valuations are not going to eventuate in taxation, I say that that would be an administrative absurdity, in which no common-sense Minister ought to indulge.

If practical grounds weigh with hon. Members opposite then I submit that on practical grounds there is a strong reason why the Scottish system should be maintained in this matter, so that we shall not have an entirely new process of valuation introduced for subjects which will never be taxed. Comments have been made as to some observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). It is all very well to say that he roused himself to a purely stage passion but hon. Members, who are such glorious Home Rulers in Scotland—but who when they come to this House of Commons are so perfectly useless to Scotland—ought to consider that it cannot be good for their country, or for those responsible for maintaining its position in a united Parliament, to have the long-continued system, and the principles upon which its agriculture has been conducted, torn up by a definition Clause in a taxing statute.

Mr. MacLAREN

There has been no system of valuation for land value taxation purposes in Scotland at all and therefore it cannot be torn up.

Mr. SKELTON

Although the hon. Gentleman comes from Glasgow and I only come from Edinburgh I quite understand that, but if he had listened to me, he would realise that what I said was that in a definition Clause of a taxing Act it is an unnecessary degradation and a stupidity, taking Scotland vis-à-vis England, to make an assumption as to the method of calculation which has never been made before. Surely it is a commonplace of Statutes dealing with taxation that when you apply taxation to Scotland and England, you try to make it fit the systems of the two countries. You do not alter the systems of the two countries every time you bring in some new and absurd tax.

Mr. G. HARDIE

Is there any difference between the Income Tax in Scotland and in England?

Mr. SKELTON

No, but that is not the point. The hon. Member seems to be a typical heckler, who, having got his question off his chest, does not in the least care for the answer. Everyone knows that all taxation has to be interpreted according to the laws of a country. Here is a provision which will change for the worse the system under which Scottish agriculture is conducted. It seems to me to be just the kind of thing which Scottish Members in a united Parliament ought to be vigilant to avoid. There is no use in constantly beating the Scottish drum out of doors and not keeping our eyes open to this kind of thing indoors. This provision is giving a bias in the matter of Scottish agriculture against the genius of Scottish agriculture and the system under which it is conducted. It is not a matter of mere technique in which it is sufficient, if the Solicitor-General says "Bow wow," that the Lord Advocate should also say "Bow wow."

Mr. G. HARDIE

I am rather surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken. On the basis of the charge that he made regarding the home rulers on this side of the Committee, let him cast his mind back to the time when we were dealing with the derating Act, wherein certain Scottish institutions were torn to pieces or melted and recast. I am surprised at the shortness of the memory of the hon. Member. What we have to face is the fact that it was not those associated with the Socialist party who sold Scotland.

Mr. SKELTON

Let me recall to the hon. Member's memory that in the derating Act, on this very matter of how we should de-rate agricultural subjects, the system adopted was one which suited the Scottish method of cultivation. For that purpose, we did treat the farm as a unum quid and de-rated is according to its value as a unum quid.

Mr. HARDIE

But the question the hon. Member has raised deals with derating, and I am dealing with valuation.

Mr. SKELTON

The hon. Member referred to the de-rating Act and said that Members on this side were more or less careless regarding the interests of Scotland. Yet we dealt with Scottish agriculture as it existed.

Mr. HARDIE

Now we are dealing with valuation. I referred to the breaking up of the education ad hoc body and the parish council. That statement shows what interest hon. Members opposite have in the claims of Scotland. To-day they see the teachers being asked to accept a reduction of 10 per cent.——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This Debate seems to have developed into a competition as to who and who is not a friend of Scotland, and the subject raised by the Amendments is almost obscured by these rival claims.

Mr. HARDIE

I was giving results and not merely making general statements. Let me come back to the subject before the Committee, as to whether this proposal is something that ought not to be applied until it is understood what is to be the application of the same Clause of the Bill to England. That seems to be the point of the Amendment. You cannot make any difference if you are going to value. Valuation is bound to depend on what a thing is worth. That has to be the basis. Let hon. Members opposite remember another thing about the de-rating Act, Let them remember that they put forward a formula which has never worked.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Are we discussing the de-rating Act?

Mr. HARDIE

No, but we are discussing the comments of hon. Members opposite on this Amendment and the reply to it. I hope that our time is not going to be wasted on little things like this. I should not have intervened but for the way in which hon. Members opposite have tried to take the discussion away from the Amendment.

Sir PATRICK FORD

There seems to have been a little heat engendered in regard to Scotland. I would like to have the Lord Advocate's attention for a minute or two. It has been said, first of all, that he said he would not consider the question. Then it was said that he said he would do whatever the Solicitor-General did. Then it was said that he said he would take his own line. I hope that the Lord Advocate, will go into consultation with the Solicitor-General and think out the special needs of Scotland on the same, but not quite the same, lines. We do not always want to have separate Bills for two countries. The whole value of this united Parliament and the system of legislation along parallel lines as far as possible, lies in the fact that each country may perhaps learn a little from the practical experience of the other, and that we can get something approaching uniformity for the King's subjects. That is not to be done by shutting our eyes to the facts. I hope that the Lord Advocate will keep up the Scottish end of the question, that he will see that Scottish needs are attended to, and not shut his eyes to them. I ask for an assurance that he will do that, and whether there is a Division on this Amendment or not, I trust that by the Report stage some progress will have been made in the matter.

Lord ERSKINE

I wish to put one question. We have been told that under the English system the farmhouse is to be included in the cultivation value, whereas cottages are not to be so included. The Solicitor-General gave a promise that he would consider whether he would not also include the cottages in the cultivation value. As the Debate has proceeded, it seems to me that the Government are not going to get the uniformity which the Lord Advocate apparently desires, but that in Scotland you will not include the farmhouse in the cultivation value, whereas in England you will include the farmhouse in the cultivation value. If the Lord Advocate says that that is so, it vitiates the whole of his argument.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am sorry that there should have been so much confusion in the matter. I made it plain at least three times that we are prepared to consider this matter in exactly the same way as the question is being considered from the English standpoint. That does not mean that we rule out of consideration any matter which is peculiar and appropriate to Scotland. I can only express the wish that in the earlier speeches on the Amendment hon. Members opposite had shown the courtesy and moderation which later speeches have shown. If it has been difficult to make the matter plain, it has been due to the violence and discourtesy with which the Debate was opened from the Opposition side of the Committee. I have now made the matter plain and I have nothing to add.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I do not want to prolong any acerbity or heat, but I would remind the Lord Advocate that he opened the Debate and said explicitly that the Government would not accept the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I did not open the Debate. It was opened from the other side of the Committee.

5.0 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Then L apologise. It was because the Lord Advocate made such an impression on my mind, that I thought he opened the Debate. He gave us no hope that he would give the matter any consideration at all until my hon. and gallant Friend elicited from him a statement that he was prepared to consider it. I submit that that is not enough to satisfy us, for our claim is that the case in Scotland in this matter is very much stronger than that of England. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), whereas in England the farm worker often lives in the village some distance from the farm, in Scotland the general practice is for the farm worker to live on the farm, and no farmer applying for the lease of a farm would regard it as properly equipped unless on the farm there were the necessary cottages for the workers. Farm cottages on a farm in Scotland have practically no value except for the man who will work for the farmer on that farm, whereas under a system such as that in England, in which the farm worker lives in a village, the cottage which he inhabits may have 5.0 p.m. a value for someone else. On this side we are not satisfied to hear the Lord Advocate say that he will follow what is decided for England and consider the case of Scotland along with that of England. We ask him to point out to the English Solicitor-General that the conditions in Scotland in this matter are radically different from those in England.

Mr. KELLY

I am sorry to intervene in a Scottish discussion, but those who have spoken from the opposite benches seem to have forgotten the conditions operating in the average farming districts. They seem to have forgotten all about the tied cottages, and they seem to imagine that the farm worker lives in some cottage for a few weeks and removes from it, and that then somebody else comes to it. I wish that were the case and that we had not got the tied cottage system.

Major ELLIOT

We were basing ourselves on the statement of the Solicitor-General, which he made when rebutting a similar Amendment last night, as follows: It is very difficult for the valuer to value as a single unit land which is not even contiguous but separated in several different cases. What he was referring to there, he had indicated just before when he said: You would have claims for the inclusion of sites of cottages a mile or two miles off."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1931; col. 1871, Vol. 253.]

Lord ERSKINE

Will the Lord Advocate answer my question? We were told yesterday that the farmhouse is included in the cultivation value, but it appears in the Bill as it now stands that the farmhouse will not be included in the cultivation value. Is that so?

Sir J. GILMOUR

This is a point of very considerable importance, and I think we have some cause of complaint that the Law Officer cannot answer specifically what is the actual fact. The position in Scotland is that the farm is always treated as a unit, and that for all purposes of valuation at the present time, and for certain payments which the tenant farmer may make in respect of taxation, he can claim the value of the cottages on the farm, which are in a separate column in the valuation roll. This is not a matter which alone affects the proprietor; it is one which affects the tenant farmer also. I ask the Scottish Office to observe, first of all, that, as I understand it, in the English Bill the cultivation value is to include the farmhouse and to exclude the cottages. The claim made upon the Solicitor-General by my hon. Friends from England is that in future they should include not only the farmhouse but the cottages. Now in our ease, under the Bill both the farmhouse and the cottages are excluded.

We are trying to get this Bill on to a fair basis in whatever way this tax is going to hit the individual taxpayer, but, if the Bill remains as it is now, I submit that there is a discrepancy and in fact that the farmhouse is included in England and excluded in Scotland, that cottages may be included in England and are denitely excluded in Scotland, and further, that at the present time any tenant farmer in Scotland dealing with the question of recoupment of taxation which exists to-day for other purposes, can take the cottages which appear in the valuation roll in a separate column and get relief from Income Tax from that very fact. What is going to be the effect upon that individual who has that right of claim to-day if, under this Bill, without any thought on these problems and apparently in complete ignorance of them on the part of those who speak for the Scottish Office, we see that taken away from countless individuals? I am bound to say that I really think the question merits more attention on the part of the Law Officer for Scotland than it has received up to the present.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The statement which I originally made was perfectly right. In England we do not include the farmhouse for the purposes of cultivation value, and accordingly the question of the right hon. Gentleman was addressed to me under a complete misapprehension. What I said was that in working out cultivation value we did not propose to apply in Scotland anything different from the rule applied in England. I have said more than once that if the question with regard to England is to be considered, we are prepared to consider also the question with regard to Scotland, and I have no doubt that we shall take into account all the circumstances or conditions that are peculiar lo Scotland when arriving at a decision upon that matter. I have explained that more than once, and I can add nothing more.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

As the Bill stands at present, it gives the English farmers an advantage over-those of Scotland, and, that being so, I think we are quite justified in asking that that matter should be looked into by the Government. We who come from the agricultural districts know what the condition of affairs is there, and, if our farmers are going to be landed in taxation in this way, I would advise those hon. Members who represent the towns not to sake their holidays in those agricultural areas.

Mr. BOOTHBY

I would draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to Clause 27, which says what "agricultural land" means, and goes on: but also includes any farmhouse, that is to say, a house occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and used as the dwelling-house of the person who is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land. Does that not make a wonderful difference?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 134.

Division No. 328.]	AYES.	[5.9 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)	Egan, W. H.	Lawrence, Susan
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Elmley, Viscount	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Foot, Isaac	Lawson, John James
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Leach, W.
Alpass, J. H.	Gill, T. H.	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ammon, Charles George	Gillett, George M.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Angell, Sir Norman	Glassey, A. E.	Lees, J.
Arnott, John	Gossling, A. G.	Leonard, W.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Gould, F.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ayles, Walter	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Logan, David Gilbert
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Gray, Milner	Longbottom, A. W.
Barnes, Alfred John	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)	Longden, F.
Barr, James	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Batey, Joseph	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lunn, William
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Groves, Thomas E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Grundy, Thomas W.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)	McElwee, A.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	McEntee, V. L.
Benson, G.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	MacLaren, Andrew
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Bowen, J. W.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Haycock, A. W.	McShane, John James
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hayes, John Henry	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Bromfield, William	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Brooke, W.	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Manning, E. L.
Brothers, M.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Mansfield, W.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	March, S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Herriotts, J.	Marcus, M.
Buchanan, G.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Markham, S. F.
Burgess, F. G.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Marley, J.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Hoffman, P. C.	Marshall, Fred
Cameron, A. G.	Hollins, A.	Mathers, George
Cape, Thomas	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Matters, L. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Maxton, James
Chater, Daniel	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Messer, Fred
Clarke, J. S.	Isaacs, George	Middleton, G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Mills, J. E.
Cove, William G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Montague, Frederick
Cowan, D. M.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Morley, Ralph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Daggar, George	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Dallas, George	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Mort, D. L.
Dalton, Hugh	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Muff, G.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Kelly, W. T.	Muggeridge, H. T.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Murnin, Hugh
Day, Harry	Kinley, J.	Nathan, Major H. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Kirkwood, D.	Noel Baker, P. J.
Devlin, Joseph	Knight, Holford	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Dukes, C.	Lang, Gordon	Oldfield, J. R.
Duncan, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Palin, John Henry
Ede, James Chuter	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Edmunds, J. E.	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Perry, S. F.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion	Shield, George William	Viant, S. P.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Shillaker, J. F.	Walkden, A. G.
Pole, Major D. G.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Walker, J.
Potts, John S.	Simmons, C. J.	Wallace, H. W.
Price, M. P.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Watkins, F. C.
Quibell, D. J. K.	Sinkinson, George	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Sitch, Charles H.	Wellock, Wilfred
Rathbone, Eleanor	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Raynes, W. R.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	West, F. R.
Richardton, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Westwood, Joseph
Ritson, J.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Romerll, H. G.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Sorensen, R.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Rowson, Guy	Stamford, Thomas W.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred	Stephen, Campbell	Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Strauss, S. R.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Sutton, J. E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Sanders, W. S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Sandham, E.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wise, E. F
Sawyer, G. F.	Thurtle, Ernest	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Sexton, Sir James	Tinker, John Joseph	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Toole, Joseph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Tout, W. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Townend, A. E.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Sherwood, G. H.	Vaughan, David	Paling.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Ford, Sir P. J.	O'Connor, T. J.
Albery, Irving James	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Atholl, Duchess of	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gower, Sir Robert	Ramsbotham, H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Boyce, Leslie	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Held, David D. (County Down)
Bracken, B.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Remer, John R.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hammersley, S. S.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Buchan, John	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Salmon, Major I.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hartington, Marquess of	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Savery, S. S.
Campbell, E. T.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Skelton, A. N.
Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Chapman, Sir S.	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Smithers, Waldron
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurd, Percy A.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Colville, Major D. J.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Thompson, Luke
Cranborne, Viscount	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Thomson, Sir F.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Train, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Macquisten, F. A.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Wells, Sydney R.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Meller, R. J.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Womersley, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Everard, W- Lindsay	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Muirhead, A. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ferguson, Sir John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Fermoy, Lord	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Sir George Penny.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 3, to leave out from the word "security" to the word "incorporeal" in line 5, and to insert instead thereof the words: 'mortgagee' means 'creditor,' and 'mortgaged estate' means 'security subjects'.

This Amendment is an attempt to translate into phrases of Scottish law phrases unfamiliar to the law of Scotland. The land values part of this Bill is a complicated Measure abounding in terms of English law, which are difficult of interpretation to the ordinary Scot and to people who may endeavour to transcribe the words which we find in the Bill into words which are familiar to the Scottish lawyer. The term "mortgage" is unknown to the law of Scotland, for instance. Lord Dunedin complained not long ago of the difficulty with which Scottish lawyers were often confronted in trying to construe Acts of Parliament in which English words were freely used; the Scottish courts were often set as impossible task. The necessity for this Amendment shows the absurdity of trying to deal with this matter in one Bill and of dealing with different legal systems at the same time. We are asked in one day to apply to Scotland this very complicated Measure which has many Clauses abounding in English legal phrases. It is certain to lead to confusion and much litigation, and this Amendment, by saying what the words mean in Scottish law, will make the matter perfectly clear.

The LORD ADVOCATE

This is entirely a matter of definition, and, if the definition suggested by my hon. and learned Friend were better than the definition in the Bill, I would not hesitate to accept it, but the definition which he proposes is inaccurate and makes the position worse. I think that he has failed to observe that in the definition Clause you have the words "mortgagee" and "mortgaged estate" and "mortgage debt" which he proposes to leave out, and the word "mortgage" is defined as "heritable security"——

Sir F. THOMSON

The paragraph goes on to say that "mortgagee" "mortgaged estate" and "mortgage debt" shall be construed accordingly. That is a very shorthand and incomplete way of describing them.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I cannot accept that view. I do not think that there is any difficulty in the meaning to be attached to those words, or that there is any ambiguity in them at all. It is really impossible to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, for it is quite inaccurate to describe "mortgagee" as "creditor." A mortgagee is a heritable creditor. It would therefore not do to accept the definition of the hon. and learned Gentleman because every creditor is not a mortgagee.

Sir F. THOMSON

Is not that the definition given in the Conveyancing Acts?

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am not concerned with the definitions given in other Acts; we are dealing with this Act, and the correct definition of "mortgagee" is "heritable creditor." That is quite plain in the definitions in the Bill, and I suggest that the hon. Member should not press the Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON

There is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend says. It is a shorthand way of dealing with matters in the Bill. It defines only "mortgage" and then it says that the people concerned with mortgages shall be interpreted accordingly. That is a loose way of dealing with an important element in the Bill. In the matter of finding the right words for a complete definition Clause, we must ask the assistance of the Government, and I am not at all sure that we may not find, in some of the later efforts to make a complete Scottish legal dictionary, that there may be some improvements in some of the suggestions that we have made. There may be some criticism of the Amendment after what the Lord Advocate has just said, but I do not think that that excuses the Government from the necessity of seeing that the Scottish Clause is not disposed of before we have a complete guide of what the English words mean in Scotland.

Mr. R. W. SMITH

I understand the Lord Advocate to say that "mortgagee" means "heritable creditor." If that be so, the proper way to deal with this matter is to say that "mortgage" means "heritable security" and "mortgagee" means "heritable creditor," and then go on to describe "mortgage debt." It is ridiculous to put in just this one definition.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT

I venture to suggest that the Lord Advocate might meet my hon. Friends on this point. It is all very well to complain that their Amendment is not perfect. He has suggested a way of making it perfect; it is fairly obvious that the definition now in the Clause is imperfect, and I therefore ask him if he cannot deal with the matter by moving an Amendment to the Amendment to insert the word "heritable" before "creditor." That would dispose of the only argument he has put up against the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SKELTON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 5, to leave out from the word "accordingly" to the word "incumbrance" in line 7, and to insert instead thereof the words: 'land' means the 'dominium utile of land'; 'estate' means 'interest'; 'estate of a term of years' means 'interest of a person in right of a lease'; 'incorporeal hereditaments' means 'estate in land other than the dominium utile.' Our one desire is to have a complete guide for the Scottish Courts when they come to interpret the English words in this Bill. I do not want to pose as a learned lawyer in Scotland or anywhere else, but it is clear, if anyone has ever had any dealings with the procedure of Courts in Scotland, that time and again considerable trouble arise in approximating Scottish conditions to English language. That is an important reason for the Lord Advocate considering closely the words that are dealt with here. The Committee will see that the Amendment defines "land." I am not going to trouble the Committee with the definition; it may be too narrow or too broad, but I cannot help thinking that "land," which, so far as I know, is not a term of art in Scotland at all, should have some definition, especially in such a Bill as this. I am not going to plead that "dominium utile of land" is accurate and the right phrase, but it would take up too much time to tell the Committee what it means. "Estate" is a word that is perfectly well known with regard to real property in England, but it is not a word that is known to the law of Scotland at all. In Scotland, if you ask a Court to interpret "estate" in regard to heritable property, you ask them to do something which they have no judicial means of doing. Therefore, we have put in the Amendment what I have always understood to be the Scottish equivalent, that is, interest in land instead of estate in land. The Lord Advocate will consider whether that is right or wrong.

Then again, "estate of a term of years" has a highly technical meaning in England and is utterly unknown in Scotland. I should have said to begin with that in this Amendment we are dealing to some extent with words which are not defined at all in the Bill. On the last Amendment it could be said against us that it was only making an existing definition more elaborate, but here is a technical English phrase, "an estate of a term of years," which has got no meaning at all to Scottish lawyers. Surely it is not too much to ask the Law Officers, before this Bill has passed, and has to be interpreted by the Courts, to tell the Scottish Courts what, for the purposes of this Bill, these English phrases mean. I urge that point on the Lord Advocate, more particularly with reference to the phrase "estate of a term of years." In the same way I would draw his attention, without further elaborating the point, to the phrase "incorporeal hereditament"—if I am even pronouncing it right—which is a phrase quite unknown to the law of Scotland. I do not know what a Scottish Judge would say if he were called upon to decide whether something was or was not an incorporeal hereditament. Counsel would have the time of their lives, and there is no reason why the discussion should ever end. If the Bill were sedulously searched I am afraid the dictionary would have to be extended. There are phrases which demand that we should supply a proper lexicon before the Bill passes.

