Sitting of 29 June 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords,] (King's consent signified).
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords,]
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Bill presented to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Maryport, the Hitchin Joint Hospital District, and the Whaley Bridge Joint Sewerage District.—[Mr. Masterman,]
  Read the first time.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. J. Caldwell)The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. J. Caldwell) moved, "That, in the case of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time."
  Mr. MOONEY: At the present moment no one knows what is the Standing Order. The Standing Orders are very extensive, and without some explanation we cannot expect to know what the suspension means. I beg to suggest that the Motion of the suspension of the Standing Order stand over for a day in order that we may see really what it means.
  Mr. CALDWELL: I will put the Motion down for to-morrow (Wednesday).

PETITION.
Mr. JAMES O'CONNORpresented the following Petition from the Town Commissioners of the town of Arklow:—"That landlords can now as hitherto at the termination of a 'building lease' increase the
206
rent of the leaseholders or tenants or capriciously evict them without any compensation whatever and appropriate the buildings which they (the leaseholders) have erected with their own money, and enjoy the increased value of the buildings which has been secured by the expenditure of rates and taxes paid by the tenants or leaseholders, and to which the landlords have practically contributed nothing, and thus the great body of tenants or leaseholders in towns in Ireland who hold houses or premises which they have built at their own costs on ground leased from landlords on comparatively short leases (and at the highest rent which the landlords could possibly get for the land) have obtained no protection whatever under the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906." The petition was signed on behalf of the Commissioners by Mr. Michael Waldron, chairman, and Mr. Joseph W. Barrett, town clerk.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persian Affairs.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information with regard to Persian affairs?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey)I cannot on the general situation add the news which has appeared in the Press, and which records day by day the state of affairs as clearly as can be expected under the circumstances, certainly as clearly as I can do it.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that the elections to the Persian Assembly are to commence in a few days time; is it a fact that the posts and telegraphs and other machinery for conducting the elections are still in the hands of the Court party, while those personages who possess the confidence of the Persian people, and of whom many were returned to the late Parliament by their votes, are still in exile; and will he represent to the Persian Government the desirability of postponing the elections until satisfactory guarantees have been given for the faithful observance of the amnesty, and until the statesman whose name they have notified to His Majesty's Government has returned to Persia and taken over the reins of Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The elections are, according to the information last received, to be held as soon as possible; the posts and telegraphs are, in so far as the latter are not managed by foreign officials, under the control of the Government in power, but there is no indication to show that a partial or improper use will be made of these facilities for communication. A general amnesty for political offences, with licence for exiles to return, has been proclaimed in a separate decree issued on l0th May. I do not think that a representation such as the hon. Member advocates would serve any useful purpose or contribute to the earlier re-establishment of Constitutional Government on a satisfactory basis, or be generally desirable.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that the Persian people elected their representatives to Parliament last summer, and that many of those representatives are in exile? Is it seriously proposed to summon Parliament before these gentlemen have had an opportunity of returning to Persia?
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the Foreign Office has any means of knowing which persons possess the confidence of the Persian people, and whether the fact that they were once elected proves that they do possess that confidence?
  Sir E. GREY: I am quite willing to give such facts as I possess, but I cannot enter into arguments about the Persian situation.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it proposed before these gentlemen return to Persia, and have had the opportunity of submitting themselves for re-election, that Parliament should assemble?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a question that should be more properly addressed to the Persian Government.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the State of Persia has promulgated the new electoral law; and can he state what changes are introduced by this law?
  Sir E. GREY: The electoral law was signed by the Shah on 23rd June. I have not yet seen the text, but His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has reported that it is of a most democratic character.

  European Schools in Bengal.
  Mr. LAIDLAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secre-
  208
  tary of State for India is aware of the dissatisfaction of the European community of Bengal with the Code of Regulations for European Schools in Bengal, 1908, which is to take effect in 1910; and whether he will have the operation of the code postponed until the schools are better prepared to meet the increased expenditure that will be involved?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State has received no representation from the European community of Bengal and has no information on the subject. Any memorial sent in the usual manner will, of course, be considered.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: You might have been at it all your life.

  Punjaub Police Officers.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether, in the case of the alleged murder of her husband by one Gulab Bano, heard on appeal at Lahore in January last, he can state what action was taken by the Government of the Punjaub in regard to the police officers implicated in the charges of outrage and torture of the woman made against them by the judges of the chief court; whether these police were removed from the service of the Government; and whether any criminal proceedings have been taken against them?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has as yet no information as to whether any action has been taken in regard to the police officers concerned. As was stated in reply to a question last Tuesday, an inquiry has been held, and the report is being considered by the local government.

  Consumption of Alcoholic Liquors (Madras Presidency).
  Mr. REESasked whether the last reported revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquors and drugs in the Madras Presidency was £1,699,830; and, if so, why, since the population is only slightly less than that of the United Kingdom, and is judged by the returns one of the most temperate in the world, the Madras Government has been urged to adopt measures to check further increase of the consumption of alcoholic liquor?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The figure given by the hon. Member is correct according to the revised estimate of 1908–9.

  209
  It shows an increase of 24 per cent, on the revenue derived in 1906–7 from intoxicating liquors and drugs. The Madras Government considers that the consumption of spirits and drugs has increased among certain classes of the population to a regrettable extent, and that further restrictive measures are necessary. It is not acting under external pressure, but on its own judgment and initiative. The hon. Member can hardly suggest that the fact of the Madras population being one of the most temperate in the world is a good reason for allowing it to become less temperate.
  Mr. REES: Is it not the fact that on the motion of an hon. Member of this House the Government urged the Madras Government to take steps as if they were dealing with a drunken population?
  Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: Do not the Returns of the Excise revenue in India show a three-fold increase in the last 30 years?
  The MASTER of ELI BANK: I cannot answer these questions without notice.

  The Midnapur Appeal.
  Sir HENRY COTTON (in the absence of Mr. Mackarness)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the comments made by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur appeal upon the conduct of the magistrate of Midnapur in procuring confessions of guilt from the accused, which were not voluntary, and upon the procedure of the joint magistrates in recording them; and whether at the inquiry which has been ordered those gentlemen will be given an opportunity of explaining their conduct?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is aware of the comments made in the High Court's judgment on the action of the magistrates referred to in the question. The inquiry, which is proceeding, will include all points in which the conduct of the local officers has been impugned, and those officers will have the fullest opportunity of explaining their conduct.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: Is it a fact that the magistrate, Mr. Weston, has been appointed as an assistant to the Commissioner who is making the inquiry?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I must ask for notice.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are there any magistrates among the accused?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I should like notice.
  Mr. BENNETTasked whether, in view of the fact that upwards of 150 persons were originally arrested by the police as being concerned in the alleged conspiracy at Midnapur, that only three of the accused were found guilty by the magistrate, and that the convictions of those three have been set aside by the High Court as being based on confessions extorted from the accused by grossly illegal methods on the part of the police, he can state with what object or upon what fresh evidence the Government of Bengal has ordered a further inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged conspiracy?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The late Lieut.-Governor of Bengal announced in August last that an inquiry into the existence of a conspiracy in Bengal would be held, and the terms of reference, under which the present inquiry is being held, have been so drafted as to carry into effect the intention which was thus made public. As to this, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham last Tuesday.
  Mr. REES: Is not the Government of Bengal competent to order inquiries at its own discretion without disclosing such facts as would render the inquiry unavailing?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I must ask for notice.

  Rhodesia and Nyassaland Hut Tax.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the rates of the Hut Tax collected in Rhodesia and in Nyassaland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): In Southern and North-Western Rhodesia there is no Hut Tax strictly so-called, but there is in Southern Rhodesia a Native Tax at the rate of £1 per annum for each adult male native, with ten shillings per annum for each wife in excess of one. In Northwestern Rhodesia there is power to provide by proclamation of the High Commissioner for a tax at the same rate, but the amount actually collected is understood to be at the rate of from five to ten shillings per annum, according to the ability of the natives in the various dis-

  211
  tricts to pay. In North-Eastern Rhodesia the amount of Hut Tax payable varies from three to five shillings for every hut occupied. In Nyassaland the rate is six shillings a hut, or three shillings if the native can show that he has worked one month during the year for a European. In Nyassaland districts may be proclaimed within which the rates shall be double those mentioned, but so far no districts have been so proclaimed.