Sir F. THOMSON

I have one question to ask the Attorney-General. The Clause says: 'incorporeal hereditament' means 'incorporeal heritable right'. Will the Lord Advocate please give us an example of an incorporeal heritable right which is known to the law of Scotland? We have endeavoured, in the concluding part of our Amendment, to give a definition of "incorporeal hereditament" which I think might be satisfactory, but what does it mean? Does it mean servitudes or teinds? These are all obscure matters. Our one desire is to make things easy for the courts in Scotland. The only people in Scotland who are likely to get any profit out of the Bill are the members of the legal profession.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I rather gather that the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Shelton) does not really mean to press this Amendment to a Division, but has put it down in order to draw attention to the importance of definitions of the rather technical terms which have to be used in this Bill. May I say that I appreciate his intention and am very willing to inquire, between now and the Report stage, whether the expressions we use are adequate or not, and I will be very glad to confer with him and consider any representation he may choose to make. But may I point out that the definitions in the Amendment are utterly impossible? I do not want to enter into any controversy as we are going to consider the matter, but I would point out that it says: ' Land' means 'the dominium utile of land'. That looks innocuous, but if the Government had walked into that trap it would have had a most far-reaching repercussion upon the provisions of this Bill. I do not suggest that the Amendment was put down with any such purpose, but dominium utile is only one estate in land, and if we interpreted land as meaning the dominium utile the result would be that we should only value one estate in land, which would materially diminish the value. That shows the importance of scrutinising these points. I can deal with each of the points in the Amendment, but, as I am willing to consider them before the Report stage, perhaps the Committee would prefer that I should not go into them now.

Mr. SKELTON

I do hope the Lord Advocate will pay special attention to the phrase "estate of a term of years."

The LORD ADVOCATE

I do not think my hon. and learned Friend will find anywhere in the Bill that land means an "estate of a term of years." That is a misquotation. The late Attorney-General will be able to enlighten us upon it. It is rather a clumsy English term. There is very little doubt as to its meaning, but if it is thought it ought to be cleared up by definition we are prepared to consider the matter.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I do not think the Lord Advocate has taken this matter sufficiently seriously. This is not a technical point. It is a question of the language of the law of our country. Laws must be precise; when we deal with the rights of the people we must be perfectly definite. There are a number of terms in this Bill which have no meaning in Scotland and are not used in Scotland. Though I have a passing acquaintance with what is happening in England, there are many phrases here which I do not know how to interpret. When we are dealing with land rights in Scotland we ought to use Scottish terms which can be interpreted in Scottish law. I would remind the Lord Advocate of something said years ago by Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords when a term which is familiar enough in England, and not unfamiliar to us as borrowed from England—the term "a mortgage"—was used in a Scottish deed. Lord Dunedin laid great stress upon the fact that mortgage was a term which was meaningless in Scottish law, and said we must use Scottish expressions when dealing with Scottish rights. I do not know what Lord Dunedin would say if he read this page of the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE

If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the Bill he will find that we define "mortgage."

Sir R. HORNE

Yes, but I am only using that as an example. There are many other phrases here which are not interpreted at all. The Lord Advocate must admit that. If he is unwilling to admit it we can debate this for a very long time, and he will have very much greater difficulty in getting through the Clauses of the Bill. I would venture to utter a protest as to the way the Bill has been drawn up in regard to the rights of Scotland. If this kind of thing is to be accepted it is the first good argument I know for establishing a home rule Parliament in Scotland; but if that were to be done and we wished to defend the rights of Scotland and make things intelligible to the Scottish people there would have to be an entirely different set of people representing Scotland in that home rule Parliament from what we have here. In defining Scottish rights, obligations and burdens we must have terms of Scottish law, and I beg the Lord Advocate to take this criticism seriously, and not in the capricious fashion in which he has treated it, and give Scotland some appearance of receiving recognition in a matter of this importance.

Mr. MacLAREN

I cannot understand what is happening here. I look at the Bill and I find it says: 'Incorporeal hereditament' means 'incorporeal heritable right'. Then I look at the Amendment and I find it proposes that we should leave out those words. Some very naive or cunning Scottish lawyer has been at work. He suggests that after having deleted those words we should insert the statement that land means the "dominium utile of land." Why did they bring in this definition of land here? Why did they not attempt to bring in some Scottish legal definition for incorporeal hereditaments? Because the words they propose to insert, namely, "land means the dominium utile of land" have nothing to do with the words they are trying to interpret in Scottish legal phraseology. This "incorporeal hereditament" has nothing to do with the words which it is proposed to insert in their place. One has to be careful when these innocent Amendments are projected into a Bill. Instead of dominium utile, what about dominium directum? Utile here really means the tenant. [Interruption.] Oh yes it does, in Roman law. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is Scottish law!"] I agree, but Scotland has stuck very strictly to Roman law, and if this innocent little passage had been injected into the Bill it would have meant that the tenant would have been left chargeable with the tax and the directing owner would have got away scot free. This little Amendment was put forward by a gentleman with great foresight, a sunning and cubtle—[Laughter]—I mean cunning and subtle.

Mr. SKELTON

As the Mover of the Amendment, may I ask whether I am Mr. Sunning or Mr. Cubtle?

Mr. MacLAREN

With my Scottish doric, bad Latin and indifferent English I have tripped up. I suggest that the person behind this Amendment knew perfectly well what he was doing. There is a meaning for what in Scottish law is called an "incorporeal hereditament." Scotsmen can have no difficulty in taking the finest words the English lawyers have ever attempted to use in the Law Courts and twisting them to their own ends. Here the attempt is to leave out "incorporeal hereditament," and I aver that someone has put in this innocent Amendment to throw upon the tenant the full weight of the land tax.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP

The hon. Member has not read the Amendment. The last line of the Amendment deals with the point he is making.

Mr. MacLAREN

The Amendment we are discussing now is to delete the words "incorporeal hereditament" means "incorporeal hereditable right"——

Sir T. INSKIP

——and proposes to put in other words.

Mr. MacLAREN

Yes, but what is it that it is proposed to put it?

Sir T. INSKIP

The last line defines "incorporeal hereditament."

Mr. MacLAREN

To what line are you referring? I am dealing with the words on the Order Paper. You have in the Amendment a definition that land means the "dominium utile of land" and the words that follow are mere trimmings.

Mr. SKELTON

They are all serious definitions. The English phrase is put first and then what we regard as the equivalent Scottish phrases. Land is defined as the "dominium utile of land" and the term "incorporeal hereditaments" is defined as "estate in land other than the dominium utile."

Mr. MacLAREN

Perhaps I am attributing to the drafter of this Amendment more subtlety than I have a right to credit him with, but I think it is one of the cleverest things I have seen in the form of an Amendment.

Sir P. FORD

If the hon. Member had read the last words of the Amendment, he would see that they take the sting out of his argument, because the Amendment states that "incorporeal hereditaments" mean estate in land other than the dominium utile.

Mr. MacLAREN

Yes, the words are "other than the dominium utile," and I would like to know what that means. If the hon. and learned Member had used the phrase "dominium directum," I should have understood it. Not having done that, I suspected him of a very clever move which has not come off.

Sir T. INSKIP

If the Lord Advocate will turn to Clause 17 (1, a), he will see that it is provided that where the estate is a term of years.' There you have substantially the same expression as my hon. Friend has been seeking to define. If the Lord Advocate will look at Clause 17 (1, b) he will find the words: where the estate is an estate in fee simple, a perpetual rent charge issuing out of the land and accruing during the year of charge. To read that definition to a Scotsman would be like reading Hebrew to him unless you place upon it an interpretation.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON

It will, I think, be generally admitted that there has been a certain amount of confusion about these proposals, but the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has certainly enriched our vocabulary by describing the drafter of this Amendment as being "sunning and cubtle." The object of this Amendment is simply to apply a complete set of definitions to this Bill. I think it is a little unfortunate that in matters of such importance a definition of the words which are going to be applied to the legal rights of our fellow countrymen in Scotland should be waved aside, and postponed to some obscure confabulation behind the scenes and not decided in Committee. One of the terms of which a definition is most required is that which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) and the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) and which is where the estate is a term of years. That means nothing, and you are imposing upon the courts the added perplexity of having to deal with words that have no meaning at all. I submit that we ought to insist that there should be some attempt to define that term earlier than the Report stage, when it may be cluttered up with all the other efforts that will be necessary in order to produce some semblance of order in this chaotic Measure. I would like to ask what the Lord Advocate has in his mind as a suitable explanation of the expression "a term of years." I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a suitable definition of the phrase, "the estate is a term of years."

Mr. O'CONNOR

I suppose it may be considered to be out of order for an English Member to take part in a Debate upon Scottish terms of law. The definition has been given that, according to Scottish law, "incorporeal hereditaments" means incorporeal heritable rights. I would like to know if that is correct.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I suppose that incorporeal heritable rights and incorporeal hereditaments mean exactly the same thing.

Sir T. INSKIP

Does the Lord Advocate know what an incorporeal hereditament is?

Mr. SKELTON

The observation which the Lord Advocate has just made reminds me of a conversation which I had with a Scottish gillie in the far north of Scotland, when I asked him what was the meaning of the word "derg," and he replied that it meant just the same in English as it did in Gaelic.

Amendment negatived.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to move, in page 30, line 8, after the word "tenure," to insert the words "'agreement' includes "feu charter.'"

We have to give the word "agreement" a meaning, because it would obviously be impossible to have the restrictions imposed in a feu charter treated in a different way from the restrictions that are imposed in a feu contract. This is really a drafting matter in order to prevent ambiguity.

Sir R. HORNE

I find that in another part of the Bill the word "agreement" is used, and it appears in paragraph (g) of the First Schedule. In Clause 23 (2) it is provided that: where any agreement for any lease of land for a term of seven or more years has been produced to the commissioners. If in that case you substitute "feu charter," it will make nonsense of the law of Scotland.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I will undertake to look into that point in regard to the definition of the word "agreement."

Major MCKENZIE WOOD

The material word is "includes."

6.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT

Instead of simply dealing with this matter on the basis of looking into it between now and Report, would it not be possible 6.0 p.m. to deal with it now in the Bill, so that it can be altered, if desired, on Report? The difficulty is, as the Lord Advocate knows, that we are working under a very close schedule, and the Report stage will be telescoped into a very short period. In view of the possibility of moving the words out on Report, it would be possible now to put in a manuscript Amendment dealing with the point. That would not do any harm, and it would be desirable from our point of view, and particularly from the point of view of those in Scotland who will read this Debate, that they should have the words before them.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am not sure, after what has been said, that the matter really requires any further consideration, because the Amendment says that the term "agreement" includes "feu charter." That does not limit the meaning of the word. What it does is to say that, when you are dealing with a feu charter, it is to be deemed an agreement, although in form it is not an agreement. Accordingly, as the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) has said, no point arises if you have regard to the word "includes" in this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SKELTON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 8, after the words last inserted, to insert the words: 'curtilage' means 'parts pertinents and privileges'; and the words and expressions used in this Section which are interpreted in the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, shall, save as hereby qualified, have the meaning assigned thereto, respectively, by that Act. The first part of this Amendment represents almost a last effort to get something like a proper lexicon. I think that the Lord Advocate, and even the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren, will agree that here there is no room for those horrible suspicions which the latter hon. Gentleman seems to entertain. The only word that we are seeking to define here is the word "curtilage." It is absolutely unknown in the law of Scotland. To my mind it suggests a sort of development of Mrs. Caudle's Curtain Lectures, and certainly it is unknown in Scots law. I am told that the reason why it needs no definition is because, in certain Statutes common to the two countries, it has already slipped in without definition. Whether that is so or not I have not had an opportunity of verifying, but if, as I suspect, it is the case, it is surely only another reason for defining it when we have the chance to do so. If I may use our familiar Scottish phrase, this is an opportunity for "redding up" a little bit of a mess which has been made in previous Acts, and I commend this proposal to the Lord Advocate on that ground. I do not pretend to say positively that the precise equivalent is "parts, pertinents and privileges." I think it is, and those whom I have consulted think it is, but I am by no means pragmatical about it, and if the Lord Advocate tells us that this is not the right expression, I would ask him to let us have the right words; but do not let us fail to take this opportunity of clearing the matter up, both in this Statute and in others.

With regard to the second part of the Amendment— the words and expressions used in this Section which are interpreted in the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, shall, save as hereby qualified, have the meaning assigned thereto, respectively, by that Act "— the point is obvious. Where we have a lexicon, let us make use of it, and this is a shorthand way of dealing with the general question—it is a way of dealing with such other English phrases as may have escaped our notice. My own view is that this is a matter which it is specially important to put right, because it is clear even to the Scots lawyer that "curtilage" has something to do with the open ground round dwelling-places and towns, and I believe that that is the fact. If so, it is going to be a matter of considerable importance in the Bill, with regard to both valuation and taxation, and it would be absurd if we were asked to tax curtilages in Scotland and no one could discover what a curtilage was.

The LORD ADVOCATE

We considered this matter of the definition of "curtilage," and we came to the conclusion that it was better to leave the word undefined. The difficulty about definition is that the word has no very definite meaning, as I understand, in the law of England, and, accordingly, it is very dangerous to attempt to define an expression which in the law of England is itself indefinite. It is perfectly true that "curtilage" is not a term of art in Scotland, but, on the other hand, it has crept into statutes which apply to Scotland, and, that being the position, we thought it better to leave the word with, it may be, a very indefinite meaning. If you are dealing with an indefinite thing, it is far better to leave the definition of it. If a thing is definite it is capable of definition.

Sir P. FORD

Is the tax indefinite?

The LORD ADVOCATE

The hon. Gentleman will see when he comes to pay it. We also consider that the words "parts, pertinents and privileges," which are suggested in the Amendment, are not satisfactory, but, as we are willing, at the request of hon. Members opposite, to reconsider the whole question of definition, we will consider whether it is better to leave the word "curtilage" undefined, or whether we should attempt a definition. My own view is in favour of leaving it undefined, just because it is an indefinite thing.

The other part of the Amendment cannot be accepted. The proposal is that the words and expressions which are interpreted in the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, shall, save as thereby qualified, have the meaning assigned to them respectively by that Act. We cannot accept that proposal, and for a very simple reason. In this Bill, certain terms are given meanings which are different from the meanings which are ordinarily used. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am not discussing whether that is wise or not; I am stating the fact. For example, the term "owner" is given a meaning in the Bill which may be right or may be wrong, but, that being the position, the Committee will appreciate that you cannot just incorporate statutory definitions from the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924.

There is one conclusive reason against this Amendment. We propose, by an Amendment which appears later on the Paper, to put a ground annual in the same position as a feu duty. That raises a larger issue, which will have to be dis- cussed when we come to that Amendment. Under the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, "heritable security," which is our definition of "mortgage," includes a ground annual, and, accordingly, if we were to fall into the trap—I do not say it was designedly laid—of defining our terms with reference to the Act of 1924, the result would be that the debtor in a ground annual would be debarred from passing the tax back to the creditor under the contract of ground annual. I agree that these definitions have to be considered with very great care, and I undertake to consider this matter along with the others. I hope that, with that undertaking, the hon. Member will not press the matter further.

Sir F. THOMSON

While we are on the subject of definitions in these earlier Acts, perhaps I might point out to the Lord Advocate that, in the Lands Consolidation Act, 1868, I find that: The word 'creditor' shall include the party in whose favour a heritable security is granted and his successors in right thereof. This is more relevant, I admit, than the first Amendment, but it completely answers the Lord Advocate's criticism of the use of the word "creditor."

Sir T. INSKIP

One of the Lord Advocate's observations has thrown a good deal of light on the way in which this Bill is drafted. He replied to the interjection of one of my hon. Friends that he would find out what the tax means when he came to pay it. That is a principle which, we have long suspected, underlies this Bill. But the Lord Advocate not only suggested that it was quite clear and proper that we should not know until we had to pay what the Bill means; he told us that he does not know what the Bill means.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I said nothing of the kind. While one welcomes the intervention of an English Member in dealing with Scottish law, I hope he will take the trouble to be accurate when he does intervene.

Sir T. INSKIP

The right hon. Gentleman's truculence will not prevent me from intervening in these Debates, and I have two or three very good reasons for doing so. First of all, it is interesting that we should have the indirect illumination which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the other part of the Bill, and that we should see what it illuminates. My second justification for intervening is that I am a resident in Scotland, a ratepayer in Scotland, and a voter in Scotland, and I think that that justifies my interposition. I will justify what I said when I declared that the right hon. Gentleman admits that he does not know what the Bill means. He justified the refusal to attempt to define "curtilage" by saying that it was an indefinable term, and that it was better not to attempt to define that which was indefinable—that if a thing is indefinable it is very difficult for anyone to know what it means. If England Members will turn to Sub-section (3, b) of Clause 8, they will find that the word "curtilage" is part of the necessary description of that which is to be valued by the gentleman who will undertake the valuation of this land. It says: The site of the building (with its curtilage) shall be a land unit. If we had been discussing this Bill under ordinary conditions, we should, no doubt, have had a discussion on that Clause, and we might have pressed the Solicitor-General as to the meaning of the word "curtilage." It is all very well, when you are not speaking in exact terms or dealing with matters of precise importance, to use the expression "curtilage," but, when Parliament is defining the subject-matter of a valuation, surely it is necessary to ascertain the precise delimitations of that which is to be the subject of valuation. The Lord Advocate says that he is not able to define "curtilage." If he is not able to define "curtilage," how will the valuer be able to define "curtilage"; and, if the valuer cannot define "curtilage," how will the taxpayer know what he is entitled to have valued as a part of the land unit.

The Lord Advocate's admissions show that in Sub-section (3, b) of Clause 8 we have passed a phrase of which nobody can tell the precise meaning. That seems to suggest that, now that we have an opportunity of dealing with the law as regards Scotland, we should at any rate have some definition of that phrase. It may be too late until the Report stage to deal with the expression as referring to England, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's admission makes it more than ever necessary that we should lay down some meaning for a phrase which is undefinable in English law, and which is unknown to Scots law, apparently, except that, to use the right hon. Gentleman's expression, it has crept into a Scottish Act of Parliament. I hope that the Government, for the sake of the taxpayer, if not for the credit of the Lord Advocate, will do their best to ascertain what they mean by this word in their own Bill. Until they take some pains not merely to define, but to understand and to be able to explain what the Bill means, it ought not to be possible to pass the Clause, though I am afraid the Guillotine will compel us to pass it whether we understand it or not. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make another attempt here and now to tell us what "curtilage" means either in English or in Scots law.

Sir D. HERBERT

Although I am neither a ratepayer nor a voter in Scotland, I maintain my right to intervene in this discussion. We had not an opportunity of raising this question as to the meaning of curtilage on Clause 8, and now we have from a Minister of the Crown the most amazing statement without exception that I have ever heard made by any Minister even of the present Government. Clearly one has to rub one's eyes to see whether one is really awake when we hear language which might tend to make one think we were trying to pass and to sell, not an Act of Parliament, but a work of fiction for people to read themselves to sleep. A Scottish Law Officer tells us that a subject that is to be valued for the purposes of taxation as set out in this Bill is something the meaning of which is unknown, and he proposes to decline to attempt to define what that subject is that is to be valued and taxed. The Attorney-General not long ago referred to the difficulty of construing Acts of Parliament relating to taxes, and now we have a Scottish Law Officer who proposes to add to them, confessedly, by not attempting to define something of which he says the meaning is doubtful. He is trying to pass an uncertain Act of Parliament which, on his own admission, can only have the result of trying to get the courts to decide something the meaning of which this House apparently has not been given an opportunity of deciding. We have had protests enough against the evil of throwing upon private individuals the expense of interpreting doubtful Acts of Parliament. Surely it is time we protested against this attempted proposal to pass an uncertain enactment in regard to which the Government themselves say the meaning is not clear. The Lord Advocate has said the Government propose to take into consideration this question of the definition of Scottish law terms. I take the opportunity of suggesting that he should see that his colleagues in the Government before Report come down with some Amendment which will alter Clause 8 so as to get rid of that doubtful word "curtilage."

Mr. MACQU1STEN

I sympathise with the Lord Advocate, because he said that the word "curtilage" was vague and neither he nor any member of his profession knows what it means. I agree that it is vague, but is not that the very reason why we should seize the opportunity of defining it? Is he going to leave it to the valuers or the tax assessors and then come along to the wretched taxpayer and threaten him with a curtilage, which will terrify the poor man into thinking he is to be landed in heavy expense? He will not know what It means either. It will be used by the tax gatherers, no doubt, to exact something which is probably not due. I invite the Lord Advocate to take counsel with the Solicitor-General and see if they cannot together invent a proper definition which will convey to the taxpayer what he is to be taxed on. In criminal law, if you charge a man with something and you cannot define the crime, there is an end to the proceedings. Surely this is legislation gone mad. I have been in one or two Houses of Commons before, and I have said of this House of Commons that it was the nearest thing to a mental hospital. In 1924 an Act was passed, after conference with all the most eminent conveyancers in Scotland, who took counsel and very materially amended the conveyancing law of Scotland. That is the very thing that is scouted in this hurried Bill without definitions, which was conceived by class prejudice out of Henry George.

Mr. BOOTHBY

The Government are falling into increasing disrepute in the country, and the disheartening and alarming thing is that they are bringing the House into discredit and disrepute also. Every Member of the House is being involved in the failures and the discreditable performances of the Government which go on day after day. I am not sure, after listening to the Debate, that the effect upon the mental stability of Members on all sides of the House is not becoming very serious. If this is the sort of thing the Government ask us to discuss, and if this is the method by which they ask us to push it through the House, can you blame anyone for refusing to take the Debate seriously? On this occasion, we are discussing the definition of a term that is used in the English section of the Bill, and which English Members were never able to discuss, because, under the Guillotine, it was never reached. Things have reached their final pitch of farce when the Government ask us to tax curtilages. We ask them to define curtilage, and the Lord Advocate says you cannot define curtilage because it is an undefined thing.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

"Indefinite."

The LORD ADVOCATE

I adhere to every word I said, and I would ask the hon. Member to treat the matter seriously.

Mr. BOOTHBY

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it good legislation, or good policy, to impose taxation upon an indefinite thing and, when hon. Members ask him to be a little more definite, merely to say, "You will find out what it is when you have to pay the money"? It is obvious what will happen. We shall go on trying to press for some form of definition, we shall get no definition, the Guillotine will fall, and the Clause will go through. If the Bill ever reaches the Statute Book, it will enrich the lawyers for the next 20 years. That is the only contribution that it will make to the welfare of the country. We cannot even get from the Government a clear definition of what they intend, not only on this Clause but on any others. We ought to go on pressing the Lord Advocate as long as we can to give us some idea of what the Government intend to tax under this Clause. I should have thought it was an elementary principle of taxation that the people of the country have a right to be told what it is that they are going to be taxed upon.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

The Lord Advocate has asked us to be serious, and therefore I want to put this question to him seriously. Can he now give us a definite answer, one way or the other, whether he will accept this definition or not? It has stood upon the Order Paper for 36 hours or more. He is the legal representative for Scotland and ought by now to have acquainted himself with the facts of the case, and to be in a position to say whether he is prepared to answer or not. There is no justification whatever for his saying that he ought to have time to consider the matter further before the Report stage. Therefore, I ask him whether he is not in a position to tell us, at once and direct, whether these words ought to be inserted or not. It is grossly unfair not to give a direct answer at once when we are working under the Guillotine procedure. If he tries to pass all these things over to the Report stage, it will take up time then which will be very valuable, and they will be brought forward under conditions in which discussion cannot be as free as now.

I have listened for some time to the answers of the Lord Advocate, and a more pitiable spectacle I have seldom seen in these Debates. [Interruption.] I say quite definitely, if I am not out of order, that the Lord Advocate, in giving the answers he has given, is a pitiable spectacle on the Government Front Bench. When we put questions upon definite points to the Solicitor-General on the earlier Clauses, the Solicitor-General had always taken the trouble to read the Bill, and, whether we agreed with him or not, he took the trouble to get up the facts and to be ready with an answer for us. As far as anyone can judge, the Lord Advocate has not even taken the trouble to master the Bill. On this occasion we have asked him about a point which he clearly ought to have known, and it is an injustice to this side of the 'Committee not to give an answer but merely to try and put it off.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I have no intention of replying to the gross personal attack which the right hon. Gentleman in default of argument, and being bankrupt of any ideas, has made upon me. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman has been awaiting what he regarded as a favourable opportunity for unburdening himself of his spleen. I should have scant respect for the office I hold if I thought that a speech of that kind deserved reply, and let me tell him here and now, and to his face, that I intend to treat his speech with the indifference and contempt it deserves.

Major COLVILLE

It is with great diffidence that a layman intervenes in a Debate of this kind, but at least he can take some heart from the fact that the lawyers cannot interpret their own language. When a time table was being fixed, I can recall the Lord Advocate saying that this Act would not merely have to be paraphrased to refer to Scotland, but that there would have to be a special adaptation. I ask him this uestion: What is the adaptation of the word "curtilage" in Scotland? The fact that it cannot be defined in England is no reason why he should accept it as far as Scotland is concerned if it cannot be defined there. We wish to know why we have such scant treatment from the Law Officers of the Crown relating to Scottish matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been very helpful this afternoon. I am not making a personal attack or anything of that kind. The right hon. and learned Member is rather touchy about it. During the two and a-half hours' discussion all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done is to say that he will give consideration to certain points. He has made no concessions whatever and has given no definition when we have asked him, and he will not accept our definition although he will not give one himself. He has been very unhelpful in this matter. If ever proof were required that time is far too short for the discussion of Scottish matters, we have had it in the two and a-half hours' discussion this afternoon.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 264.

Division No. 329.]	AYES.	[6.38 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Ferguson, Sir John	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Albery, Irving James	Fielden, E. B.	O'Connor, T. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Ford, Sir P. J.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Atholl, Duchess of	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Peake, Captain Osbert
Atkinson, C.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Penny, Sir George
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Ganzonl, Sir John	Perkins, W. R. D.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gower, Sir Robert	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Ramsbotham, H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Held, David D. (County Down)
Boyce, Leslie	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Remer, John R.
Bracken, B.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Briscoe, Richard George	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Salmon, Major I.
Buchan, John	Hammersley, S. S.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hanbury, C.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hartington, Marquess of	Savery, S. S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Campbell, E. T.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Skelton, A. N.
Carver, Major W. H.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Smithers, Waldron
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Heward-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hurd, Percy A.	Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Colville, Major D. J.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Thompson, Luke
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Thomson, Sir F.
Cooper, A. Duff	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Train, J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Cranborne, Viscount	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Croom, Johnson, R. P.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Wayland, Sir William A.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Wells, Sydney R.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Macquisten, F. A.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dawson, Sir Philip	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Withers, Sir John James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Meller, R. J.	Womersley, W. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S. M.)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Major the Marquess of Titchfield
Everard, W. Lindsay	Muirhead, A. J.	and Sir Victor Warrender.

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Bowen, J. W.	Cowan, D. M.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Broad, Francis Alfred	Cripps, Sir Stafford
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Brockway, A. Fanner	Daggar, George
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Bromfield, William	Dallas, George
Alpass, J. H.	Bromley, J.	Dalton, Hugh
Ammon, Charles George	Brooke, W.	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Angell, Sir Norman	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Arnott, John	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Aske, Sir Robert	Buchanan, G.	Day, Harry
Attlee, Clement Richard	Burgess, F. G.	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ayles, Walter	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Dukes, C.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Cameron, A. G.	Duncan, Charles
Barnes, Alfred John	Cape, Thomas	Ede, James Chuter
Barr, James	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Edmunds, J. E.
Batey, Joseph	Charleton, H. C.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Chater, Daniel	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Church, Major A. G.	Egan, W. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Clarke, J. S.	Elmley, Viscount
Benson, G.	Cluse, W. S.	Foot, Isaac
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Cove, William G.	Gardner, J. p. (Hammersmith, N.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Logan, David Gilbert	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Longbottom, A. W.	Sanders, W. S.
Gill, T. H.	Longden, F.	Sandham, E.
Gillett, George M.	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Sawyer, G. F.
Glassey, A. E.	Lunn, William	Sexton, Sir James
Gossling, A. G.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Gould, F.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McElwee, A.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	McEntee, V. L.	Sherwood, G. H.
Gray, Milner	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Shield, George William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	MacLaren, Andrew	Shillaker, J. F.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Shinwell, E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Simmons, C. J.
Groves, Thomas E.	McShane, John James	Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Grundy, Thomas W.	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Sinkinson, George
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Manning, E. L.	Sitch, Charles H.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Mansfield, W.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	March, S.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Marcus, M.	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Markham, S. F.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Harris, Percy A.	Marley, J.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Marshall, Fred	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Haycock, A. W.	Mathers, George	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Hayes, John Henry	Matters, L. W.	Sorensen, R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Maxton, James	Stamford, Thomas W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Messer, Fred	Stephen, Campbell
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Middleton, G.	Strauss, G. R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Mills, J. E.	Sullivan, J.
Herriotts, J.	Milner, Major J.	Sutton, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Montague, Frederick	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hoffman, P. C.	Morley, Ralph	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hollins, A.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Tillett, Ben
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Mort, D. L.	Tinker, John Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Muff, G.	Toole, Joseph
Isaacs, George	Muggeridge, H. T.	Tout, W. J.
Jenkins, Sir William	Murnin, Hugh	Townend, A. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Nathan, Major H. L.	Vaughan, David
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Noel Baker, P. J.	Viant, S. P.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Walkden, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)	Oldfield, J. R.	Walker, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Wallace, H. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Palin, John Henry.	Watkins, F. C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Palmer, E. T.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Kelly, W. T.	Perry, S. F.	Wellock, Wilfred
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Kinley, J.	Phillips, Dr. Marion	West, F. R.
Kirkwood, D.	Plcton-Turbervill, Edith	Westwood, Joseph
Knight, Holford	Pole, Major D. G.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lang, Gordon	Potts, John S.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Price, M. P.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Quibell, D. J. K.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Raynes, W. R.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lawrence, Susan	Richards, R.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Ritson, J.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Leach, W.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Romerll, H. G.	Wise, E. F.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Lees, J.	Rothschild, J. de	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Leonard, W.	Rowson, Guy
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Paling.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to move, in page 30, line 12, to leave out "1929," and to insert instead thereof "1930."

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

This slip in the Bill is typical of the sloppy drafting in every part of the Bill. It is particularly typical of the drafting of this Clause. It is disgraceful that the Government cannot draft a Bill, but it is characteristic of their legislation during the past two years. It is utterly wrong that the House of Commons should have legislation sent to it in this way. It is a disgrace to the Government and to this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. THOMSON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 21, to leave out paragraph (h).

This paragraph relates to Clause 11 (6) in which there is provision for appeals from valuations. That Sub-section provides that A referee may order that the cost of any appeal to him incurred by any party to the appeal be paid by any other party thereto, and any such order as to costs shall have effect as if it were an order of the High Court, save that it shall not be enforced as such except by leave of that court or of a judge thereof. There is no such provision as regards Scotland. If an order of a referee cannot be enforced in England without leave of the High Court, why should not the same rule prevail in Scotland? Will not the Lord Advocate leave the law for Scotland exactly as it is for England in regard to this matter? A decree arbitral can be recorded only if there has been agreement between the parties. It is only in these circumstances that execution or summary enforcement can follow. Otherwise, the arbiter has no power to enforce an order. A decree arbitral can be recorded only if in the submission to the arbiter there is a clause agreed to by both parties consenting to registration for execution. The whole thing depends upon consent. I do not see why an order of a referee in regard to costs should be on a different footing in Scotland than in England. If such an order is made in Scotland, as in England, it should not be enforced as such except by leave of the Court. Therefore, I hope that the Lord Advocate will consent to making the law, which may be of great importance to many individuals, uniform, in the two countries.

The LORD ADVOCATE

This is purely a point of procedure. The Clause is right as it stands. If we were to insert a provision requiring such matters to go to the Court of Session, it would be departing from the recognised procedure in Scotland. The effect of the Clause is that when a referee makes an order as to costs, as he is entitled to do under the provisions of the Bill, that order can be summarily enforced, and if we were to require an application to the Court for confirmation, it would mean that we should have to proceed by way of action, which is alien to our Scottish procedure. After this explanation, I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to move, in page 30, line 29, to insert the words: () For Sub-section (2) of Section eleven there shall be substituted the following:— (2) Within such time as may be prescribed by rules made under this Section, after a notice of refusal has been served upon any person under the last foregoing Sub-section, that person may appeal from the refusal to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and any party to such appeal, if aggrieved by the decision of the referee, may appeal therefrom to the lands valuation judges appointed under the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts, whose decision shall be final, and the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts in regard to stating and signing a case on appeal shall apply to the referee in the same way and to the same effect as they apply to a land valuation appeal court under the provisions of the said Acts.

As the Amendment stands on the Order Paper, it is to leave out paragraph (i) and to insert the new paragraph. To leave out paragraph (i) would be more than I desire to do, because that would remove entirely the discretion of the High Court. With permission—I have previously consulted the Deputy-Chairman—I wish to move the Amendment in the new form. I desire to raise two points of very great substance. Under Clause 11 (2), it is provided that both for England and Scotland there is no right of appeal on facts. There is only a right of appeal on points of law. In my Amendment, I propose that there shall be an appeal, not merely on points of law, but on points of fact, and I propose for Scotland an appropriate tribunal, which will steer a middle course. Clause 11 (2) provides, unlike the Finance Act, 1910, which provides for an appeal to the High Court, that a person aggrieved may appeal to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance Act, 1910, and the decision of the referee is to be final, subject to special cases being stated where required on points of law to the Court of Session in Scotland, or, if the cases are less than £500 in value, to the Sheriff Court.

The panel of referees is to be appointed for Scotland by a reference committee and the persons to be appointed by that reference committee must be fellows of the Surveyors' Institute or other persons having experience in the valuation of land. There will be very great difficulties in carrying out the valuation under the Bill in the way of machinery, and not merely in the interpretation of the law. There will be legitimate differences between the valuator and the taxpayer as to matters of fact. The valuation of land, especially in the large areas where the circumstances are very diversified, are bound to be intensified. Where the valuation is to be made on the assumption that the buildings on the site are non-existent, there will be no exact science in the valuation and, therefore, there must be a very large scope for legitimate differences of opinion as between the valuator on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. Difficult questions will arise apart from questions of law. There is no guidance on principle, precedence or practice in this matter.

We are all working in the dark, not merely framing the law but setting up tribunals which have had no experience of this kind of thing either in England or in Scotland, and we ought to be very careful to safeguard the rights of the taxpayer. There is nothing to guide the referees in their work. In cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow it will not be one referee on the panel that will do the work, but each particular referee will bring his own private judgment to bear on the cases that come before him. There will be no uniformity.

Mr. MacLAREN

I hope the hon. Member is not making a charge against the Scottish assessors. They know pretty well the matters to be covered.

Mr. BROWN

My reply to the hon. Member is that he has not followed my argument. I am making no charge against the assessors. I have made that clear. They know their business, but the circumstances in Edinburgh and Glasgow differ so greatly, even inside one street, that it is quite possible there may be great diversity of opinions given, and rightly given, according to the facts brought before the particular referees. It will do the hon. Member and his friends no good to try to avoid difficulties. There will be difficulties. An appeal to the Court of Session on points of law will not touch the difficulties to which I have referred. The prime injustices will not he on points of law but on points of fact. The Bill will raise innumerable points of fact. The hon. Member must agree that the suggested new Clause, on a mathematical basis, is bound to raise more problems of fact than the original draft of the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Therefore, the Committee ought to realise that there must be an appeal for the aggrieved citizen on other than points of law. In the experience under the Derating Act there is powerful argument for such a course. If there had been no appeal on points of fact under that Act, there would have been immense trouble and injustice. The machinery ought to be so devised as to minimise trouble and injustice. My Amendment seeks the middle way. It gives a modified form of appeal. It provides for an appeal to the lands valuation judges of Scotland, a tribunal which is the final tribunal in Scotland under the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts. It had its being in the year 1854. It understands this problem and will therefore be able to stabilise by its vast knowledge over this long period of years, the whole body of practice for the whole of Scotland. It is a tribunal which is universally regarded as being fair and a tribunal with an accurate knowledge of the problems of valuation. The Corporation of Edinburgh feel very strongly about this matter, and other bodies are also concerned with matters of fact. This will be cheaper and quicker, will be rooted in Scottish 7.0 p.m. valuation practice, and will establish to a large extent the principles and practice of valuation all over the country. I hope we shall not be told that it is not necessary to have an appeal or that, if it is necessary, it should be brought into conformity with the Income Tax appeal in Great Britain. This is a case where Scottish law and practice demand a separate court, and I shall have the sympathy of the Committee with me on the major point, namely, that there ought to be an appeal on such vast new procedure, not merely on points of law but on points of fact.

Sir P. FORD

I am very happy to support this Amendment. As the hon. Member has already explained, the reason why a small alteration in the form of the Amendment was permitted was that we did not want to rule out the paragraph in the Bill which permits appeals on points of law to the High Court and county courts and to the Court of Session and the sheriff court. It seemed to us that it would be a pity to have points of law turned on to the Lands Valuation Court, which has more strictly defined topics to deal with. We, therefore, decided not to press for the removal of that paragraph and I am at one with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in pressing for the main part of this Amendment. It is not founded on the view of theorists, but on the view of people with more practical experience than the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) who believe that there is a need to have a system of appeal to a competent court in order to have something approaching uniformity in the decisions arrived at on kindred subjects in this new and technical valuation. On the one hand, then, we feel that, where the law will require careful consideration, it would be a pity to rule out an appeal on those subjects to the Court of Session and the sheriff court. On the other hand, we feel that, when we are dealing with such a technical subject in which, as has been pointed out by the reporters to the Edinburgh Corporation, one has to assume conditions almost humanly impossible to assume and, in doing so, one cannot be sure whether under the Statute one is right to make those assumptions and when one has to make those assumptions in a great city like Edinburgh, there are bound to be differences between the referee and the person asked to accept his view and between the different referees. It is therefore, most important that one should have what is at once a cheap, speedy and efficient remedy. All the history of this Lands Valuation Court has gone to build it up in the confidence of the people of Scotland. This is a very important matter both for the easier working of the Bill and for justice to the citizens of Scotland. As we have decided not to ask for the removal of paragraph (i) which refers to the High Court and Court of Session, that will entail the Lord Advocate going back and making a slight extension in Sub-section (3) of Clause 25. It there says: Any appeal to the High Court under this Part of the Act shall be to a single judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor. It is perfectly obvious that, in applying a similar provision to Scotland, we shall have to put in a form of words which will show that instead of the Lord Chancellor we mean the Lord President of the Court of Session. I mention this be- cause we should hardly have been doing our duty if, in bringing forward this Amendment, we did not mention what came casually to our notice to-day. I would point out the futility of proceeding with this Bill under the Guillotine when we find out things like that, which are due to the ridiculous way in which the application Clauses are drafted and to the way in which the Guillotine falls. I would conclude by strongly urging the Lord Advocate to accept this Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) undoubtedly raises a point of very great importance, upon which the Government would be quite prepared to take the view of the Committee, but we think it right that the Committee should apperciate what exactly this Amendment means. If this Amendment were given effect to, the result would be two-fold. In the first place, you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England you are only going to allow appeals on questions of law.

Mr. E. BROWN

It ought to be done there.

The LORD ADVOCATE

At any rate, it has not been done. What I am concerned to point out to the Committee is that you will be making an anomaly on that point. There is an additional and more serious objection. If you accepted the Amendment proposed, the result would be that the Valuation Appeal Court would be the final court of appeal. There is a very great deal to be said no doubt for that, but the Committee will keep in view that they are here dealing with a tax imposed by an Imperial Statute and that it is in the highest degree undesirable that one should have judges in Scotland taking one view of the provisions of the Act and judges in England taking another view. That difficulty arose under the De-rating Act, and it led to consequences of the most inconvenient kind. If this provision is going to be accepted by the Committee, it would be desirable that we should insert a provision which would secure the right of appeal to the House of Lords, because, if you do not do that, you are going to have inevitable divergences of judicial interpertation of the terms of a Statute which applies to both countries. When you are dealing with a taxing Statute, nothing could be more undesirable. It does not matter in the least that you do not get appeals from the Valuation Court to the House of Lords at the present time, because it deals with matters affecting Scotland only, but, when you come to a matter affecting both countries, then the situation is altered. If the Committee agree with me in thinking that the right of appeal to the House of Lords should be maintained, then it is for the Committee to consider whether it is not desirable that we should maintain uniformity for both countries in this matter. I think it would be wrong to allow appeals on fact in Scotland and refuse them in England. This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee. If it is the will of the Committee that this should be considered, we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider the matter and to embody the collective view in a Clause which would deal with the whole situation. If that would meet the wish of the Committee, then I suggest the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN

Do I understand the Lord Advocate to say that he wants a free vote in order to get the mind of the Committee or that he wants it later on Report? It is very serious because there ought to be for all citizens, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, a right of appeal on fact. If the Lord Advocate will leave it to a free vote of the Committee, I am prepared to go to a Division., but I am not prepared to leave it to a vague statement that later on we may have something. It is a point of great substance and will be so felt in the country when it is understood. It is not understood at the present moment that there is no right of appeal. This point is taken very seriously by those associated with me. As to the House of Lords, I cannot see any objection, because I cannot imagine the valuation judges not having regard to what is hapenning in England. Therefore, on points of law, the high court of Scotland will have its say and there might be an appeal from the valuation judges to the House of Lords. The Government will be wise if, in order to help their own valuation and in order to give a sense of justice to those affected, they accept the Amendment subject to revision on the Report stage.