  Crown Agents Office and Kowloon Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he will inform the House by whom the staff is employed and controlled, orders placed, rebates and private commissions received, and patronage exercised in connection with large engineering works in the Colonies, if not by the Crown Agents; whether their operations, income, and expenditure are free from control, scrutiny, audit, and the inspection to which the business of other Government Departments are subject, on the part either of the Colonies or of the Home Government, in matters in which the Imperial Parliament votes money and incurs responsibility; if he will state the original estimate of cost and time for the completion of the tunnelled portion of the Kowloon Railway, the untunnelled portion, and the entire line' respectively; whether a responsible firm was willing to construct it efficiently within those limits; the actual expenditure by the Crown Agents to the date of the latest accounts; the present estimated further cost and time for completion; the difference in cost and time compared with the original estimate; and whether he has read the intimation in the Governor's address to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on 13th May last, that further supplementary estimates for this railway may be necessary?
  Colonel SEELY: In engineering works in the Crown Colonies carried out depart-mentally the staff is employed and controlled by the Colonial Government concerned. Orders other than those placed locally are placed by the Crown Agents. Appointments are made either by the Colonial Government or by the Crown Agents acting on the recommendation of the consulting engineers. No rebates or private commissions are received, and any discounts are credited to the Colonial Government. All the operations of the Crown Agents are subject to the control of the Secretary of State. Their income
  212
  and expenditure are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and moneys expended by them on behalf of a Government for which they act are audited precisely as other Colonial expenditure. In matters in which the Imperial Parliament votes money the Comptroller and Auditor-General audits the expenditure. As regards the Kowloon Railway, the original estimate of time for the tunnel was three and a half years, within which period it was thought that the rest of the line would be completed. The estimated cost of the one tunnel which alone was required on the original alignment was 1,833,200 dols., and that of the remainder of the work was 3,166,800 dols., making a total of 5,000,000 dols. As it was decided to construct the line departmentally, no tenders were invited, and I am not aware that any offers were received from private firms. The actual expenditure by the Crown Agents up to date has been £127,575 0s. 3d. It is hoped that the line will be open for traffic throughout by August, 1910. The latest revised estimates have not yet been received from the Colony, and I am therefore unable to state their amount. During construction it has been found desirable to make considerable alterations in the alignment, including four additional tunnels and other works, and to provide increased accommodation at the terminus, involving extensive and costly reclamation on the sea front. The address referred torn the concluding part of the question has not yet been received by the Secretary of State.
  Sir T. A. BRAMSDON: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is; the slightest foundation for the suggestion contained in the question that private commissions are received at the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies?
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad that question has been asked. I assumed that no suggestion of improper conduct was conveyed in the phrase "private commissions." The exact contrary is the case. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside, and containing men of such financial ability as Sir Francis Mowatt, decided unanimously that there was no possibility of the suggestion of anything but the utmost financial probity on the part of the Crown Agents, I was confident that no hon. Member of this House would make charges against public servants who by the rules of the Service are prohibited from defending themselves.
  Mr. REES: When will the recommendations of the Committee referred to by the hon. and gallant Member come into effect? Do the Colonial Office discern any disposition on the part of the Crown Agents to think that railways made by others than themselves at a less cost than they make them themselves are less efficient than the railways they make at a greater cost?
  Colonel SEELY: The recommendations of the Committee will be carried out in due course. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I am so stupid that I cannot apprehend the long words he uses in putting these supplementary questions.
  Mr. REES: May I point out that the longest word I used was——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are the Crown Agents under the control of the Colonial Office to the same extent, and in the same respect in which Government; officials are under control in this country?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir, it may be said that they are in all respects a Government Department.

  Colonial Railway Contracts.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the consent of the Colonial Office is necessary, and is always obtained, before the Crown Agents undertake the construction of a railway or other engineering work in any Colony or Protectorate; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office will in future withhold its consent in each case until tenders for the execution of the work by contract have been publicly invited, and the result considered by the Colonial Office?
  Colonel SEELY: The Crown Agents do not undertake the construction of railways or any other engineering works. If the Government of a Crown Colony desires to undertake such works, the consent of the Colonial Office is necessary. Upon the question whether such works should be carried out Departmentally or by contract, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the answer which I am giving in writing to another question of his to-day.

  Prosecutions of Carters in Scottish Cities.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to
  214
  the number of carters and others who are dealt with in the burgh courts of the large cities in Scotland at the instance of tramway managers and officials; whether he is aware that in these instances the tramways belong to the corporations, and that the lay magistrates who decide these cases are members of these corporations; and whether he will introduce legislation which will deal with this state of matters?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am aware that under the Tramway Bye-laws, as well as at common law, a large number of cases are tried in the police courts of the City of Glasgow at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal on information laid by tramway officials against carters and drivers of other vehicles for obstructing and delaying tramway cars, for driving on tramway rails, and for reckless driving and colliding with tramway cars. I am, further, aware that the lay magistrates who try the cases are members of the corporation. But no complaint has reached me relative to the administration of justice in the police courts in tramway cases; and I see no cause, therefore, for introducing, legislation on the subject.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the extent of this evil in Scotland—of the practice of judges sitting on cases in which they are interested?
  Mr. URE: I cannot admit there is any evil existent.