Sir P. FORD

What is the Lord Advocate proposing to do? Is the idea that he, with the Attorney-General, is going, on the Report stage, to produce a Clause applicable to the corresponding cases in both countries? If so, when does he want to leave it to a free vote of the House? These are the questions I want to ask the Lord Advocate.

The LORD ADVOCATE

We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment, but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands, because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries.

Sir D. HERBERT

This is an important matter from the point of view of England. As far as I know we have nothing in this country equivalent to the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, or to the lands valuation judges. Has the Lord Advocate any idea how it is possible, without the institution of land valuation judges in this country, to coordinate the procedure in the two countries, and to what judges does he suggest there should be an appeal in England on questions of fact? I agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in regard to an appeal on questions of fact, and I hope it will be possible for it to be done. I hope the Government will make some arrangements which will give the citizens in England the same right of appeal on questions of fact as it is proposed to give to the people of Scotland.

Mr. E. BROWN

I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate, He may find it undesirable to have these amateur words in the Bill, but, on the understanding that he will meet the point of substance, both with regard to England and Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw.

Sir T. INSKIP

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I think we should have a clear understanding on this matter. As I understand it, the way the matter is left is that the consideration which is to be given to the Scottish position, with a view to giving an appeal on questions of fact, will also apply to England. If the President of the Board of Trade is able to confirm that, we may dispose of this Amendment in the appropriate fashion. I was under the impression that that was the understanding. It is most desirable that the matter should be cleared up one way or the other, and, after what the Lord Advocate has said as to the desirability of having the same system in the two countries, I hope I may get the assurance for which I am asking.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The hon. and learned Member must not tie me down in a matter of this kind because there are important differences as between the procedure in Scotland and the procedure in England. In England there is an appeal to a single judge, but in Scotland an appeal of this kind is an appeal to three judges. I cannot give any undertaking in matters of this kind, but I am quite prepared to give the undertaking that we appreciate the importance of securing uniformity in matters of this kind. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press me further.

Sir T. INSKIP

What the Lord Advocate has said is quite sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir R. HORNE

I beg to move, in page 30, line 30, at the beginning, to insert the words: Section twenty-six shall not apply and I have one or two other Amendments on this Clause, and I hope I may be able to refer to them on this Amendment. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will agree with me that the language used throughout the whole of Clause 26 is language which does not apply at all to the law of Scotland. For example, there is no reference to the system of feuing. It begins by a reference to land subject to a lease granted for a term of years. No doubt some people think that the feuing system in Scotland is a type of leasehold, but, in fact, it has nothing whatever to do with leasehold, and therefore that Clause does not apply. If you read farther on in the same Clause, you find a reference to the estate owner, a person whose existence we do not recognise in Scotland, and there is also an important paragraph, paragraph (b) of the same Clause, which has no reference whatsoever to anything we know in Scotland. Indeed, there is nothing in the Clause which would preserve the right of the Scottish taxpayer unless something is introduced in the nature of the proposals I have on the Paper. I have, for instance, a proposal to introduce a new paragraph (k) (ii) into this Clause which reads: (ii) where under Section nine of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, a personal right to any land unit has vested in an heir by his survivance of the person to whom he is entitled to succeed, such heir shall not be deemed to be the owner of such land unit if he shall, within the period of six months after the succession has opened to him, renounce the succession, but after the lapse of said period of six months, if he shall not have renounced the succession, such heir shall be deemed for the purpose of the charge of the tax to have been the owner as from the date when the succession opened to him. May I explain what this means. In Clause 26, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), we find that where under Section nine of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, the estate of any person who died intestate is vested in the Probate Judge, that judge shall not be deemed to be the owner of any land unit comprised in the estate, but upon administration being granted in respect thereof the administrator shall be deemed for the purposes of the charge of the tax to have been the owner as from the date of the death. Land in Scotland when the owner dies does not fall into the hands of the administrator at all, and there is no such person as a Probate Judge who has anything to do with it. The position is that the heir succeed to the property and, therefore, the Amendment I suggest is to put the Scottish heir, according to the Scottish system, into the same position of privilege as to the period at which his ownership is taken up. In England his ownership, and therefore his liability, does not begin until administration has been granted in his favour. If you wish to apply a similar rule for Scotland to an heir to heritable property, he is in this position. In former days he succeeded, and if he took up the succession he became liable to all the debts and obligations of the previous owner, no matter how small the value of the property might be, if he took it up. A more lenient law passed some years ago made him liable only to the extent of the property taken up, and he had a year, what is called an annus deliberandi, to decide whether he should take up the succession. In later times that period was limited to six months, and now the heir, while he automatically succeeds to the property, need not say for six months whether he will take up the succession, and during those six months no creditors can act against the property.

I suggest that my proposal in paragraph (k) (ii) will meet the situation, and I feel sure that now that the matter has been put to the Lord Advocate he must agree that the proposed Amendment is the only way in which succession is taken up in Scotland, and it is the only way in which ownership begins upon which any taxation could possibly be founded. I commend the proposal to the Lord Advocate and to the Committee. If something like this is not done, we shall be applying to Scotland a system of English administration which does not exist in Scotland and which nobody bas ever suggested should be applied to Scotland. If hon. Members will refer again to Clause 26, and to Sub-section (2) of that Clause, they will find a series of provisions which again are not apt in their reference to Scotland, but they are all covered I think by the further Amendment I have down to this Clause and that is to insert: (k)—(i) leases containing an obligation upon the granter to renew the same from time to time at fixed periods, or upon the termination of a life or lives or otherwise shall be deemed to be leases for a term exceeding fifty years provided such leases shall by the terms of such obligation be renewable from time to time so as to endure for a period exceeding fifty years. I hope these Amendments have been studied by the Lord Advocate and his advisers, as they cover the whole situation. We cannot have the system of law in Scotland as it exists and at the same time have imposed upon us terms and rules of procedure which are unknown in our courts. This is a matter which, I think, should be attended to at once. I am not raising these points in order to be critical. I sympathise with the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Office in this matter, because the Bill has been so hurriedly prepared that no one has had time to give full consideration to these matters, and I am not surprised that these Clauses have been thrown together in this higgledy-piggledy way and that a whole lot of English phraseology which does not apply to Scotland has been introduced. The Amendments I have indicated substitute something entirely new for Clause 26, except the definition of ownership which I will come to later, and unless they are accepted we shall have in this Bill something which cannot possibly be applied to Scotland.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young)

I must put the Amendment to insert the words "Section 26 shall not apply and".

Sir R. HORNE

I have referred to my other Amendment because I thought it would save the time of the Committee, and I hope I did so with your consent.

The LORD ADVOCATE

In substance these Amendments, the first of which has just been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), divide themselves into two branches, one relating to the definition of owner in the Bill, as applied to Scotland, and the other dealing with the position of the heir who succeeds by survival. As to the first branch I ask the Committee to observe what we have done in this part of the application Clause. In paragraph (j) we define the term "owner" as that term is used in the Bill, and we say that an owner: in relation to any land subject to a lease granted for a term exceeding 50 years which has commenced means the tenant under the lease. That is perfectly plain. In Scotland we have long leases, although not to a very large extent, and what we do is to say that the tenant under a long lease in Scotland is to be in the same position as the tenant under a long lease in England—that is to say, the owner for the purposes of the Bill.

Sir R. HORNE

I am not proposing that that part of the Clause should be left out. I am not making any demur to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just read.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The right hon. Gentleman will observe that under the next sub-head of that paragraph we go on to deal with the position of the life-renter, and we state that "owner " in relation to any other land means, in the case of land subject to a life-rent, the life-renter, and in the case of land under an entail, the institute or heir of entail in possession, and in any other case, the owner of the fee. Then, in order to complete the matter it is necessary to turn to page 32 of the Bill, paragraph (r) and it will be seen that there we provide that for the purposes of Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill any land unit, in respect of which a feu duty is payable, shall be deemed to be subject to a lease granted for a term of 50 years which has commenced. Therefore, the scheme in relation to Scotland is plain enough. We are putting the tenant under a long lease in the position of a leaseholder in England. We are putting the vassal in feu in the position of a leaseholder in England. That point will arise very sharply upon a later Amendment, and I am well aware that it involves a large question of controversy, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the definition in the Bill is quite clear. As regards the definition suggested in the Amendments I am bound, with all respect, to say that we have considered it very carefully and that it appears to us to be unintelligible. Let me read it to the Committee: Leases containing an obligation upon the granter to renew the same from time to time at fixed periods or upon the termination of a life or lives or otherwise shall be deemed to be leases for a term exceeding 50 years. It is intelligible up to that point, but let the Committee observe what follows: Provided such leases shall by the terms of such obligation be renewable from time to time so as to endure for a period exceeding 50 years. That may mean something, but I am bound to confess that, although we have studied it very carefully, we cannot attach any intelligible meaning to it at all. I doubt very much if this Amendment is the handiwork of the right hon. Gentleman. I have a very strong feeling that a hand other than his has drafted it.

Sir K1NGSLEY WOOD

Some Liberal draftsman.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) gets his Amendments drafted by Liberal draftsmen or not, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Billhead himself will see that there is a great deal of difficulty in this Amendment as it stands. Frankly, I can attach no meaning to it whatever. Accordingly, we feel compelled to refuse the first branch of the Amendments, and, as regards the second branch, the effect would be—to give to the heir who succeeds to land, a period of six months in which to say whether he will take up succession or renounce succession.

Sir R. HORNE

He has that right by law.

The LORD ADVOCATE

He has the survivor's personal right in regard to succession, but, for purposes of taxation, surely you cannot put a landowner in the position of having six months within which to make up his mind whether he is going to renounce succession or not. I cannot take the view that there is any such right at present recognised by the law and, for the reasons which I have given, the Government feel unable to accept these Amendments.

Sir R. HORNE

Does the Lord Advocate really suggest leaving the Bill in a shape which will apply to Scottish heritable properties the system of a probate judge—the system of administration in England—when we have nothing of the kind in Scotland.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We are not applying the provision relating to the probate judge to Scotland at all. It does not require to be excluded here. It is obviously a matter which does not arise.

Sir R. HORNE

Then will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when does the heir become the owner and subject to the taxation? It is plain that under the English system he does not become subject to the taxation until administration has been granted in his favour. The only way in which administration is granted in favour of the heir in Scotland is when he determines that he is going to take up the succession. In that case, when is the heir to become liable for the taxation?

The LORD ADVOCATE

I should not think that that matter raises any difficulty. I should say that the heir becomes liable to the taxation when he becomes the owner of the land, and that is when he succeeds. As far as Scotland is concerned, I have no reason to believe that there will be any difficulty in determining when he becomes the owner.

Sir R. HORNE

The Lord Advocate might treat this matter a little more seriously. This is a proposal altering the whole law of Scotland—in a definition of ownership—with regard to heirs taking up their succession. If that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means, then he should put his proposal into some positive form so that the House of Commons can consider it. But in Committee upon a Bill, which does not deal with that great topic at all, to say that you are going to alter the whole of our Scottish system of the administration of estates, to which there is succession by survival, is trifling with the House of Commons and violating all the principles by which Parliament has been guided in the past in dealing with solemn matters of legislation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I am surprised that the Lord Advocate should say that the first part of this Amendment is obscure, because it seems to me to be perfectly clear and reasonable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised some question as to who drafted the Amendment, but I suggest that the Government, in connection with the drafting of this Bill, might have called in the services of whoever drafted the Amendment, because it is more lucid than the Clauses of the Bill. The Amendment states that leases containing an obligation upon the grantor to renew the same from time to time at fixed periods, or upon the termination of a life or lives or otherwise, shall be deemed to be leases for a term exceeding 50 years, provided that the cumulative effect of one or other of those two conditions shall, by the terms of such obligations, be limited to a period exceeding 50 years. If under those conditions it is not brought up to 50 years, then this will not apply.

I join with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in regard to the alteration of the law and the application of the English law to Scottish successions. It is certainly going to place the Scottish heir in a rather anomalous position. He will not know whether he is or is not liable to the tax. Before he makes up his mind whether or not to take up the succession, which is opened up to him, he will want to know whether it is not what is called a damnosa hereditas, that is to say, an objectionable heritage which would involve more liabilities than advantages. Very soon, I think, most of the land of this country will be in that condition. I have always said that nobody really owns land; that the land that the land owns the man, and, with taxation of this kind imposed upon it, there will soon be no wish on the part of people to take up land. We might at least grant the heir a six months' period of grace and to give him the opportunity of making up his mind.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I think it might have been better if the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), before associating himself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) regarding the injustice done to Scotland in this matter, had been at pains to ascertain what is the position in England. I do not pretend to speak with any authority as regards the position in England, but I am told that the position is that the heir succeeds on the death of the ancestor in exactly the same way as the heir in Scotland succeeds on the death of the ancestor. Accordingly, there is no discrimination at all, but, if we were to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, there would be discrimination against the revenue in the case of Scotland, and we cannot accept that proposal for a single moment. As regards the rest of the Amendment, I have already explained to the Committee that it is utterly unintelligible, and we have not heard any explanation of it either from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire or from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

We cannot allow the last statement of the Lord Advocate to pass unchallenged. I should not have intervened in this Scottish Debate had it not been for that reference to the law of England. I can only assume that the Lord Advocate misheard what was said to him. The system under which the heir took the land in England was abolished in 1897 by the Land Transfer Act of that year. Land does not vest in the heir in England. The situation in England is that the land now vests at first in the executor under the will, or, if there is no executor, it vests as soon as administration is granted in the administrator. If the debts of the deceased are not sufficiently discharged out of personalty, the executors or the administrator, as the case may be, have the duty cast upon them of raising the money out of realty and, subject to that, if the will does not devise the property, it would go to the person who, before 1397, was the heir. I cannot help feeling that the reason advanced by the Lord Advocate is the worst reason to which I have listened, why this matter should not be given examination. Having regard to the statements which we have heard it seems to demand consideration. If the rest of the reasons based upon Scottish law are as good as the reasons based upon English law which the Lord Advocate has given us, all I can say is that I hope the Bill will remain in the form in which it is. I shall rejoice at the efforts which will no doubt be made by those in Scotland to drive a coach and four through it, as it deserves.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I understand that when an owner dies in England his administrator will became liable to the tax under this Bill. If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. and learned Member will contradict me. If that is a true statement of the position, and the House were to give effect to the Amendment, there would be no person liable for the tax in Scotland for a period of six months after the death of the owner. That is

the effect of the Amendment, and it is the intention of the Mover of the Amendment. In the event of an owner dying in England, is there an interval of six months before the tax attaches? That is a simple question, and surely we can have an answer.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

The answer is as simple as A, B, C. Under the Bill there is a charge on the land in respect of the duty, and that land cannot be parted with by administrators, executors, or anyone else until that has been discharged. The situation with regard to the administrator is also simple. Until administration is granted in the English Court to the administrator, there is no persons as an individual who can be charged, but the Clause on page 26, to which reference has been already made, shows that upon administration being granted the liability of the administrator dates back to the date of the administration. That is exactly the same thing as, I understand, is being proposed in the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 258.

Division No. 330.]	AYES.	[7.48 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Butt, Sir Alfred	Dawson, Sir Philip
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Albery, Irving James	Campbell, E. T.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Carver, Major W. H.	Eden, Captain Anthony
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Castle Stewart, Earl of	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cautley, Sir Henry S	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent Dover)	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Astor, Viscountess	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Everard, W. Lindsay
Atholl, Duchess of	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Atkinson, C.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Ferguson, Sir John
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Fielden, E. B.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Ford, Sir P. J.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Forestier-Walker, Sir L
Balniel, Lord	Chapman, Sir S.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Christie, J. A.	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Beaumont, M. W.	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Ganzonl, Sir John
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Colfox, Major William Philip	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Colman, N. C. D.	Gower, Sir Robert
Bird, Ernest Roy	Colville, Major D. J.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cooper, A. Duff	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Boyce, Leslie	Cranborne, Viscount	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Bracken, B.	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Buchan, John	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Hammersley, S. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hanbury, C
Buckingham, Sir H.	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hartington, Marquess of
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Butler, R. A.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Muirhead, A. J.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	O'Connor, T. J.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Hurd, Percy A.	O'Neill, Sir H.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Iveagh, Countess of	Peake, Captain Osbert	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Penny, Sir George	Thompson, Luke
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Thomson, Sir F.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Power, Sir John Cecil	Train, J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Ramsbotham, H.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Renter, John R.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Wells, Sydney R.
Macdonald, Sir. M. (Inverness)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Macquisten, F. A.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Salmon, Major I.	Withers, Sir John James
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Marjoribanks, Edward	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Womersley, W. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Meller, R. J.	Savery, S. S.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Skelton, A. N.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Captain Wallace and Sir Victor
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Warrender.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smithers, Waldron
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Herriotts, J.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Day, Harry	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hoffman, P. C.
Alpass, J. H.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hollins, A.
Ammon, Charles George	Dukes, C.	Hopkin, Daniel
Angell, Sir Norman	Duncan, Charles	Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Arnott, John	Ede, James Chuter	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Aske, Sir Robert	Edmunds, J. E.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Attlee, Clement Richard	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Isaacs, George
Ayles, Walter	Egan, W. H.	Jenkins, Sir William
Baker, John (Wotverhampton, Bilston)	Elmley, Viscount	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Barnes, Alfred John	Foot, Isaac	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Barr, James	Freeman, Peter	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Batey, Joseph	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Benson, G.	Gill, T. H.	Kelly, W. T.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Gillett, George M.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Glassey, A. E.	Kinley, J.
Bowen, J. W.	Gossling, A. G.	Kirkwood, D.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Gould, F.	Knight, Holford
Brockway, A. Fenner	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lang, Gordon
Bromfield, William	Graham Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Brooke, W.	Gray, Milner	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Law, A. (Rossendale)
Buchanan, G.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lawrence, Susan
Burgess, F. G.	Groves, Thomas E.	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Lawson, John James
Caine, Hall, Derwent	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Cameron, A. G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Leach, W.
Cape, Thomas	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Chater, Daniel	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Lees, J.
Clarke, J. S.	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Leonard, W.
Cluse, W. S.	Harris, Percy A.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Cove, William G.	Haycock, A. W.	Logan, David Gilbert
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hayes, John Henry	Long bottom, A. W.
Daggar, George	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Longden, F.
Dallas, George	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Lunn, William	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Perry, S. F.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
McElwee, A.	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Sorensen, R.
McEntee, V. L.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Stamford, Thomas W.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Pole, Major D. G.	Stephen, Campbell
MacLaren, Andrew	Potts, John S.	Strauss, G. R.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Price, M. P.	Sullivan, J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Pybus, Percy John	Sutton, J. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
McShane, John James	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Rathbone, Eleanor	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Manning, E. L.	Raynes, W. R.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mansfield, W.	Richards, R.	Thurtle, Ernest
March, S.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Tinker, John Joseph
Marcus, M.	Ritson, J.	Toole, Joseph
Markham, S. F.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Tout, W. J.
Marley, J.	Romerll, H. G.	Townend, A. E.
Marshall, Fred	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Vaughan, David
Mathers, George	Rothschild, J. de	Viant, S. P.
Matters, L. W.	Rowson, Guy	Walkden, A. G.
Maxton, James	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Walker, J.
Messer, Fred	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Watkins, F. C.
Middleton, G.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mills, J. E.	Sanders, W. S.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Milner, Major J.	Sandham, E.	Wellock, Wilfred
Montague, Frederick	Sawyer, G. F.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sexton, Sir James	Westwood, Joseph
Morley, Ralph	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Mort, D. L.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Muff, G.	Sherwood, G. H.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Muggeridge, H. T.	Shield, George William	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Murnin, Hugh	Shillaker, J. F.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Nathan, Major H. L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Noel Baker, P. J.	Simmons, C. J.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Oldfield, J. R.	Sinkinson, George	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Sitch, Charles H.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Palin, John Henry	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Paling, Wilfrid	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Palmer, E. T.	Smith, Lees., Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
		Charleton.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) is to move the Amendment, in page 31, line 13, to leave out paragraph (m). It would be a good thing to take out paragraphs (n) and (o) together with it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I suggest to you that paragraph (o) deals with the question whether previous agreements are to be interfered with or not. That is a different question from the question of feu duties, which arises on paragraphs (m) and (n). I am sure everyone will be willing to have paragraphs (m) and (n) taken together.

Mr. BARR

The whole subject of contracts is involved in this question of feu duties. Paragraph (o) is very relevant to the other two paragraphs.