  Scottish Local Government Board (Report).
  Mr. WEIRasked when the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland will be issued?
  Mr. URE: The Report referred to has now been issued.

  Crofter Tenancies in Lewis.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island of Lewis, has now definitely decided to break up the farm of Mangersta, Uig, Lewis, into new holdings; and, if so will he state the number of crofter tenancies likely to be created?
  Mr. URE: Communications are still passing with the proprietor; and, meanwhile, I am not in a position to make any statement.

  Island of Lewis (Cottars).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the cottars of South Shawbost, Island of Lewis, who recently occupied a small portion of the farm at Dalbeg, were driven to take this course owing to the crofters on whose lands they were formerly located being unwilling to -continue any longer to bear such' additional burden on their holdings; and, seeing that these cottars are anxious to secure new holdings at fair rentals, will the Congested Districts Board communicate with Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island, on the subject, with a view to ascertain whether it is possible to break up some of the farms for crofter settlements?
  Mr. URE: Two schemes of settlement in the Island of Lewis, viz., Aignish and Battery Point have already been carried out with the co-operation of the proprietor, another scheme is under consideration, and he is perfectly aware that the Congested Districts Board are willing to consider any similar proposals which he may think fit to lay before them. No further communications are, therefore, necessary.
  Mr. WEIR: With a view of preventing these poor unfortunate landless cottars being turned out on the moor as they have been, will arrangements be made speedily with the proprietor to bring about a settlement, and not to allow this state of things to go on for two or three years?
  Mr. URE: The Congested Districts Board will act with dispatch.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that John Maclean, aged 72, a cottar under the Act, to suit the convenience of his landlord, Earl Lovelace, has been evicted from his house at Annat, Torridon, Ross-shire, built by his father 90 years ago, and is entitled to compensation under Clauses 9 and 10 of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, will he state what steps the Crofters Commission propose to take to secure to Maclean his rights under the Act, seeing that Earl Lovelace demolished the house at the time the eviction took place, and so deprived the Commission of the power to determine the compensation due to Maclean, as set forth in Clause 10 of the Act?
  Mr. URE: The Crofters' Commission are not precluded from entertaining an application from Maclean for compensation under the sections referred to by my hon. Friend, if otherwise competent, because of
  216
  the demolition of the house. I am assured, however, on behalf of the landlord, that he has always been willing to compensate Maclean, to whom he made an offer on 14th June.
  Mr WEIR: Does he approve of this system of allowing Highland landlords to clear people out of their houses on to the roadside before compensation is arranged in accordance with the Act of Parliament, or, in other words, does he approve of the law of the land being overridden in this fashion by the landlord?
  Mr. URE: I gave the facts to my hon. Friend a few days ago, and according to the facts, as I know them, there has been no overriding of the law of the land.
  Mr. WEIR: Does he not override the law of the land when he allows Lord Lovelace to turn this man out on the road without the compensation contribution having been arranged for the house, which this man should get in accordance with the Act of Parliament?
  Mr. URE: If the hon. Member will recall the facts as I stated them, he will see that no injustice has been done or want of consideration shown.
  Mr. WATT: If this man had been turned out without a proper arrangement of compensation, and there had been demolition, is that demolition not overriding the statute?
  Mr. URE: No; everything was done in conformity with the law.

  Aberdeen Distress Committee (Dock Extension Scheme),
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Lord Advocate whether he has received an application from the Aberdeen Distress Committee for a grant for the employment of unemployed workmen on the dock extension scheme; whether such grant has been promised; whether he is aware that it is proposed to dismiss men now employed on the dock extension in order to employ the unemployed at lower rates of wages in their stead; and whether this has the sanction of his Department?
  Mr. URE: In response to an application made by the Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners last winter, the Local Government Board for Scotland agreed on 6th January, having regard to the then situation, to works at the harbour being executed by the unemployed through the distress committee, subject to certain conditions. The

  217
  distress committee did not intimate their acceptance of these conditions, and were informed on the 12th May that the conditional approval had reference to the circumstances existing when it was given, and that the Board could not sanction works to be started at this season. The Board would certainly decline to approve any proposal which would have the effect of displacing ordinary labour, and the Harbour Commissioners state that their scheme would not have this effect. Should the proposal be renewed, the Board will consider it afresh, and with special reference to the point raised by the hon. Member.