The CHAIRMAN

We will take paragraphs (m) and (n) together, and I will save any Amendment that it may be necessary to save.

Sir R. HORNE

I beg to move in page 31, line 13, to leave out paragraph (m).

The provision which I propose to leave out is to the following effect: (m) where the person on whom the tax chargeable in respect of any land unit is liable in payment in respect of that unit of any feu duty he shall on paying the tax for any year of charge be entitled to recover from the person who was the superior on the first day of January in that year a sum equal to one-twelfth of the feu duty payable in respect of that year or to the whole amount of the tax so paid, whichever is the less, and any sum so recoverable from any person may be deducted from the instalment of feu duty, if any, payable to him next after the date on which the tax is paid. Provided that, where two or more land units are subject to a feu duty which has not been allocated, the sum recoverable as aforesaid from the person to whom such feu duty is payable shall be, in respect of each unit, either one-twelfth of such part of the total feu duty as bears the same proportion thereto as the land value of that unit bears to the total of the land values of all the units subject to the feu duty, or the whole amount of the tax paid in respect of the unit, whichever is the less. 8.0 p.m.

Terms are used in that paragraph which perhaps will require some explanation for those hon. Members who are not learned in Scots law, and I will say 8.0 p.m. something about the system of land tenure in Scotland, which is founded upon a feu charter. Many hon. Members know that in Scotland land is held upon a feudal system and ultimately from the Sovereign. The ultimate superior is the Sovereign. There are now, after many hundreds of years, very many intermediate superiors between the Sovereign and the ultimate vassal who holds the ground. In early times there were various forms of service, which were given both to the Sovereign and to intermediate superiors, in respect of the grant of a feu. The grant of a feu, however, now and for a long period of time, really means the conveyance of the land itself subject to an irredeemable heritable right in security on the part of the superior to receive the feu duty and to have the other prestations, as they are called, implemented.

In essence, that means that the owner of the land, the superior, as he is called in this particular Clause, grants or conveys the land to the vassal or feuar, as we call him in Scotland, not for a lump sum down, but for a perpetual annual payment which the superior is entitled to receive. It is, in fact, very much like taking, instead of the capital sum, an annual rate of interest upon the basis of the capital sum which the land is worth; and if you calculate upon a general 5 per cent. interest, you will see that the sale of feu duties which has taken place in Scotland has properly been based in normal times upon something like 20 years' purchase. Because of the higher security which they give, it has sometimes been 33 or 34 years' purchase, and even, an hon. Friend reminds me, 37½ years' purchase. At present it is about 16 or 18 years' purchase, but round about 20 years' purchase has been the normal rate at which these feu duties have been bought and sold.

That apparently was the idea in the head of the draftsman who drew up the Clauses of this Bill, because, if you look at the figures, you will see that a penny in the pound on £100 of capital value represents 8s. 4d., which is the tax which it is proposed to impose. On the other hand, if you take 5 per cent. as the average return upon £100 of capital, a twelfth of that sum of £5 is exactly the same amount, namely, 8s. 4d.; and what the designer of this Bill has worked out is that the proprietor of the land who is paying a feu duty to his superior shall be entitled to get back from his superior a twelfth part of the feu duty, which means that the superior who has parted with the land in the way that I have described shall be liable in the end for the whole of the burden of this taxation. This system has followed in this Bill from what has been done, so far England is concerned, with regard to leases of over 50 years' duration; and where this Measure has gone wrong, so far as Scotland is concerned, is that it has confused our feuar with an English lessee, and the English lessor with the Scottish superior, and it is sought to put the same burdens upon both.

The draftsman has entirely failed to notice—I observe the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) nodding his head vigorously, because this does not suit his argument, but he will find difficulty in disputing the facts that I have put forward and those that are to follow. The confusion has taken place from this fact, that a superior in Scotland is not at all like a ground landlord in England, and a feuar in Scotland is not at all in the position of a lessee in England. The crux of the difference, you will find, is this particular factor—although there are many other significant elements to be taken into consideration—that a ground landlord in England who has granted a lease for more than 50 years remains the landlord; he remains the proprietor of the property, and when the lease terminates, he resumes possession and not only takes possession of the land, but also takes possession in most cases of the buildings that have been put upon it.

The result that follows is the circumstance that used to be held to justify the increment taxation which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When leases fell in, the ground landlord resumed possession of the ground and put up the rents, which perhaps had been made larger because of the improvements made upon the ground, or because of the improvements which the community had created round about it, and the ground landlord in that way received, or was thought by many people to be acquiring, an undue advantage, because, after his long leases came to an end, he was in a position to resume possession and get the advantage of all the increment in the value of the land.

Now the superior in Scotland is not in that position at all. The feu is a perpetual grant, and the superior would be a trespasser if he walked on to the land. All that he is entitled to do with regard to it is, in the event of the feuar failing to conform to his obligation to pay the feu duty and keep proper buildings on the ground, to bring what is called an action of irritancy of the feu. During all the time the feuar is in possession, the feuar is the proprietor of the ground in all essentials, and the superior has absolutely no interest in it except that of having a security for a payment which has been contracted to be made to him, to his heirs, his assignees, and successors in perpetuity. Never at any time can he come upon the land again or have any rights whatsoever in it except in the case, as I say, of the feuar defaulting.

It is obvious that any increase in the value of the land matters nothing at all to him. He can never get any advantage out of it. He is indeed a person in possession of an irredeemable heritable right in security for the payment of the feu duty which has been contracted to be paid to him by the person who at any time is the proprietor of these lands. Is it not obvious that the conception upon which this Bill proceeds is entirely erroneous? Why did the hon. Member for Burslem shake his head when I said that the draftsman had got off on the lines of the English long lease, instead of acquiring some idea of what the Scottish system of feuing really was? That circumstance is proved by what takes place in the English Clauses themselves. There is a person in England who is in a somewhat analagous, or, rather, in a very similar situation to the Scottish superior. In England, he is a man who is in possession of a perpetual rent charge, which is in effect precisely the same thing that a superior has in respect of his perpetual feu duty. In the English Clauses of this Bill—and I am surprised that the learned Lord Advocate did not stand up for his own countrymen in this matter—the possessor of the perpetual rent charge is entirely excluded from its provisions and is never brought in at all.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Is the right Hon. Gentleman going to suggest to the Committee that a superior in a feu in Scotland is merely a creditor?

Sir R. HORNE

I am certainly going to say that a superior in Scotland has no other right than that of an irredeemable heritable right in security. That is all that he has. He has no property in the land. He has what is called a separate estate, and, if the Lord Advocate will think back to the definitions with which we are concerned——

The LORD ADVOCATE

As this is really of prime importance, is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that a superior is only a heritable creditor?

Sir R. HORNE

I am not going to accept the rather loose language of the Lord Advocate, which has distinguished him, not only to-day, but in his drafting of this Bill. I am not going to take his loose and ill-defined language. If he cannot tell us the meaning of one of the important words in his own Bill, I do not think he can claim from me any right to have a reply upon language which he gives to me, and I do not feel obliged to answer him in his terms at all. I say this, that the superior in a feu in Scotland is much more analogous to a mortgagee in England than he is to a ground landlord or a lessor.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I will not interrupt again, but a mortgagee is a term of the law of England, and a heritable creditor is a recognised term of the law of Scotland. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with it, and I venture to put the question again—it is a plain question—Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell a Committee of this House that a superior is a heritable creditor in the law of Scotland?

Sir R. HORNE

I do say that the superior is a heritable creditor in possession of an irredeemable heritable right in security. It was because I was going to deal with the position of the mortgagee in England that I made the analogy that I have suggested, and I say without fear of contradiction from anybody who knows that the position of the superior in Scotland is much more analogous to that of the mortgagee in England. I use the analogy of the mortgagee in England for the reason that he is one of the people who is favoured and who is exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I should be very much interested to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not think that the man in possession of a perpetual rentcharge is not in the same position as the superior is in regard to a feu in Scotland. We shall no doubt bear from him that meticulous analysis of legal definitions which we have been led to expect from him. We ask what rights has the mortgagee in England that a heritable creditor should not have in Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE

It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman did not refresh his memory before he came into the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE

My memory is quite good. My judgment is perhaps even better. I do not say better than the Lord Advocate's judgment, but better than my memory. I am willing that all these matters of analogy with the law of Scotland should be put before people whose judgment is competent in these questions, and that the conveyancers of Scotland, for example, should be asked to give their opinion. I have had the opportunity of reading in the last few days the opinions of some of the most expert conveyancers in Scotland, and they are unanimous in stating the same view which I have stated to the Committee.

The LORD ADVOCATE

indicated dissent.

Sir R. HORNE

If the Lord Advocate shakes his head, I shall ask him to do this. I shall ask him to find any statement of any eminent conveyancer in Scotland in recent papers which have been written disputing what I have said to the Committee. I shall wait with great expectation to hear what he has to say on the matter. I say with great deference, after the extent of the opinion I have seen on this matter from the most experienced conveyancers in Scotland in recent times, that the mere ipse dixit of the Lord Advocate will not convince me. What the Committee has to realise is that in fact the superior in Scotland is not at all in the position of a ground landlord or of a lessor in England, and that the two conditions must not be confused.

Let me give an indication how completely apart these two conditions fall. The feu duty in Scotland has been so much regarded as a separate matter that it is a subject of common sale in markets in Scotland. You see them advertised in the newspapers, and people who are in possession of them exist not only all over Scotland, but in various other parts of the world, because these duties are regarded as one of the best securities that anyone can hold for the investment of his money. A large variety of people have purchased these feu duties, and in that way have become superiors in the terms of the Clause in this Bill. There are people, like the Church of Scotland, who own something like £2,000,000 worth of feu duties. There are people, like the great educational trusts, the George Herriot Trust and others, whose investments are almost entirely in Scotch feu duties. A great many other people who have had to invest trust money have put their investments in Scotch feu duties, because by the law these duties have been recognised as a trust investment. Here again we have a distinction between the English case and the Scottish case, for ground rents in England are excluded from trust investments.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to exempt all those great public bodies which are embraced in the category of charitable institutions, churches, hospitals, educational organisations, universities, and so on. He has thought fit to leave them out, and then he has also added, for a reason best known to himself, the friendly societies. I think these are all perfectly proper upon principle, because the superior should be entirely outside the legislation which is embraced in this Bill. Coming to a question, not of principle, but of fairness, upon what ground are you going to exempt friendly societies who hold these feu duties as an investment, and at the same lime compel trustees, who are encouraged by the law to invest in feu duties, to pay taxation upon a subject which they thought would always be free of taxation? What the law will do, if this Bill succeeds, will be to encourage trustees instead of putting their money into sound investments to put it into investments which Parliament is going to deplete, and so to rob the beneficiaries. That is not the principle on which our legislation should be based. Once you bring in the bodies of trustees who have made these investments, what about all the other people who have looked to these feu duties as the safest security they can have? I venture to suggest that both on grounds of principle and fairness the legislation which is contained in this Bill is entirely unworthy of Parliament.

I should like to turn to the case of the feuar. It is perfectly obvious, as it seems be me, that as soon as you begin to con-Hitler this Scottish system, you have a principle enunciated in this Bill which is entirely erroneous. In fact, the logic of our Scottish land system is the acid best of the theories upon which the Government are working. It is an acid which, when it comes into contact with the chemical compound which they have been creating, sends it up into a blue smoke. What about the position of the feuar? I have here a document from the building societies of Scotland. They are to be treated as neither dukes nor pariahs. There are 60,000 of these people who are members of building societies, and they say that this Bill, if it is put into operation, will be the destruction of the feu system on which the whole of their organisation has been built up.

Consider the anomaly you are going to crate. I ask you to think of the position of a feuar whose superior is a private individual. When the tax is imposed upon him he pays it, and then asks the superior for one-twelfth of the feu duty, and in the majority of cases, as I have pointed out, that would mean the whole of the tax. If it is the whole of the tax the feuar is lucky enough to escape entirely from the impost, and puts the burden upon the superior. But the superior sells to, let us say, George Herriot's Trust, or the Church of Scotland, or any of the other favoured people who are exempt, then the position of the feuar is immediately altered. The exempted person pays nothing, and the feuar had to pay it all. How can you justify a system which has these extraordinary results through no action on the part of the person holding the land? One day he is in a position in which he can claim against his superior for the amount he has had to pay, and the next day, by reason of the fact that the superior has chosen to sell his investments, he is compelled to find the whole of the tax. This is too fantastic a proposal to be considered by a reasonable legislative assembly. This process is going on all the time, and the feuar will never know where he is. This is sufficient to exhibit the folly of this kind of legislation, and to show that the principle upon which the Government have gone is the wrong one.

Everyone agrees that it would be both feasible and reasonable to take some part of the increment in the value of the land which has grown in value owing to the action of the community. A proper contribution from the owner of land is, in those circumstances, perfectly justifiable and reasonable; but to attempt to put the tax on the mere ownership of land, as is attempted here, and to fail to distinguish between the feuar and the superior and their respective rights, so as to put the feuar in the ridiculous position of one day being subject to the tax and the next day not, is to reduce the whole of this legislation——

Mr. FRANK LEE

I am rather interested in this point. I was under the impression that if the land changes hands and come into the possession of one of the charities which are exempt it will not be chargeable to the tax.

Sir R. HORNE

The land would be chargeable, but the superior is exempt. If the land comes into the possession of one of these categories of people who are exempt the whole burden goes on to the feuer. Transactions of that character are going on day by day, and within a short period a feuar may first find that he is liable to pay the money, then that he is not liable, and, again, that his liability returns—all according to the caprice of the various people who are buying and selling the feu duties. Feu duties are bought and sold as Consols or Local Loans or any other investments are in this country, and the holders of them may change from day to day. There are people in Aberdeen holding feu duties in Kirkcudbright. The position of the land does not matter. The buyer recognises that it is a security which entitles him to draw a certain revenue every year, and if the money is not forthcoming the land and the house upon which it is built become available to him for the purpose of exacting his money. No security can be better than that, and the system has grown up and has spread, and if Parliament passes this Bill it will strike a blow at one of the finest systems of land development and investment security which we have in this country.

I remember Lord Shaw of Dunfermline saying that the Scottish feuing system was the envy of the legal people of the world, and so it is. It has encouraged building as no other system ever has, and upon fairer methods. The man who wants to build does not have to find capital for the land at the time. He has only to pay an annual sum. If he had to find the money for the land he would have to pay more for it, because no reliable investor will advance more than two-thirds of the value of the security, but under the Scotch feu system the feuar is able to keep the money for building purposes, paying for the land only such amount as the landowners of Scotland have exacted, and generally it has been a very modest sum. It is upon that system that the great cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow have been built up, but what is going to happen if this Bill passes? I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider what they would do if they were the owners of land in these circumstances. They would say, "If I feu this land to you I shall be liable to pay the tax. I will not do that any more, I want cash for my land, because in that case I shall have no burdens to pay." It is perfectly obvious that this legislation will be highly detrimental to the welfare of our country, and will break down a system which has been one of the glories of Scotland.

Though I have very much more to say I will only add this. I see here one Member of the Liberal party from Scotland, and I hope to get sympathy from him for the propositions I have put forward. [Interruption.] I know it is easier to get sympathy from the Liberals than to get their support. I do not know whether I have been able to master the full details of the Amendment which has been put down by the Liberal party, but if it indicates anything it seems to say that they are eager really to convert this taxation into what they previously supported. They propose that if the proprietor has already paid Income Tax under Schedule A he shall be entitled to deduct from the land value, as assessed by the valuers, four times the amount of the rateable value, and I gather that that would cover the whole of the value of the land; but having started off upon that high principle they have been deflected somewhat, and have put in the vulgar fraction of ⅛d. as still to be imposed upon the value of the land. But I am not going to discuss that point now. All I venture to say is that they would get at the object of their Amendment much more easily if they would support us in rejecting the application of this Bill to the feuing system of Scotland. The hon. Member on the Liberal benches knows very well the advantages which that system has brought to Scotland, and I think the liberal party should join with us in saving for Scotland a system of conveyancing which has been of the greatest possible advantage to our people.

Mr. MacLAREN

We have listened to a long speech from the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home). It was interesting, and I hope he will not mind my saying that the opening part of it was very instructive to those Members who are not Scotsmen and who wonder what these feu duties are. The latter part of his speech, however, was special pleading. It was not a case of establishing a reason why the feu should be exempt from the tax, but, rather, an attempt to get the sympathy of the House, showing how much has been done through these feus and what money has been secured through them for charitable purposes, and what a dastardly thing it is that any Government should be so irreligious or sacriligeous as to put a tax on feus. That is special pleading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that after all the feu is simply interest on the capital value and that the landlord is sacrificing something. Instead of realising the capital value at once the landlord is prepared to take a fixed amount in the form of feus. This Bill proposes to put a tax on the value of the land, and the question arises if there happens to be more than one interest in the land as to who should pay the tax and in what proportion. If it can be shown that a superior has no right of entry on the land if the feuar failed in his payments; if that can be proved, then there would be much substance in the argument of the right hon. Gentle- man but he knows that the feuar can enter on the land, and in fact has a first claim upon the land.

Sir R. HORNE

I said that quite distinctly, and that is the only condition upon which he can resume the land.

Mr. MacLAREN

With regard to the difference between a mortgagee and the superior's relation to the feuar, on that matter I would like to say a word or two, but I cannot see any relation between the mortgagee and the superior. I have here a quotation on this point from Professor Bell: The feu-duty forms a charge also on the lands. The payment of it is one of the conditions of the grant. And, the superior having a real legal estate in the lands, having in fact the right to the lands, and to eject the vassal if he does not fulfil the condition by paying the feu duty, the feu duty is a real and preferable burden on the lands—a debitum fundi. It is part of the reserved estate in which the superior stands infelt; and the superior's claim for payment of the feu-duty is ranked as a burden on the feu, in preference to the claim of any third party upon the feu made through the vassal. The lands as given out to the vassal and held by him, are subject to the burden; and he cannot give any right to the lands otherwise than subject to the same burden. The superior's right to the feu duty is preferable to the vassal's right to the lands.

Sir R. HORNE

That is not different from what I have already stated.

Mr. MacLAREN

There is a certain amount of logical force in that case, because there was a Lord Advocate for Scotland, Lord Strathclyde, who had to battle with this question on the Floor of the House when the Act of 1910 was before Parliament. He said at the Queen's Hall, Edinburgh, on the 1st of March, 1907: I am told with an air of triumph that feu duty is not rent. What is it? Interest on a debt, I am told. I wish it was. I would pay up my debt to-morrow, and stop all further payments of feu duty. What is the amount of the debt on which my feu duty is said to be interest? No man knows. The debt is recorded nowhere.

Sir R. HORNE

The amount is what would be the assumed value of the land at the time when the feu duty was created.

Mr. MacLAREN

Then the capital value would therefore be depreciated, would it not?

Sir R. HORNE

You would borrow money from the bank.

Mr. MacLAREN

What is the amount of the duty on which the feu duty would be payable? Apparently the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to know, but I do not think there is any authority for the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. We have been told that it is the interest charge, but here is the opinion of Lord Strathclyde on that point: Here is a debt then of a description so extraordinary, that no human being can find out its amount. How can a creditor enforce or a debtor be compelled to pay a debt which neither of them knows the amount of?

Sir R. HORNE

It is very easy to reply to this, but I do not want to take up time.

Mr. MacLAREN

As a matter of fact, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, the feu duty has no relation to the capital value of the land. Apparently his reply, in trying to meet this statement, is that the feu is really interest on a deferred payment of the capital value of the land. The main argument of hon. Members opposite is that it is interest on a debt, but in the next breath they say that the superior is only getting a definite sum which has no reference whatever to the rising value of the land.

Mr. BOOTHBY

Obviously it has reference to the capital value of the land at the time when the feu duty was created.

Mr. MacLAREN

If the hon. Member were as brilliant on this subject as he is on the subject of gold and the monetary system, he might perhaps have contributed something to the discussion, but his interjection is quite irrelevant. If he knows anything about the matter at all, he knows that in many instances the feu bears no relation whatever to the capital value. Let me come to another point. We were told by the right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head that the feu duty is an irredeemable heritable right and security——

Sir R. HORNE

That is what it is.

Mr. MacLAREN

—which neither rises nor falls in value in relation to the land itself. Then we were told that, being an irredeemable heritable right and security, it is like a perpetual rent-charge in England.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It is like the number of the elect; it can neither be added to nor taken away from.

Mr. MacLAREN

I can see that if the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) had been handling this matter he would have handled it much more subtly. The analogy is with the English perpetual rentcharge. I would have no compunction at all in making the perpetual rentcharge in England pay its tribute, and I do not see why it should have been exempted.

Sir R. HORNE

It is exempted.

Mr. MacLAREN

I know it is; I am merely saying that if I had anything to do with it the similarity would certainly have come out in the tribute to be paid under the Bill. This similarity, both in fact and in practice, points to the feeling at the back of the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead that there is something in this similarity between the perpetual rentcharge and the owner of a feu duty. The tax is to be levied under this Bill, and the question arises, must the feuar bear the whole of the tax, or must someone else, who has a superior claim over the land, namely, the owner of the feu, be called upon to pay his contribution towards the tax? If the principle be conceded that the tax on land value is to be levied, there is no argument that can be advanced to prove that the superior should not pay his contribution in respect of the element of land value that enters into the feu duty. This Bill is taking means to call upon the superior to forgo one-twelfth of his feu duty. We are told that in certain circumstances this will mean great distress to the feuar, because we are told that the feuar may discover that in the meantime the superior has sold the feu to the Heriot Trust, and the Heriot Trust and other charitable educational institutions will enjoy exemption under the Bill. That is so. These are little anomalies which I am afraid——

Sir R. HORNE

They are very extensive.

Mr. MacLAREN

I know. These are anomalies which I quite appreciate, and which I would never have allowed to get into a Bill. If I had been handling this Measure, I would call upon the Heriot Trust and all these wealthy corporations to pay their tribute. But there it is. These are the little difficulties that arise under the accommodations which have to be made to charitable institutions in a Bill of this kind. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head would not ask me to try to work noon, night and morn to have a Cause inserted in the Bill making the Heriot Trust stand in along with the superiors, so that the feuar could get some meed of justice out of the new exemptions. That, however, to be quite honest, is one of the adjustments that really cannot be made on equal terms with the issue between us now. We have to accept it, and there it is.

If I may recapitulate what I have said, the superior has a claim on the land over the vassal, and if the vassal fails in his duty the superior can enter on the land and realise. That shows that he has an unending control over the land, and therefore, where you tax the value of the land, you are really calling upon the superior, with his apparently superior relationship and claim over the soil, to pay part of his tribute towards the tax. When it comes to appealing on purely emotional grounds as to the way in which these feus have been bought and sold, and how the Scottish Church, ecclesiastical establishments, and charitable institutions have bought and sold these feus, I, for one, am never overcome by such appeals. It always reminds me of the fact that, when Lloyd Garrison was fighting for the emancipation of the slaves in America, some of the most ardent enemies of his campaign were to be found in the ranks of the Churches. They said, "Do not abolish this trade, because we have invested our money in it, and are using it for charitable and educational purposes."

We create a system which necessitates this charity. We create a system, and perpetuate it day by day, which necessitates this system of one man looking after the needs of another on a charitable basis. These institutions are maintained by immoral gambling in the value of the land of the country, and we are asked to-night, on emotional grounds, not to touch the Ark of the Covenant, the ownership of land, because the money that comes out of it is used for charitable purposes. Such is the irony that one can deduce from the situation which arises from this discussion. We must not touch this wrong of the appropriation of the value of land, because in many instances it is used for charitable purposes. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I am getting dangerously near your Ruling, but it is necessary to remind the House of these matters when we are asked not to touch feu duties because ecclesiastical establishments and charitable institutions have invested in them—because they have put themselves into the right of superiors, because they have put themselves in the position to enter in upon vassals who do not fulfil their side of the bargain.

Sir D. HERBERT

The hon. Member stopped short just now after saying that there was no analogy between the feu system and the English rentcharge. Would he tell us what the difference is between the two?

Mr. MacLAREN

I said that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead said that there was a similarity.

Sir D. HERBERT

I think I under-stood the hon. Member to say that there was not, but he did not tell us why there was not a similarity.

Mr. MacLAREN

I understand that in England a person whose land is subject to a rentcharge can redeem it and become the freeholder, but in the case of a feu that is not possible—it is continuous; it is quite distinct; you cannot redeem a feu; it is perpetual.

Sir D. HERBERT

You can by agreement.

Mr. MacLAREN

My point was that whatever similarity there seemed to be could only be the similarity that both of them were drawing tribute out of the land, and I say that you want broad, comprehensive treatment of both. I would have no compunction in calling upon owners of rentcharges to pay their tribute as well as owners of feus. If there is more than one party interested in a piece of land, what is fairer than to call upon each to contribute to the tax in proportion to the amount that he is enjoying out of the site value?

Sir D. HERBERT

The hon. Member is wrong on this one point. The person who pays a perpetual rentcharge in England has no more right to redeem it and pay it off than the vassal under the feuing system. It can be done by agreement between the parties, but that is all.

Mr. MacLAREN

There is no opportunity under a feuing agreement for redemption.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I have seen it done scores of times.

Mr. MacLAREN

Redemption can be carried out by private agreement with regard to a rentcharge, but it is not a common practice with regard to feus as far as I know. In any case, this does not vitiate the point I am trying to make. What is fairer than that, if you are going to impose a tax, they shall contribute in proportion to the amount that they enjoy? That is the sum total of the case I am making. But let it be remembered that all this talk about how much is being done by these interested parties for charity weighs but little in the balance. We want a just institution of the tax, and that we are determined to have.

Mr. BUCHAN

I should like to say a few words on the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). If to some extent I traverse the same ground, it is because I believe his arguments cannot be repeated too often or too forcibly. The hon. Member who has just spoken is always heard with great respect, for he holds certain strong views with conviction and earnestness. When he got up, I hoped that at last we were going to hear a layman's view on this question, but he spent most of his time in arguing, whether correctly or incorrectly I will not say, on points of law. I want to put the layman's point of view, because I believe that behind this Clause there is a very substantial and important question of policy. I am not competent to argue on the definition of Scottish law terms. My knowledge of Scots law is purely historical, and I would not dare to dispute with the Lord Advocate on a matter like that, but I am prepared to argue on the substance of the policy.

My first objection to this Clause is that it puts Scotland in a very inferior position as compared with England. Scotland is treated far more harshly than the sister country. I do not think the Lord Advocate is, as my hon. and gallant Friend said earlier in the evening, like the dog that you find running behind a cart. He seems to me much more like the ranging dog that rune on ahead, because I think this Clause, for which no doubt he is largely responsible, goes far beyond anything in the rest of the Bill that applies to England. We have already had a very clear definition of our feuing system. The superior under our feuing system is not in any sense an owner or proprietor, and he has no real right of property in the land. You can test that in many ways. The Scottish Trust Acts from 1884 onwards give permission to invest in feus, but not in land. There is a very well known Scottish case where it was held that trustees, who would invest in land, were not empowered to invest in feus. In Scottish law a widow is entitled to a share of her husband s rents but not of his feu duties.

9.0 p.m.

Lands and feus have always been clearly distinguished in Scottish law. A superior is simply in the position of an English mortgagee. He is perpetually excluded from any share in 9.0 p.m. the management and use of the land. If he enters upon it, he is a trespasser unless he goes for a particular purpose. He has no share in any increment value. He is simply in the position of a mortgagee who has a right of entry for foreclosure in case of non-payment. Under Clause 16 of this Bill, in England a mortgagee is exempt from taxation unless he is actually in receipt of the rents or has entered upon the land. That is one exception in favour of England. Moreover, in England you have a system of tenure called the chief rent, which is very well known in the North and which is indistinguishable in substance and practice from the Scottish feu. You have a system which is very common in Lancashire called the fee farm rent, which is indistinguishable from the Scottish feu. You have in Scotland a system of ground annuals, which is indistinguishable in substance and practice from the feu. Ground annuals, I understand, are to be included in this Measure, but fee farm and chief rents are excluded, and mortgages are excluded. I entirely fail to see why the superior of a Scottish feu should be liable to this form of taxation, when what is exactly the economic and practical English equivalent is exempt. That is my first objection to the Clause.

It may be said—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will say it—that since it is a tax, not on increment but on capital value, the fact of the superior having no interest in what is called the equity of the land, that is any increase in value which may come to it from the action of the community or otherwise, that that fact is entirely irrelevant. But if the Government are immune to appeals on the grounds of justice, I will ask them at least to consider the grave practical consequences of Clause 30. A comparatively small number of the feu duties are in the hands to-day of the superiors who created them. As my right hon. Friend told us, they are sold as freely as debentures. They are held by all kinds of charitable and educational bodies, and under the Act of 1884 the Church of Scotland was compelled to invest something like £2,000,000 in them on the ground that they were the safest, simplest, most certain, and the least fluctuating kind of investment.

Bodies of that type, I understand, are to be taken out of the Act, But these feu duties are also held by an enormous number of trustees and by insurance companies on precisely the same ground. The question I want to ask is this: Even if these land taxes are right on the ground of public policy, on the ground that somehow or other they are going to cheapen and facilitate the sale of land, how are you going to effect this by penalising feus, a form of security which has no longer any direct relation to the land and whose relation to the land is now purely an historical thing? There would be a great outcry if any Government introduced a special tax on trustee stocks as opposed to other stocks. But that is precisely what you are doing in this case. You are specially penalising a favourite form of trustee security as compared with other trustee securities, in spite of the fact, as I have tried to argue, that this particular taxation can in no way help forward the general purposes of the levy.

I submit that the only reasonable course is to take feu duties out of the Act altogether; to cut the feuar and superior alike out of the Act. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that if that is not done, one disastrous result must follow. You will jeopardise the whole national system of feuing which has worked uncommonly well in the past. I do not think that anyone can seriously deny that that system has in the past worked well. It has been a great help in the development of Scottish land. If a man wanted to develop a building estate with a limited capital, he was not asked to pay a large sum in cash for site value. All that he paid was a modest annuity, and he had his money to spend in development. Money which would otherwise have gone into payments to the landlord went to bricks and mortar. Do the Government desire to strike at a system so obviously beneficent as that?

In some cases to-day you have feu duties microscopic in size as compared to the enormous rental value of the property. There is the famous North side of Princes Street where, I think 150 years ago, the Corporation of Edinburgh for development purposes feued a large area. The total of the feu duties is to-day £250 a year, but I understand that the rental of that area is something like £180,000. In a case like that I agree that there is no comparison with what the feuars and the superiors pay. But you have cases to-day where the superior may pay the whole of the tax. For example, take the suburbs of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Let me give you an illustration which has been given by the Edinburgh Town Council. Take a villa in an Edinburgh suburb of which the rent would be something like £85. The feu duties would be about £7 4s., taking the normal feu for that class of house. The land value of the site would work out at something like £144. The taxation would be 12s. on the Government scheme. One-twelfth of £7 4s., the feu duty, is 12s., so in that case under this Measure the superior would have to pay the whole of the Land Tax. What landowner with that kind of fate in store for him is going to feu land any more? He will demand a cash sum. He is doing it to-day through fear of this Bill—I have heard of many cases. He is going to demand a sale for hard cash, with the result that it will be far harder to develop a building estate, because the unfortunate developer will have to pay a large capital sum for the land, and will have very little money to spend upon its development. Can the Government seriously desire to bring about a state of affairs like that?

It is an old legal adage that hard cases make bad law, and that is good sense. If you attempt to make a general rule to cover every possible exception, it will break down. But this is a Bill where all the cases are hard. It is made up of nothing but hard cases. It is a bed with nothing but spikes in it. I have three objections to this Clause which I would commend most seriously to the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My first difficulty is that the taxation of feu duties at all lays a burden upon a form of tenure in Scotland, while forms which are identical or substantially identical in England escape altogether. As a Scotsman, I object to that differentiation.

My second difficulty is that this Clause lays a burden upon one particular kind of trustee security as opposed to others, in spite of the fact that this burden in no way assists what I understand are the general, and, in the view of many hon. Members, the beneficent purposes of His Majesty's Government in imposing this levy, to cheapen and facilitate the sale of land. My third difficulty is that the economic effect will be to cripple most gravely the easy and the natural adaptation of Scottish land to the needs and the uses of the Scottish people.

Mr. BARR

I think it will be agreed that this part of the Clause, and the Amendment, touch a very vital point and one of far-reaching consequences. The point made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), is, first of all, that in the initiation of a feu duty there is on the part of the superior a sale, in the main outright, of the property. I think that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead were that he parted with his land, and the words used by the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat were that he had no longer any real property in the land. The theory is that the superior really advances the money to purchase, and that he repays himself by a feu duty, which those who take the point of view of the Amendment regard as interest on the money advanced. The right hon. Member for Hillhead spoke of it as an annual rate of interest. Therefore, the superior becomes a kind of creditor, a mere heritable creditor. Although I ought not to say it in his absence, the right hon. Member for Hill-head, when the point was definitely put to him whether he would use the word "creditor," rather hedged on the subject; yet those who maintain the point of view of the Amendment in their documents, many of which we have received, do not scruple to use the word. They say that he is a mere creditor and not an owner. That is the point of view taken by many in regard to feu duties. The secretary of the committee of charitable, religious and educational bodies in Scotland has sent us a memorandum in which he says: The feuar of a plot of ground so long as he continues to pay the covenanted feu duty, is as fully the absolute owner of the ground as an out-and-out purchaser who has paid down the price. As opposed to that view we say that when the superior enters into this arrangement he does not divest himself of the lands contained in the grant. I should like to mention several of the rights that remain to him. His heir is entitled to be vested not in the superiority only but in the lands themselves. It has been said by both the speakers on the other side that he becomes a trespasser if he goes on the land, but he has the right to challenge any encroachment on the feu. The right hon. Member for Hillhead said that it was only in the case of non-payment of the covenanted feu-duty that the lands could be resumed. Surely, that is a very large condition. As a matter of fact he can not only eject the feuar from his claim to the land, but his right to the feu duty is superior to the vassal's right to the land.

Therefore, we contend that fundamentally and radically the right to the land remains in the hands of the superior. I will give an illustration from my own experience. I was for 11 years a member of the School Board of Glasgow. I asked them the other day if they could give me particulars of their sites whether bought outright or by the feuing process up to date. They were unable to do so. Therefore I content myself with the figures as they stood 20 years ago. For the sites of 73 schools the School Board of Glasgow paid £468,659, and in most of those cases they had also running feu duties to the extent in all of £1,882 per annum. I mention that in order to show how vast are the operations connected with the securing of sites, and to combat what fell from the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities where he spoke as if this feuing had no relation to the acquiring of land. I mention it mainly to show that there is a real distinction, and everyone in administration knows it, between purchase outright and acquiring through feu duties. The right hon. Member for Hillhead and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities complain that Scotland is being subjected to some injustice. They took up the position that the owner of the feu duties, whether the original granter of the feu-charter, or purchaser of the right to the feu-duties, was in the position of a mortgagee. That view has been put forward in many circulars that we have received. For example, the memorandum which we have received from the Church of Scotland says that you might as well put a tax on all mortgages or heritable securities affecting land and call it a land values tax.

I wish to point out the difference between a feu duty and a mortgage. Subject to various restrictions as to time and place, the Bent Restrictions Act and the like, the lender of a mortgage is entitled to call up the loan when he requires it. Those who have a feu contract, the feuar, has a perpetual tenure at a perpetual feu duty and his contract does not contain any reference to a loan or to any power to call it up.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

In the definition which the hon. Member has given of a mortgage does it not show that the mortgagee if he wishes can call up the whole of the money, whereas the other can get only his dole for the year; and is not the mortgagee the better off of the two and so should pay the tax?

Mr. BARR

I will show the other side of it. The man who calls up the mortgage can only call up what is due to him with his expenses, but in the other case the owner of the feu irritates the feu, cancels the whole feu and enters and extinguishes the rights of the vassal. A good deal has been said about the feu as a trust investment. In the contention of the party opposite, and many of those who have approached us take the same view, these are trust securities and this legislation is a violation of existing contracts. The memorial of the Church of Scotland describes the proposals in regard to feu duties by saying: It is a direct violation of the sanctity of contract and is to all intents and purposes a form of expropriation of private property. You might say that of all taxation. The argument is that there has been a contract and a stipulation under which a fixed sum without any diminution will be paid year by year, and that if that sum is not paid in full we violate the contract. It is argued that it is immoral and unjust to put on any burden seeing that there is such a contract. It has been proved time and again under the law of Scotland that a contract like that relates only to existing public burdens. If a superior has stipulated that he is to be relieved of all public burdens, the public burdens from which he is to be relieved can only be those existing at the time and not new burdens that may be imposed by a tax like this. I want to confirm that because it is most important. In the case of Scott v. Edmond in 1850 Lord Robertson said, and the other Judges concurred in it: It is undoubted law that an ordinary contract of warrandice docs not cover burdens imposed by statutes subsequent to the date of the grant. In the interlocutor they declared that the Clause of relief imposts relief only from burdens imposed, or to be imposed, on the lands in question, by virtue of laws then in existence—and that the defender, his heirs and successors, an; not entitled to relief from any other assessments or taxes. The very same principle is embodied in a ruling given in 1878 in what was known as the Dunbar's Trustees case which was carried to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cairns, quoted with approval what Lord Ormisdale said in the early stages of the case in the Court of Session: It cannot, I think, now be questioned, at least in this court, that while such an obligation as that in question will give relief from all public burdens exigible or payable at its date, or that may thereafter at any time be exigible or payable by virtue of any law of or practice existing at its date, it will not afford relief from public burdens created or imposed for the first time by supervenient laws, that is to say, by laws enacted after the date of the obligation. I could give many other illustrations to the same effect.

Mr. SKELTON

Why waste time by repeating it?

Mr. BARR

I am not repeating it, but am explaining to the hon. Member a very pertinent point. Therefore, apart from that, we need not emphasise that Parliament can determine as to the imposition of new laws. There have been the Irish Land Acts, and the Scottish Small Landholders Acts.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

And the Union of the Churches.

Mr. BARR

I do not think that is a very relevant remark. Personally, I am not ashamed of any public action that I have taken. There seems to be a very sore mood on the other side. To begin with, we had the display of temper by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot). Then the intervention of the former Minister of of Labour; and now this rather sinister interjection against myself, all showing that we have them on the run. They are showing themselves rattled this evening when they resort to personalities.

Now I come to my third point, which is just as important as the other two I have made. We were told that these were bought and sold, that people have been advised and almost compelled to purchase these feu duties. Charitable trusts and public bodies have held them as an investment. If we are correct in holding, as I have been seeking to prove, that this is rent for land, there is no reason why the owners of the feu duties should be exempt any more than the owners of the full right of property in the land. It was hinted by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) that people even of slender means have invested in this way. Be it so. Are they to get no benefit at all from this Measure? That, I think, is continually being lost sight of.

It was intimated to us by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home) that the building societies regarded this as the destruction of building societies in Scotland. They can know little of the operation of land taxes in any part of the world. It was indeed argued that it would jeopardise the whole system of feuing in the country. I am well convinced that when this Measure has been some time in operation and there are fewer restrictions upon it, they will be very glad to have the feu duties, even if they have to pay the tax. We were told by the right hon. Member for Hill-head that it was one of the very best securities in Scotland and that Parliament was going to deplete it. Why is it one of the best securities? It is because the maintenance of the security depends on the presence and expenditure of the community, and that those who benefit from that expenditure should contribute to it.

One word more. I am confident that the Government will not yield at all to this Amendment. It was said here today that there had been no land tax in Scotland. I wonder where some hon. Members get their history. Why, in the time of Alexander III there was a land tax, and in the very first full Parliament ever held in Scotland, at Cambuskenneth in 1326, they imposed one-tenth of a penny on the land according to the old extent, that is according to the valuation made at the time of Alexander III. King Robert the Bruce, who was a convinced land taxer, said that for the purpose of this levy it would be well if all the landowners would produce their titles. We are told that every man put his hand on his sword, and said it was by that title be held his land. We have a more ancient title—a title as old as human right itself. The sword by which we defend our ancient title has been unsheathed. We have only a very small part of this right. We have only got our foot, as it were, on our native heath, and I beseech the Government not to draw that foot back, but to go forward and enable the people to come into the ownership and the control of what, after all, is their greatest material inheritance.

Mr. TRAIN

I am sure that all are deeply grateful, and especially we Scotsmen, to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) for telling us something about Bruce and about having our foot on our native heath, but, as far as I can gather, he is going to support the Government in putting its foot on the neck of Scotland. He is content to boast and brag about the great warriors of Scotland, but he is going to take very calmly the fact that England is to be exempted and Scot- land is to be asked to pay. It is quite common in Lancashire, and in the town which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself represents, to have feu farms like our feus in Scotland. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) asked the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Home) the amount of the debt on which the feu duty is said to be the interest. It is not the original feu duty which people, are paying to-day; it is part of the building scheme. It is quite customary in Scotland to feu land at £20 per acre, to put eight houses per acre upon it and to put £5 on each house. Therefore, when the scheme is finished you are paying at the rate of £40 per acre per annum.