  Rivers Pollution (River Leven).
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCANasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that on 22nd October, 1907, it was found in the Report made to the Government by their inspectors that the burgh and county councils of Dumbarton, as well as private individuals, were committing a nuisance in terms of the Rivers Pollution and Public Health Acts by polluting the River Leven, he has taken or proposes to take any steps, or to call on the local authorities to take steps, to remedy the state of matters as condemned in the Report?
  Mr. URE: As the result of communications with the local authorities, I understand that the nuisance under the Public Health Act due to sewer outfalls was effectively removed. The Report referred to was laid before the county council with a view to action under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, and was considered by the county authorities in consultation with the Western District Committee of the county and the manufacturers interested. Various remedial measures were stated to have been adopted, or to be in contemplation, and no recent complaints have reached the Office of the Secretary for Scotland.

  Benefit Associations.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the number of poor persons deceived by associations failing to pay benefits promised in exchange for fixed contributions, as shown by several recent court cases, whether he proposes to acquire fuller powers to prevent the formation of such associations or arrange for such supervision as will protect the working classes who may join them?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I am fully conscious of the necessity of safeguarding in every possible way the savings of the poor, and in order to check the growth of mushroom companies which in the past have proved unable to pay the benefits promised, a Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords by which it is proposed that all bond investments companies and house-purchase companies should be brought under the laws which have proved so effective in the case of life assurance companies. The Bill, though largely uncontroversial, is, however, a long one, and only the goodwill of all parties can secure its passage.

  Railwaymen (Census of Wages).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state whether the Census of Wages of Railway-men being prepared by the Board of Trade is complete; and, if so, when the same will be laid upon the Table of this House?
  Mr. TENNANT: The preparation of Returns of the earnings and other particulars covering all the workmen employed on and in connection with the railways in the United Kingdom has necessarily proved to be a laborious task. The companies have been actively assisting the Department, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no unnecessary delay at the Board of Trade in tabulating the Returns furnished and preparing a Report. I cannot, however, yet fix a date for the completion of the task.

  Railway Amalgamation (L. & N.W., Midland and L. & Y. Co.'s).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the contents of Command Paper 4,695, which gives the heads of agreements between the London and North-Western and Midland Railway Companies and between the London and North-Western, Midland, and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Companies; and whether, in view of the statement on behalf of the companies concerned that they were agreeable to the publication of the terms of the agreements, he will take steps to have the respective agreements presented in full?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that in neither of the cases named has any formal agreement been made beyond the heads of

  219
  agreement, which have already been published. If and when a formal agreement is signed by the three companies I will see whether anything can be done with a view to its publication.

  Thames Conservancy Board (Meetings).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether it is proposed that the Thames Conservancy Board shall hold their meetings in Beading instead of London; and whether the sanction of the Board of Trade will be given to this arrangement?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that a proposal to this effect has been under consideration by the Thames Conservators, but the Board of Trade have not been informed of their decision. The place of meeting is a matter entirely within the discretion of the conservators. The sanction of the Board of Trade is not required.

  Admiralty Correspondence.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether Article 12 of the King's Regulations, in which all persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to publish or cause to be published, directly or indirectly, in a newspaper any matter relative to the public service, is still in force; and whether, if so, they are Admiralty instructions?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY Mr. McKenna): Article 12 of the King's Regulations is still in force, though the terms thereof are not correctly set out by the hon. Member. The King's Regulations are the Admiralty instructions, as sanctioned by His Majesty in Council.
  Captain FABER: Does this Regulation include the First Sea Lord?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the First Sea Lord is not a person belonging to the Fleet.
  Captain FABER: Can the First Sea Lord enter into correspondence with the Press when he chooses in his own office?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is another question, but I do not think it arises under Article 12.
  Captain FABER: Will he make inquiries of the First Sea Lord?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I will not undertake to make inquiry of the First Sea Lord.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many copies of the fourth letter in the Bacon-Mann series, mentioned by Sir George Armstrong in his letter of 19th June, were printed; and how many were circulated from the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I can add nothing to what I have already said on this subject.
  Captain FABER: Will he say whether there are any more letters that are likely to be circulated?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Gentleman had better address the question to Sir George Armstrong.
  Captain FABER: Does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that Sir George Armstrong was paid to get these letters?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I never suggested that Sir George Armstrong was paid.
  Mr. REES: What is the position of Sir George Armstrong in these matters? What is his copyright in Bacon's essays?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give the information asked for because he cannot get it, or because he thinks it undesirable in the public interest?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to what I have said.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an extract from a printed letter, written during the month following the publication of Captain Bacon's letters, by a junior captain of the Fleet to the First Sea Lord, and referred to by Sir George Armstrong on 19th June, in which the writer says that he returned the papers to the First Sea Lord's secretary; and if he will state whether the First Sea Lord still adheres to his statement that the letters referred to were not circulated?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing further to say on this subject.