It may be said that that is double the original feu. It is, it is putting another £20 on; but where does that £20 go? It is used for the making of the streets, developing the site and putting in the sewers. If, on the other hand, it was only £2 10s. feu duty on each house then an extra £80 would require to be charged for the house when it is sold. Builders do not live on air and they cannot live on their losses. They have to make a profit, and it is much easier in Scotland to put a little on the feu and then get a bond for as much as possible in order to enable people to acquire their own houses. There are many thousands of people in and around Glasgow who are glad to be the owner of their own houses, but they are only able to become so by the system we have been working in Scotland. I plead with the Lord Advocate, as a good Scotsman, to be as proud of his country as the hon. Member for Motherwell and not to let England get away with it. Give us in Scotland what is being given to England; put us out of this Bill as far as the feus are concerned. If not the effect will be—indeed, the building trade is already beginning to feel the weight of this Bill—a slackening in the industry, and in the demand for houses. They want to know whether there is to be a charge on the feu duty when they buy a house. I plead with the Lord Advocate, for the sake of those who want to acquire their own houses and for the sake of those engaged in the building trade, to delete feu duties entirely from the Bill. Why should the tax be the same on a feu of this kind, when a man cannot recover at any time the possession of his land, as it is on a 99 years lease in England? Let us Scotsmen have some pride and not allow the Englishman to get the best end of the stick all the time. This is an ill-conceived and hurriedly drawn up Measure. There are many mistakes in it. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The hon. Member says that there are many mistakes in this Bill, but it is rather remarkable that not a single one of those mistakes has been pointed out this afternoon. We have had an exhibition of temper and immoderation on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to which I do not intend to refer further, but the reason is quite easy to understand. This Bill cannot, as we anticipate, be touched in another place, and accordingly the representatives of that other place in this House have to take the opportunity of venting their spleen, and I congratulate them upon the way that they have done so.

Major COLVILLE

Answer the question.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I propose now to deal with the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I always pay the greatest respect to anything which the right hon. Gentleman says upon any question affecting the law of Scotland, but I must demur to what he has said as to the position of the superior in the land system of Scotland. I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentle-man to take my ipsi dixit on this matter, and I will give him my authority for what I say. I agree with one observation of the right hon. Gentleman that when yon are dealing with the application Clause in a Bill of this kind you cannot take, as you can in a great many cases, the Scottish equivalent of the English expression. One of the difficulties which we have had to face, and I shall submit that we have faced it successfully, is the difficulty of working out the principle of a tax in land systems which are fundamentally different. You cannot get and you do not get any precise correspondence between a leasehold in England and a feu in Scotland. So far, I agree with the view of the right hon. Gentleman. Analogies sought to be drawn between leasehold and feu on the one hand, or between feu and rentcharge on the other hand are misleading analogies. That does not arise from any inconsistency in the principle of the tax or its application, but arises solely from the fact that you are dealing with systems of land tenure which are fundamentally different. I propose to explain to the Committee why we regard the proposals in this part of the Bill as just. The Committee are aware land tenure in Scotland is feudal tenure and the essence of feudal tenure is that the land is held by a vassal, under a superior, for payment of an annual feu duty. The feu duty is fixed in amount. Hon. Members opposite are right in saying that it is capable neither of increase nor of diminution. It is a payment in perpetuity and, in essence, it is rent for the laud, and nothing but rent for the land.

Sir R. HORNE

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman quote any authority in Scotland, any institutional writer or any dictum from the bench, which says that this is rent for the land?

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has addressed that question to me, because in a moment I am going to quote authority for that proposition.

Sir R. HORNE

The authority of an institutional writer?

The LORD ADVOCATE

Yes, and I will give the reference. On the fringe of our system of feudal tenure in Scotland we have the long lease and, in Orkney and Shetland, we have a system of tenure which is called udal, but these, as I say, are merely on the fringe of the prevailing system of land tenure and I do not propose to go into them. In considering what ought to be the proper position of feu duty under the taxing provisions of the Bill, the Committee must start from this proposition—that by the law of Scotland a superior is not a creditor but is a landowner. The right hon. Gentleman's speech proceeded on the view that the superior was merely a creditor and that the measure of the superior's rights was the measure of the heritable creditor's rights.

Sir R. HORNE

I must correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. I was very careful to define what a superior was and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the result of his question to me was that he did not inveigle me into his language. It was too loose to be accepted by an accurate lawyer. He says that I persisted in saying that the superior was merely a creditor but I said nothing of the kind. I said that he was the holder of an irredeemable heritable right in security for the payment of his feu duty. When I came to deal with the operation of his rights I said that his case was very much more like the analogy of a perpetual rent-charger in England, or a mortgagee. I have a communication here from the Scottish legal societies. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman receives these communications or not, but, if he does, I hope he studies them. [Interruption.]

HON. MEMBERS

Do not be insulting.

Mr. SKELTON

Any statement of the law is insulting to hon. Members opposite.

Sir R. HORNE

I have here a communication from the general committee of the legal societies of Scotland which is a very representative body. They state in this communication that under the proposals contained in the Bill by which feu duties are for the first time to become subject to taxation other than Income Tax, the interest of the superior—and to this I wish to direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention—is practically that of a mortgagee, the feu duty being a perpetual annuity secured on land. I am quite content in this matter to be ranked with the representatives of the legal societies of Scotland.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The Committee will observe that in the passage which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the document of the legal societies of Scotland—to which I shall refer in a moment—there was the saving-word "practically." In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I rose more than once to ask him whether on his responsibility as a Scottish lawyer ho was going to tell the Committee that by the law of Scotland the superior was merely a creditor or a heritable creditor, and I am not in the least surprised that the right hon. Gentleman thought it the more discreet course to avoid giving any answer to that question.

Mr. SKELTON

Then why did you say that he did answer it?

The LORD ADVOCATE

The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) says that the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer. I am quite willing that the matter should be judged by hon. Members to-morrow when we see the terms of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Various suggestions have been made as to what a feu is. This is a rather technical matter, but I shall put it quite shortly, if hon. Members will allow me to proceed. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that a feu is simply a sale. A feu is not a sale. That was the subject matter of a decision by the Court of Session over 100 years ago. That decision has never been challenged, and I am certain is not challenged by the right hon. Gentleman now. Many of the old charters or deeds relating to land in Scotland contained prohibitions against sale. The owners of those charters feued their land, and the Court of Session said that a feu was not a sale. Yet the right hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues tried to represent to this Committee that a feu is simply a sale by the law of Scotland.

Another ingenious and perverted suggestion made was that a feu was simply a loan. That is a very old argument and admits of a very simple answer. In the case of a loan you can always get rid of the obligation to pay interest by repaying the debt. The interest depends upon the debt. But in Scotland you cannot get rid of paying the feu duty; you can get rid of the feu duty only if you get rid of the land. Accordingly, the analogy of the loan has entirely failed. On this question as to what is the true legal position of a superior I would remind the Committee that we are fortunate in having the report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. That was a Committee which sat in the year 1906, presided over by a very distinguished predecessor in the office which I hold—Lord Advocate Ure, who was then Solicitor-General. This matter was most fully and carefully considered, and evidence was taken upon it, and we have the findings of the Committee. I am not asking the right hon. Member for Hillhead to accept my view, but perhaps he will be good enough to listen to what a Select Committee of the House of Commons said upon this matter. What the Committee said was this: The exclusion of those who draw feu duties from the category of ratepayers, is maintained on various grounds. It is said that they are simply out and out sellers of the land who have lent the purchase price to the buyer and continue to draw interest upon it in the form of feu duty. They are thus mere creditors of the owner and are not themselves ownerss. Then certain other things are said. I commend this to the attention of the right hon. Member for Hillhead.

Sir R. HORNE

I know that report very well.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman knows the report. Perhaps he is none the worse for being reminded of what the report says. He has flourished before me a report of the joint committee of the Legal Societies of Scotland of which I shall have more to say presently. Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman now what the Select Committee said: Your Committee has given the most anxious consideration to the case thus presented for the exemption of superiors and owners of feu duties. It is impossible, in the opinion of your Committee, to accede to the claim. Listen to this: The legal relation between superior and vassal and their relative rights to the land are familiar and well ascertained in the law of Scotland. When a superior feus laud he is not truly divested of the land contained in the grant. Your Committee finds it impossible to accept the view that the superior is not an owner of land but is a more creditor of the owner with a security over the land. It may be suggested that owing to the political controversies that raged in 1906, when that committee sat and reported, a partisan quality may be thought to attach to the findings in that report. 10.0 p.m. But I will quote to the right hon. Gentleman an authority for whom I know he will have great respect. I will quote him a sentence from Erskine's Institutes of the Law of Scotland. It is one of the great classical works on the law of Scotland. I will quote what Mr. Erskine wrote. Hon. Members may challenge what was said by the Select Committee, but I he would be a bold man who would challenge Mr. Erskine on this matter. My reference is to Book 2, Title 3, paragraph 1. I wish that the right hon. Member for Hillhead would give some notice to what Mr. Erskine said: There is not in any feudal grant an absolute or total cession of the subjects disponed made by the granter. Accordingly the proposition that a superior is merely in the position of a creditor is a proposition that is contradicted by authority. If it were necessary I could give the Committee additional authority. We are told that the superior is merely a creditor or a heritable creditor. Does the right hon. Member for Hillhead and do those of his colleagues who make a statement of that kind realise that by force of Statute it is a statutory condition of every feu that if a feu duty remains unpaid for two whole years together the vassal forfeits his right to the land? It is no use the right hon. Member for Stamford (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) displaying his ignorance by saying that a mortgage is the same thing. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might pursue his studies in this matter a little further. He said "mortgagee." he now wants to change it to "mortgagor."

I have no doubt it may be said that while theoretically the superior is a landowner, that is a merely theoretical point and that practically he is in the position of a creditor. It is not a mere theoretical point. To begin with the title of a superior is a title to the lands themselves. There is one very far reaching consequence which follows from that. Does the right hon. Member for Hillhead realise that a superior upon his title, upon his superiority title, can prescribe a right to the lands themselves and that that is well established in our law and that it has had most far reaching repercussions on the land interests of Scotland? Most of the land or a great part of the land in Scotland is held upon general titles; that is to say, the land is not held or occupied by reference to boundaries or to other forms of measurement. It is held under general names—it might be the "lands of Hillhead "—under territorial designations. What has been the result of that? Superiors possessing upon titles containing mere general descriptions have acquired rights to land for which they had never paid one single penny. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, nine-tenths of the foreshore of Scotland has been annexed by the landowners in that way. It is in defence of those great, powerful, intensely selfish landed interests—[Interruption]. I knew that that shot would get home—that the opposition to these Clauses is based.

Let me just say a word upon the position of the ground annual. That is not exactly the same as the position of the feu. It is quite true that the privileges and rights of the owner of a ground annual are not so extensive as those of a superior, but in working out the problem which we have to work out in Scotland, we must get as much uniformity as we can in the application of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that a ground annual is in essence just a feu duty, and the reason why we have got ground annuals at all is this, that the landowners of Scotland, of whoso virtues we have heard so much to-night from hon. Members opposite, when they feued the land, put into those feus prohibitions against sub-feuing. It was because there were prohibitions against sub-feuing that you came to have the ground annual in Scotland, but in essence a ground annual is simply a feu duty.

I want briefly now to ask hon. Members opposite to face up to this question. Parliament has said that we are going to have a laud tax. Who is going to pay the tax? You have to make up your minds on this issue. When you come to Scotland, there are only two alternatives. This tax which Parliament has said is to be imposed has to be paid either by the vassal or by the superior. There is no other alternative. The view that the Government take is this, that while the tax is chargeable upon the vassal in the first instance, under the provisions of this Bill, it is right that the vassal should be given a right of relief against the superior for the amount of the tax. Let me state the reasons why it is just that this tax should be paid by the superior and not by the vassal. Under the Bill, the tax is chargeable on the vassal to begin with, because he is in occupation, but he has, under the Clause, a right of relief against the superior, and in practice that means that he deducts it from the feu duty which he pays to the superior. That is how it works out, and I venture to say that that is right. What is the alternative to that? Is the alternative which the hon. Members opposite propose to leave the tax upon the vassal and give him no right of relief against the superior? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then what is the alternative?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

If the tax is left on the vassal, and the value of the property is increasing by reason of the preesnce of neighbours and of public utilities, surely the vassal is the man who is getting the unearned increment?

The LORD ADVOCATE

One cannot but be touched by the anxiety of hon. Members opposite in this matter. Hon. Members opposite may say "Well, do not have a tax at all." That is intelligible; it is more intelligible than most of the ideas that come from hon. Members opposite. At any rate, it has the great value of intelligibility. Parliament has said that we are to have a lax, and we say that it should be passed back to the superior. Why do we say that? If you leave the tax on the vassal, you are taxing the person who is putting the land to use. The superior no doubt enjoys the privileges of a landowner, but in so far as use of the land is concerned, a superior in Scotland is a mere receiver of rent. Accordingly, it is just that the tax should be paid by the person who is the mere receiver of rent, and that is why we propose to pass the tax on the the superior. We—

Mr. JAMES STUART

rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must remember that, unless the Lord Advocate gives way, he has no right to interrupt. He has no right to persist in standing upon his feet if the Member who is in possession does not give way.

Mr. STUART

I think the Lord Advocate has now given way. Can he give us any answer to the question of my hon. and learned Friend as to who gets the increment value?

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am coining to that. If you accept what I understand to be the proposal of this Amendment, you will leave the tax on the vassal. That means that you are going to tax the vassal upon the exorbitant feu duty which he has to pay to the landowner. I cannot assent to the view that the feu duties in Scotland are moderate, trifling annual exactions of no particular moment. Anyone who is familiar with the system of feu duties in Scotland knows that the action of the superior in the matter of feu duty has been one of the greatest hindrances in the way of housing development.

Sir D. HERBERT

But who does get the increment?

HON. MEMBERS

Answer!

The LORD ADVOCATE

As I have already stated, there is great anxiety on the part of hon. Members opposite to see that the increment should not escape.

Sir D. HERBERT

But who does get it Do you know? [Interruption.]

The LORD ADVOCATE

There is this further consideration, if hon. Members will be kind enough to give me their attention. If you cannot cast the tax back upon the superior, then you are really allowing the land value to escape. After all, what is the feu duty but land value? The proposal of hon. Members opposite is that the receiver of the site value, who is the superior, is to pocket the whole site value and make no contribution to the needs of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who does get it?"] May I just deal with the argument which was put forward by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan)? The hon. Member said that the proposals in this Bill were really an attack upon trust investments. It is perfectly true that in 1884 the legislature in the Trust Act of that year said to trustees that they might put their money, if they chose, into feu duties and ground annuals. It is important to notice that, while the legislature said that, it never said that feu duties and ground annuals were to be for ever immune from Imperial taxation.

It is said that this tax involves discrimination. There is no discrimination of any kind. We are not placing the trustees who hold feu duties as an investment in a different position from owners who are not trustees and hold feu duties as an investment. There is no discrimination of any kind, and if it is suggested, as hon. Members seem to suggest, that because money is invested in trust therefore it should be immune from Imperial taxation, I venture to say that I think hon. Members on this side of the House will agree that the doctrine of the dead hand has been applied far enough in Scotland. I rather gather that the point made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities was that we are discriminating within trust investments, taking only certain trust investments. I should be very glad if the hon. Member can tell me of any tax that does not discriminate. It could equally be said that if we put a tax on petrol we are discriminating, because we affect only the person who is using petrol. If we put a tax on food we should be discriminating, and it would be one of the most vicious forms of discrimination. I think the Committee must come to the conclusion that there is no foundation for the argument that there is discrimination.

Then we are told that feu duties are an investment, that purchasers have paid the full price and did not take account of possible taxation. I go back 21 years to the time of the Liberal land legislation in 1909. Everyone knows that since 1909 the market price of feu duties has taken into account a contingent liability to tax. Prior to 1900 feu duties had a market value of something like 30 years' purchase. After 1909 they fell to 15 or 16 years' purchase, and it is quite untrue to say that a purchaser has paid the full price. The price paid within the last 21 years has been a price reckoned on the basis that there was a contingent liability to tax. We have heard a great deal about trust money which is invested in feu duties. Do the Committee realise that there is far more trust money invested in land than in feu duties, and the proposal of hon. Members opposite would tax the former trusts only? That is a proposition to which we cannot assent.

The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) reminded me, as he was quite entitled to do, that the Joint Legal Committee in Scotland, representing various legal societies, have expressed a view against the proposals of this Bill so far as they concern feu duties. That is perfectly true. I treat with the greatest respect anything which the Joint Legal Committee say on a matter of this sort, but it is not amiss to remember that legal societies in Scotland, as elsewhere, are notoriously conservative. I am not using the term in any party sense, but lawyers instinctively dislike change. If lawyers had their way we should still be living in the Middle Ages. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill- head is well aware of that. [Interruption.] We have been told by hon. Members opposite that this tax will destroy the system of feuing in Scotland. If that were so, I should not be very much dismayed by it. What is the use of hon. Members coming down to this House and talking about the advantages and the blessings of the feuing' system in Scotland when we find congestion in our towns and cities in Scotland as the direct result of that system. To say that the system has been an advantage to the development of Scotland is a travesty of the facts.

I find that the earliest form of taxation in Scotland was a land tax, an old tax known as cess. I also find that away back over 200 years ago the superiors in Scotland endeavoured to evade their liabilities in the matter of the land tax in very much the same way as the large landed interests are trying to evade their liabilities to-day. The land tax, or cess was payable out of the feu duty. It was a tax on the value of the land, and the

superiors said, "We have not had the land value, and we should not pay the land tax." This question was decided in the Court of Session in 1602, and the Lords of Session then said that the land tax was a proper charge upon the superiors and should be paid out of the duty. [Interruption.] I quite realise that the hon. and gallant Member opposite is anxious to have a Division upon this tax, because ho and his colleagues, as was evident from their loss of temper at the beginning, realise now that the game is up.

Mr. BOOTHBY

rose—

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, Pursuant of the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 201.

Division No. 331.]	AYES.	[10.30 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Cluse, W. S.	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Harris, Percy A.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Cove, William G.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Haycock, A. W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Daggar, George	Hayes, John Henry
Alpass, J. H.	Dallas, George	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ammon, Charles George	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Angell, Sir Norman	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Arnott, John	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Day, Harry	Herriotts, J.
Ayles, Walter	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hirst, G. H. York W. R. Wentworth)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Dukes, C.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Duncan, Charles	Hoffman, P. C.
Barnes, Alfred John	Ede, James Chuter	Hollins, A.
Barr, James	Edmunds, J. E.	Hopkin, Daniel
Batey, Joseph	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Egan, W. H.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Elmley, Viscount	Isaacs, George
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Foot, Isaac	Jenkins, Sir William
Benson, G.	Freeman, Peter	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Bowen, J. W.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Gill, T. H.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Brockway, A. Fenner	Gillett, George M.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Bromfield, William	Glassey, A. E.	Keliy, W. T.
Bromley, J.	Gossling, A. G.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brooke, W.	Gould, F.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Kinley, J.
Buchanan, G.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Kirkwood, D.
Burgess, F. G.	Gray, Milner	Knight, Holford
Burgin, Dr. E L.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Lang, Gordon
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Cameron, A. G.	Groves, Thomas E.	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Cape, Thomas	Grundy, Thomas W.	Law, A. (Rossendale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawrence, Susan
Charleton, H. C.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Chater, Daniel	Half, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Lawson, John James
Church, Major A. G.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Clarke, J. S.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Leach, W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Noel-Buxton, Baronets (Norfolk, N.)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lees, J.	Oldfield, J. R	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Leonard, W.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Sorensen, R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Palin, John Henry.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Paling, Wilfrid	Stephen, Campbell
Logan, David Gilbert	Palmer, E. T.	Strauss, G. R.
Longbottom, A. W.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Sullivan, J.
Longden, F.	Perry, S. F.	Sutton, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lunn, William	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Pole, Major D. G.	Thurtle, Ernest
McElwee, A.	Potts, John S.	Tillett, Ben
McEntee, V. L.	Price, M. P.	Tinker, John Joseph
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Quibell, D. J. K.	Toole, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew	Rathbone, Eleanor	Tout, W. J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Raynes, W. R.	Townend, A. E.
McShane, John James	Richards, R.	Vaughan, David
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Viant, S. P.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Ritson, J.	Walkden, A. G.
Manning, E. L.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Walker, J.
Mansfield, W.	Romerll, H. G.	Watkins, F. C.
March, S.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Marcus, M.	Rowson, Guy	Wellock, Wilfred
Markham, S. F.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Marley, J.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Westwood, Joseph
Marshall, Fred	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mathers, George	Sanders, W. S.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Matters, L. W.	Sandham, E	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Maxton, James	Sawyer, G. F.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Messer, Fred	Sexton, Sir James	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Middleton, G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mills, J. E.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Milner, Major J.	Sherwood, G. H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Montague, Frederick	Shield, George William	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Shillaker, J. F.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Morley, Ralph	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Simmons, C. J.	Wise, E. F.
Mort. D. L.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Muff, G.	Sinkinson, George	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Muggeridge, H. T.	Sitch, Charles H.
Murnin, Hugh	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nathan, Major H. L.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.
Naylor, T. E.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Smith.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Everard, W. Lindsay
Albery, Irving James	Cayzor, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Ferguson, Sir John
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Fielden, E. B.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Ford, Sir P. J.
Aske, Sir Robert	Chapman, Sir S.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Christie, J. A.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Astor, Viscountess	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Atholl, Duchess of	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Ganzonl, Sir John
Atkinson, C.	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Balllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Colville, Major D. J.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Gower, Sir Robert
Balniel, Lord	Cooper, A. Duff	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Beaumont, M. W.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Cowan, D. M.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Cranborne, Viscount	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Boyce, Leslie	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Hanbury, C.
Bracken, B.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brass, Captain Sir William	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Hartington, Marquess of
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Buchan, John	Dixey, A. C.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J
Butler, R. A.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Campbell, E. T.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Carver, Major W. H.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hurd, Percy A.	O'Neill, Sir H.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Iveagh, Countess of	Penny, Sir George	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Pybus, Percy John	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Thompson, Luke
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ramsbotham, H.	Thomson, Mitchell., Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Held, David D. (County Down)	Train, J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Remer, John R.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Macquisten, F. A.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Ross, Ronald D.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wells, Sydney R.
Marjoribanks, Edward	Salmon, Major I.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Savery, S. S.	Withers, Sir John James
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Womersley, W. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Skelton, A. N.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Muirhead, A. J.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Smithers, Waldron	Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Victor Warrender.
O'Connor, T. J.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, at this day's Sitting.

Amendment proposed: In page 31, line 37, after the word "paragraph," to insert the words: or under Section fifteen of this Act."—[Mr. William Graham.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 194.

Division No. 332.]	AYES.	[10.42 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Cameron, A. G.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cape, Thomas	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Gray, Milner
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Charleton, H. C.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins).
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Chater, Daniel	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Alpass, J. H.	Church, Major A. G.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ammon, Charles George	Clarke, J. S.	Groves, Thomas E.
Angell, Sir Norman	Cluse, W. S.	Grundy, Thomas W.
Arnott, John	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Aske, Sir Robert	Cove, William G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Ayles, Walter	Daggar, George	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Dallas, George	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Barnes, Alfred John	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Harris, Percy A.
Barr, James	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Batey, Joseph	Day, Harry	Haycock, A. W.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Denman, Hon. R. D	Hayes, John Henry
Denn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Dukes, C.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Duncan, Charles	Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Benson, G.	Ede, James Chuter	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Edmunds, J. E.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Herriotts, J.
Bowen, J. W.	Egan, W. H.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Elmley, Viscount	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Foot, Isaac	Hoffman, P. C.
Brockway, A. Fenner	Freeman, Peter	Hollins, A.
Bromfield, William	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Hopkin, Daniel
Bromley, J.	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Brooke, W.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Buchanan, G.	Gill, T. H.	Isaacs, George
Burgess, F. G.	Gillett, George M.	Jenkins, Sir William
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Glassey, A. E.	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Gossling, A. G.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gould, F.	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Middleton, G.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Mills, J. E.	Sinkinson, George
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Milner, Major J.	Sitch, Charles H.
Kelly, W. T.	Montague, Frederick	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Morley, Ralph	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Kinley, J.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Kirkwood, D.	Mort, D. L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Knight, Holford	Muff, G.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lang, Gordon	Muggeridge, H. T.	Sorensen, R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Murnin, Hugh	Stamford, Thomas W.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Nathan, Major H. L.	Stephen, Campbell
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Naylor, T. E.	Strauss, G. R.
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Sullivan, J.
Lawrence, Susan	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Sutton, J. E
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Oldfield, J. R.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lawson, John James	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Palin, John Henry	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Leach, W.	Paling, Wilfrid	Thurtle, Ernest
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Palmer, E. T.	Tillett, Ben
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Tinker, John Joseph
Lees, J.	Perry, S. F.	Toole, Joseph
Leonard, W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tout, W. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Townend, A. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Vaughan, David
Logan, David Gilbert	Pole, Major D. G.	Viant, S. P.
Longbottom, A. W.	Potts, John S.	Walkden, A. G.
Longden, F.	Price, M. P.	Walker, J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Watkins, F. C.
Lunn, William	Rathbone, Eleanor	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Raynes, W. R.	Wellock, Wilfred
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richards, R.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
McElwee, A.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Westwood, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.	Ritson, J.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
MacLaren, Andrew	Romerll, H. G.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Rowson, Guy	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
McShane, John James	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, Went)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Manning, E. L.	Sanders, W. S.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mansfield, W.	Sandham, E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
March, S.	Sawyer, G. F.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Marcus, M.	Sexton, Sir James	Wise, E. F.
Markham, S. F.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Marley, J.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Marshall, Fred	Sherwood, G. H.
Mathers, George	Shield, George William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Matters, L. W.	Shillaker, J. F.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Maxton, James	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	B. Smith.
Messer, Fred	Simmons, C. J.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Butler, R. A.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Albery, Irving James	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Campbell, E. T.	Dixey, A. C.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Carver, Major W. H.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Eden, Captain Anthony
Astor, Viscountess	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Atholl, Duchess of	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Atkinson, C.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Balllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Chapman, Sir S.	Everard, W. Lindsay
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Christie, J. A.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Ferguson, Sir John
Balniel, Lord	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Fielden, E. B.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Ford, Sir P. J.
Beaumont, M. W.	Colvllie, Major D. J.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Cooper, A. Duff	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Ganzonl, Sir John
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Bird, Ernest Roy	Cowan, D. M.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Boothby, R. J. G.	Cranborne, Viscount	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Gower, Sir Robert
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Boyce, Leslie	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bracken, B.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Brass, Captain Sir William	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Greene W. P. Crawford
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Buchan, John	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smithers, Waldron
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hanbury, C.	Muirhead, A. J.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hartington, Marquess of	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Henderson, Capt. R. B (Oxf'd, Henley)	O'Connor, T. J.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	O'Neill, Sir H.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Thompson, Luke
Hurd, Percy A.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Pybus, Percy John	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Train, J.
Iveagh, Countess of	Ramsbotham, H.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Remer, John R.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Warrender, Sir Victor
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Wells, Sydney R.
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Ross, Ronald D.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Salmon, Major I.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Withers, Sir John James
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.	Savery, S. S.	Womersley, W. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Marjoribanks, Edward	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Skelton, A. N.	Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.	George Penny.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 12, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)."

In line 28 leave out the word "of" and insert the word "exceeding."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Amendment proposed: In line 32 leave out the word "twenty-three" and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

On three or four occasions during the last 10 minutes I have heard whistling. I wish to say, quite definitely, that the Member who is doing that ought be ashamed of himself, and, if I discover who it is, I shall ask him to retire from the Committee.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 190.

Division No. 333.]	AYES.	[10.54 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Bromfield, William	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Bromley, J.	Dukes, C.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Brooke, W.	Duncan, Charles
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Ede, James Chuter
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Buchanan, G.	Edmunds, J. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Burgess, F. G.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Ammon, Charles George	Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Angell, Sir Norman	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Egan, W. H.
Arnott, John	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Elmley, Viscount
Aske, Sir Robert	Cameron, A. G.	Foot, Isaac
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cape, Thomas	Freeman, peter
Ayles, Walter	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Charleton, H. C.	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Barnes, Alfred John	Chater, Daniel	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Barr, James	Church, Major A. G.	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Batey, Joseph	Clarke, J. S.	Gill, T. H.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Cluse, W. S.	Gillett, George M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Glassey, A. E.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Cove, William G.	Gossling, A. G.
Benton, G.	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Gould, F.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Daggar, George	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Dallas, George	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Bowen, J. W.	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Gray, Milner
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Day, Harry	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Groves, Thomas E.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Grundy, Thomas W.	McElwee, A.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	McEntee, V. L.	Sanders, W. S.
Hell, J. H. (Whitechapel)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Sandham, E.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	MacLaren, Andrew	Sawyer, G. F.
Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Zetland)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Sexton, Sir James
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	McShane, John James	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Harris, Percy A.	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Sherwood, G. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Shield, George William
Haycock, A. W.	Manning, E. L.	Shillaker, J. F.
Hayes, John Henry	Mansfield, W.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	March, S.	Simmons, C. J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Marcus, M.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Markham, S. F.	Sinkinson, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Marley, J.	Sitch, Charles H.
Herriotts, J.	Marshall, Fred	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Mathers, George	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Matters, L. W.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Hoffman, P. C.	Maxton, James	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Hollins, A.	Messer, Fred	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Hopkin, Daniel	Middleton, G.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.	Mills, J. E.	Sorensen, R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Milner, Major J.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Montague, Frederick	Stephen, Campbell
Isaacs, George	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Strauss, G. R.
Jenkins, Sir William	Morley, Ralph	Sullivan, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Sutton, J. E.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mort, D. L.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Muff, G.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Muggeridge, H. T.	Tillett, Ben
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Murnin, Hugh	Tinker, John Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Nathan, Major H. L.	Toole, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Naylor, T. E.	Tout, W. J.
Kelly, W. T.	Noel Baker, P. J.	Townend, A. E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Vaughan, David
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Oldfield, J. R.	Viant, S. P.
Kinley, J.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Walkden, A. G.
Kirkwood, D.	Palin, John Henry	Walker, J.
Lang, Gordon	Paling, Wilfrid	Watkins, F. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Palmer, E. T.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wellock, Wilfred
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Perry, S. F.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Westwood, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Lawson, John James	Pole, Major D. G.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Potts, John S.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Leach, W.	Price, M. P.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Quibell, D. J. K.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lees, J.	Rathbone, Eleanor	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Leonard, W.	Raynes, W. R.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Richards, R.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Logan, David Gilbert	Ritson, J.	Wise, E. F.
Longbottom, A. W.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Longden, F.	Romerll, H. G.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Lunn, William	Rowson, Guy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Thurtle.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Boothby, R. J. G.	Clydesdale, Marquess of
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Albery, Irving James	Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Boyce, Leslie	Colfox, Major William Philip
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Bracken, B.	Colville, Major D. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Brass, Captain Sir William	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Broadbent, Colonel J.	Cooper, A. Duff
Astor, Viscountess	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Atholl, Duchess of	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Atkinson, C.	Buchan, John	Cranborne, Viscount
Balllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Butler, R. A.	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Campbell, E. T.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Balniel, Lord	Carver, Major W. H.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Beaumont, M. W.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Chapman, Sir S.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Bird, Ernest Roy	Christie, J. A.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Jones, Sir G W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Salmon, Major I.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Elliot, Major Walter E	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Savery, S. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ferguson, Sir John	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Skelton, A. N.
Fielden, E. B.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ford, Sir P. J.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Smithers, Waldron
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ganzonl, Sir John	Macquisten, F. A.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Gower, Sir Robert	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Muirhead, A. J.	Thomas, Major L. S. (King's Norton)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Thompson, Luke
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Thomson, Sir F.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	O'Connor, T. J.	Train, J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	O'Neill, Sir H.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hanbury, C.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Hartington, Marquess of	Perkins, W. R. D.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Wayland, Sir William A.
Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.	Pybus, Percy John	Wells, Sydney R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J	Ramsbotham, H.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Remer, John R.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)	Womersley, W. J.
Hurd, Percy A.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Ross, Ronald D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Iveagh, Countess of	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Sir George Penny and Major the
		Marquess of Titchfield.

Amendment proposed: In page 32, line 35, at the end, to insert the words: (t) in the foregoing provisions of this section references to a feu contract, a superior, a feuar, and a feu duty shall be deemed to include, respectively, references to a contract of ground annual, a creditor

therein, a debtor there in, and a ground annual."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 187.

Division No. 334.]	AYES.	[11.4 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Bromfield, William	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Bromley, J.	Dukes, C.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Brooke, W.	Duncan, Charles
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Ede, James Chuter
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Buchanan, G.	Edmunds, J. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Burgess, F. G.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Ammon, Charles George	Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Angell, Sir Norman	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Egan, W. H.
Arnott, John	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Elmley, Viscount
Aske, Sir Robert	Cameron, A. G.	Foot, Isaac
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cape, Thomas	Freeman, Peter
Ayles, Walter	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Charleton, H. C.	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Chater, Daniel	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Barnes, Alfred John	Church, Major A. G.	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Barr, James	Clarke, J. S.	Gill, T. H.
Batey, Joseph	Cluse, W. S.	Gillett, George M.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Glassey, A. E.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Cove, William G.	Gossling, A. G.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Gould, F.
Benson, G.	Daagar, George	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Dallas, George	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Gray, Milner
Bowen, J. W.	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Day, Harry	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Groves, Thomas E.
Grundy, Thomas W.	McEntee, V. L.	Sanders, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Snettleston)	Sandham, E.
Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)	MacLaren, Andrew	Sawyer, G. F.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Sexton, Sir James
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	McShane, John James	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Harris, Percy A.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Sherwood, G. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Manning, E. L.	Shield, George William
Haycock, A. W.	Mansfield, W.	Shillaker, J. F.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	March, S.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Marcus, M.	Simmons, C. J.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Markham, S. F.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Marley, J.	Sinkinson, George
Herriotts, J.	Marshall, Fred	Sitch, Charles H
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Mathers, George	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Matters, L. W.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hoffman, P. C.	Maxton, James	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Hollins, A.	Messer, Fred	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Hopkin, Daniel	Middleton, G.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Mills, J. E.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Milner, Major J.	Sorensen, R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Montague, Frederick	Stamford, Thomas W.
Isaacs, George	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Stephen, Campbell
Jenkins, Sir William	Morley, Ralph	Strauss, G. R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Sullivan, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mort, D. L.	Sutton, J. E.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Muff, G.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Muggeridge, H. T.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Murnin, Hugh	Thurtle, Ernest
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Nathan, Major H. L.	Tillett, Ben
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Naylor, T. E.	Tinker, John Joseph
Kelly, W. T.	Noel Baker, P. J.	Toole, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Tout, W. J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Oldfield, J. R.	Townend, A. E.
Kinley, J.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Vaughan, David
Kirkwood, D.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Viant, S. P.
Lang, Gordon	Palin, John Henry	Walkden, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Palmer, E. T.	Walker, J.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wallace, H. W.
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Perry, S. F.	Watkins, F. C.
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lawrence, Susan	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Wellock, Wilfred
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lawson, John James	Pole, Major D. G.	Westwood, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Potts, John S.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Leach, W.	Price, M. P.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Lee Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Quibell, D. J. K.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lees, J.	Rathbone, Eleanor	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Leonard, W.	Raynes, W. R.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Richards, R.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Logan, David Gilbert	Ritson, J.	Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Longbottom, A. W.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Longden, F.	Romerll, H. G.	Wise, E. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Lunn, William	Rowson, Guy	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
McElwee, A.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel	Boothby, R. J. G.	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Albery, Irving James	Boyce, Leslie	Colfox, Major William Philip
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Bracken, B.	Colville, Major D. J.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Brass, Captain Sir William	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Broadbent, Colonel J.	Cooper, A. Duff
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Astor, Viscountess	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Atkinson, C.	Sutler, R. A.	Cranborne, Viscount
Balllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Campbell, E. T.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Carver, Major W. H.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Balniel, Lord	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Beaumont, M. W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Chapman, Sir S.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Christie, J. A.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Bird, Ernest Roy	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Savery, S. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s-M.)	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Everard, W. Lindsay	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Skelton, A. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ferguson, Sir John	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fielden, E. B.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Smithers, Waldron
Ford, Sir P. J.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Macquisten, F. A.	Spender-Clay. Colonel H.
Ganzonl, Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Marjoribanks, Edward	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Gower, Sir Robert	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Thompson, Luke
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Muirhead, A. J.	Thomson, Sir F.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Train, J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	O'Connor, T. J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	O'Neill, Sir H.	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. Willlam	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Hanbury, C.	Peake, Capt Osbert	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Perkins, W. R. D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hartington, Marquess of	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Wells, Sydney R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Pybus, Percy John	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Ramsbotham, H.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Remer, John R.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Womersley, W. J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Hurd, Percy A.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Ross, Ronald D.	Sir George Bowyer and Sir George
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Penny.
Iveagh, Countess of	Salmon, Major I.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 185.

Division No. 335.]	AYES.	[11.13 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Burgin, Dr. E. L.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gill, T. H.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Cameron, A. G.	Gillett, George M.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Glassey, A. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Charleton, H. C.	Gossling, A. G.
Ammon, Charles George	Chater, Daniel	Gould, F.
Angell, Sir Norman	Church, Major A. G.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Arnott, John	Clarke, J. S.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Aske, Sir Robert	Cluse, W. S.	Gray, Milner
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cocks, Frederick Seymour.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Ayles, Walter	Cove, William G.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Daggar, George	Groves, Thomas E.
Barnes, Alfred John	Dallas, George	Grundy, Thomas W.
Barr, James	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Batey, Joseph	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Day, Harry	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Benson, G.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Dukes, C.	Harris, Percy A.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Duncan, Charles	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Bowen, J. W.	Ede, James Chuter	Haycock, A. W.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Edmunds, J. E.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Bromfield, William	Egan, W. H.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Bromley, J.	Elmley, Viscount	Herriotts, J.
Brooke, W.	Foot, Isaac	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Freeman, Peter	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Buchanan, G.	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Hoffman, P. C.
Burgess, F. G.	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Hollins, A.
Hopkin, Daniel	Marley, J.	Sherwood, G. H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Marshall, Fred	Shield, George William
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Mathers, George	Shillaker, J. F.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Matters, L. W.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Isaacs, George	Maxton, James	Simmons, C. J.
Jenkins, Sir William	Messer, Fred	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Middleton, G.	Sinkinson, George
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Mills, J. E.	Sitch, Charles H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Milner, Major J.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Montague, Frederick	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Morley, Ralph	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Kelly, W. T.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mort, D. L.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Muff, G.	Sorensen, R.
Kinley, J.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Kirkwood, D.	Murnin, Hugh	Stephen, Campbell
Lang, Gordon	Nathan, Major H. L	Strauss, G. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Naylor, T. E.	Sullivan, J.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Sutton, J. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Law, A. (Rosendale)	Oldfield, J. R.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Thurtle, Ernest
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Tillett, Ben
Lawson, John James	Palin, John Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Palmer, E. T.	Toole, Joseph
Leach, W.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Tout, W. J.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Perry, S. F.	Townend, A. E
Lee; Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Vaughan, David
Lees, J.	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Viant, S. P.
Leonard, W.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Walkden, A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Pole, Major D. G.	Wallace, H. W.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Potts, John S.	Watkins, F. C.
Lagan, David Gilbert	Price, M. P.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Longbottom, A. W.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Wellock, Wilfred
Longden, F.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Rathbone, Eleanor	Westwood, Joseph
Lunn, William	Raynes, W. R.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Richards, R.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
McElwee, A.	Ritson, J.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
McEntee, V. L.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Romerll, H. G.	Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
MacLaren, Andrew	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Rowson, Guy	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
McShane, John James	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Wise, E. F.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Sanders, W. S.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Manning, E. L.	Sandham, E.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Mansfield, W.	Sawyer, G. F.
March, S.	Sexton, Sir James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Marcus, M.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.
Markham, S. F.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Albery, Irving James	Buchan, John	Dalkeith, Earl of
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Butler, R. A.	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Campbell, E. T.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Astor, Viscountess	Carver, Major W. H.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Atholl, Duchess of	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Atkinson, C.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Eden, Captain Anthony
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Balniel, Lord	Chapman, Sir S.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Christie, J. A.	Everard, W. Lindsay
Beaumont, M. W.	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Ferguson, Sir John
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Fielden, E. B.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Colfox, Major William Philip	Ford, Sir P. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Colville, Major D. J.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Cooper, A. Duff	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Ganzonl, Sir John
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Boyce, Leslie	Cranborne, Viscount	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bracken, B.	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Gower, Sir Robert
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Skelton, A. N.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Marjoribanks, Edward	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Smithers, Waldron
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Muirhead, A. J.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hanbury, C.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hartington, Marquess of	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	O'Connor, T. J.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	O'Neill, Sir H.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Thompson, Luke
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Peaks, Captain Osbert	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Train, J.
Hurd, Percy A.	Power, Sir John Cecil	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hutchison, Maj,-Gen. Sir R.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Pybus, Percy John	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Iveagh, Countess of	Ramsbotham, H.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Remer, John R.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Wayland, Sir William A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Surly, Ch'te'y)	Wells, Sydney R.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Ross, Ronald D.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Salmon, Major I.	Womersley, W. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Savery, S. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir
		George Penny.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Sir R. HORNE

rose——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order.

Sir R. HORNE

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to direct attention to the way in which the Debate was conducted throughout the proceedings to-day.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Motion to report Progress is not one that can be debated, because we have not reached the end of the business set down for this allotted period. The motion to report Progress cannot be debated until the business set down for that day has been completed under the Guillotine motion. The motion to-night must be put forthwith.

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.