  H.M.S. "Hermes."
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether, when His Majesty's ship "Hermes" recently went into Trincomalee for repairs, there were no straps or bellows available owing to their having been sold?
  Mr. McKENNA: His Majesty's ship "Hermes" has not been at Triucomalee recently, or at any time since October, 1906.
  Captain FABER: When she was there in 1906 was this the case?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further.
  Captain FABER: This would be one of the forts which is now dismantled, would it not?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.

  H.M.S. "Indefatigable."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked if it is the intention of the Admiralty to maintain in service two cruisers bearing the name "Indefatigable," or do they intend to scrap or rename the protected cruiser at present so named?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is intended to rename the old "Indefatigable" when she is recommissioned.

  German "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Admiralty know the dates on which the "Nassau," "Westfalen," "Posen," and "Rheinland" (German "Dreadnoughts") were actually laid down; and when were the six later German "Dreadnoughts" ordered and commenced on the stocks, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is that the official date for laying the keels of the ships named is the first week in August, 1907. As regards the six later "Dreadnoughts," the contracts for the three of the 1908–09 programme were given out before August, 1908, and the ships were commenced on the stocks late in the same year. The official dates of laying down the keels have not been made known to us. Of the three ships of the 1909–10 programme, the contract for one was given on 1st April; the others, it is stated, have not yet been ordered.

  Admiralty Stokers.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of a communication from the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers of Sunderland protesting against the employment of stokers in His Majesty's Navy on skilled work instead of fully qualified mechanics; whether he is aware that a few years ago the Admiralty appealed for
  222
  mechanics for the Royal Naval Reserve, stipulating that such mechanics must have served an apprenticeship before being accepted; and, if so, whether, in view of the foregoing, he is prepared to take action whereby the skilled mechanic will have greater opportunities of filling the skilled positions?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received the communication mentioned, and I am aware that the qualifications for entry as engine-room artificer in the Royal Naval Reserve practically ensure that candidates chosen have served an apprenticeship. No further action is necessary, as the intention is being fulfilled that positions where highly skilled mechanical work is required shall continue to be filled by the engine-room artificers, who are the skilled mechanics.

  Ballysimon Post Office, County Limerick.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has looked into the memorial of the people of Ballysimon, county Limerick, asking that the post office in that district be reopened; whether complaint has been made of the hardship imposed on the people by reason of the distance they must travel in order to get money orders, stamps, etc.; and whether, taking all the circumstances into account, he can see his way to again reopen this office so that an end may be put to the inconvenience that now exists?
  Mr. S. BUXTON: I have carefully considered the question of reopening this office. I find that the value of the stamps sold at the Ballysimon office averaged only about a shilling a day, the postal order transactions only one a week, while only one parcel a week was posted. The postman will now carry and sell stamps, and will accept parcels, and will obtain postal orders on requisition. In these circumstances, I do not think that the closing of the office will cause any serious inconvenience, and I regret that the business is quite insufficient to justify the expense of keeping up the office, especially in view of the fact that the Postal service in the locality is carried on at a heavy loss to Revenue.
  Mr. JOYCE: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's very unfavourable answer, if the people of this locality guarantee the Post Office against any loss will he reconsider the question?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will consider the point, but I am afraid the whole of the transac-

  223
  tions in this office are so very minute that the guarantee will not be found to meet the position. I shall be glad to consider any proposal the hon. Member makes.
  Mr. JOYCE: It is a very serious matter for the people of the locality.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to describe the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as an unfavourable answer? I ask the question because, unfortunately, I have on a former occasion incurred your censure for using an almost identical term.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Obviously, it is undesirable, and also disorderly, to comment upon the answers received. Hon. Members must keep their opinions to themselves.

  Postal Facilities, West Kensington.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet completed his inquiry which he promised in response to a petition received from the inhabitants of West Kensington praying for better postal facilities; and whether he is now prepared to give the result of his inquiry?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of improving the facilities for postal business at West Kensington is still under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as a decision is arrived at.

  Post Offices (London Stores).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the privilege granted to two or three stores in London to use the Post Office business as an advertising medium by allowing them to stamp the name of their firm to all registered letters, parcels, telegrams, and money order and postal order transactions at the post office in their respective buildings, and whether, as a matter of fairness to competing traders, he will cause such practice to discontinue?
  Mr. BUXTON: Sub-post offices have been established at certain large stores, clubs, and hotels, in order to meet the convenience of the public. It is, however, a condition in each case that these offices should be freely accessible to all members of the public. In accordance with the normal practice, all registered letters, par-
  224
  cels, etc., are date-stamped at the office of origin with a stamp bearing the name of the office at which they are handed in, but I will consider whether in the cases in question the designation of the office should not be changed so as not to include the name of the firm.
  Mr. BARNARD: Have other drapery establishments in London similar offices, and do their names appear on official documents in the same way as at Harrod's?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I said, there are three or four stores and some clubs and hotels where there are these facilities for the convenience of the public, but I do not think it is right that it should in any sense stand for an advertisement for these particular stores, and therefore, having had my attention drawn to it, I shall see that the stamp does not contain the name of the firm.
  Mr. BARNARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the "Draper's Record" of last week, which publishes very fully this matter, with these names on every postal document?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes; I have. My attention was drawn to it.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future the names of the firms shall not appear?
  Mr. BUXTON: What I propose is that the date stamp shall not bear the name and address so that it shall not form in any sense an advertisement. I do not attach any blame to the stores for having used it, because in the natural course that was the date stamp which they were entitled to use. Their attention having been drawn to it, I think they themselves will recognise the propriety of it.

  Poor Relief (Paid Employment).
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in January, 1908, the Local Government Board discovered that for 29 years the guardians of the Ecclesall Bierlow Union had carried on a regular system of offering to every able-bodied man that applied for relief not the workhouse, but paid employment at piecework rates; that no food was supplied to the men; and that they went out like workmen at midday to get their own meals, and at 5 p.m. they were paid their earnings for the day, and that these earnings were not

  225
  entered as relief but as wages to journeymen woodcutters, the men not being entered as paupers or subject to disfranchisement; and whether, seeing that this system of setting the poor to work was witnessed by the inspectors at every visit and went on from 1879 to 1908 without official objection, but was, in the latter year, stopped by the Local Government Board, he will state the reason why the Local Government Board put an end to the system?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): The attention of the Local Government Board was called to this matter in 1907, and they pointed out to the guardians that it was not their duty to find work for men out of employment, but to relieve destitution, and in connection with such relief to set the men to work as a test. They added that the relief should not be regarded as payment for work done, but be granted according to the necessities of each particular case, and for short periods, and that the circumstances of the applicants should be carefully inquired into by the relieving officer from time to time. The guardians admitted that the regulations in force in the Union had not been strictly observed, but represented that the system adopted by them had been in force for many years. The Board, however, felt bound to adhere to the view they had expressed on the subject, and the system was altered by the guardians.

  Thomas Dickerson (Compassionate Allowance)
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention had been called to the case of Thomas Dickerson, labourer, who was working for the Romford Board of Guardians, and who was put to work breaking stones by and for the guardians, and in doing so received such injuries as resulted in the loss of his left eye; and whether, in consequence of the injured man not being able to obtain compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Local Government Board will raise any objection if a compassionate allowance is granted to the man?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has been called to this case. I understand that the man applied for relief and was set to work in the stone yard, where the accident happened. He sued the guardians in the County Court for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although
  226
  his solicitor had previously been informed that the guardians were not liable. The case was dismissed by the County Court judge with costs, but the latter will have to be borne by the guardians. The guardians have given the man relief, and I am informed that they would probably have continued it had he made application. Whether they would be willing to make him any payment by way of compassionate allowance I am unable to say. If they apply to me on the subject, I am prepared to consider the application.

  Boxed Boneless Meat (Importation).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that boxed boneless meat is not permitted as an import into Germany on account of the impossibility of satisfactorily examining it for disease; and will he say whether he will adopt a similar system in this country?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that the importation of fresh boxed boneless meat into Germany is not allowed. As regards this country, regulations have been made on the subject under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907. Boneless pork, not being scrap meat, can only be imported if it is officially certified as having been found free from disease in the country of origin, and all scrap meat, whether pork or not, is excluded.
  Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the traders of this country who deal in this meat would suffer much loss if it were entirely excluded?
  Mr BURNS: I have already said boneless scrap meat is excluded, and the question whether traders would suffer much loss and inconvenience has to be tempered by another consideration—whether the consumers' interests would be imperilled if we were to allow this to go on.
  Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman find these foreign certificates are reliable?
  Mr. BURNS: So far we have only had two instances of their unreliability, and the Governments of the countries from which the meat came have taken very active steps to prevent any fraud in the future.

  School Children (Irregular Punishments).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention

  227
  has been drawn to recent cases of striking children on the head in schools, tried at Leeds County Court on 12th March last and at Ruthin Police Court on 3rd May; and whether, seeing that injury or death may be caused in this manner, particularly in unobserved cases of children suffering from acute meningitis, he will as soon as possible take such action as will put a stop to the practice of striking school children on the head?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. P. Trevelyan): I have seen a report of the Leeds case, to which the hon. Member refers. Irregular punishments, such as striking children on the head, are strongly disapproved of by the Board, and are, I believe, prohibited by the regulations of most local education authorities. Such practices are of comparatively rare occurrence, and my right hon. Friend does not think any further action is required.
  Mr. CLYNES: Did the Board express its disapproval with the local education authorities?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The attitude of the Board is perfectly well understood. I think the local education authorities can be trusted.

  Undeveloped Land Tax (Market Gardens).
  Mr. RENDALLasked whether land which is developed for the industry of market gardening will be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax under the Finance Bill?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Land used for market gardening is agricultural land within the definition contained in Clause 27 of the Finance Bill, and will, therefore, be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty under Clause 10 (2), unless its value does not exceed £50 per acre, or unless it comes within the other exemptions specified in Clause 11.
  Mr. BECK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting an Amendment exempting market garden land, because I do not suppose any market gardening land is under £50 an acre?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will convey that expression of opinion to my right hon. Friend.

  Exported British Spirits (Allowance).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked if, by the Finance Act of 1902 on the imposition of the Corn Duty, the allowances on exported British spirits were raised by an additional 1d. per gallon; whether, on the abolition of the Corn Duty, the allowances on exported spirits were also reduced by 1d.; and, if not, why was it not reduced?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The reasons for not reducing the allowances and surtax on the abolition of the Corn Duties are set out in Appendix No. 1 to the Report of the Industrial Alcohol Committee, 1905 (Command 2,477), to which I beg to refer my hon. Friend.

  Refusal to Punish Prisoners (Removal of Officers)
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officer whose case he referred to on 4th May was removed from a position of responsibility for refusing to punish prisoners for disobeying a regulation which has since been withdrawn; whether his request at the time for inquiry to be made at other prisons was ignored; and whether, seeing that by a circular issued in November of last year it is stated that the Secretary of State approved of certain privileges to prisoners, one of which was the right to use without remonstrance the utensil for the use of which the officer in question had refused to punish them, and in view of the public service rendered by the officer in securing the abolition of an inhuman punishment, he will restore him to his former rank and allow him compensation for the hardships he has endured?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Gladstone): The answer to each of the questions is in the negative. The hon. Member has been misinformed. The reasons for the reduction in rank of the officer in question were not connected with the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The references to the withdrawal of a regulation and the abolition of an alleged punishment are not in accordance with the facts.

  Accidents to Workmen (Safety Appliances).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in Germany there are permanent exhibitions of appliances for the

  229
  prevention of accidents to workmen; and whether, in view of the number of accidents which occur annually in this country to workers engaged in the manipulation of machinery, in the working of railways, and in seafaring, he will consider whether such an exhibition of safety appliances can be established in this country?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The question of the establishment of an exhibition of safety appliances has been under my consideration for some time, and inquiry has been made with regard to similar exhibitions in Germany and elsewhere. Owing, however, to the large additional expenditure in connection with the factory department entailed by the recent additions to the inspecting staff, it has not been found possible to proceed further with the project at present, but I hope before long to be able to take some steps in this direction, so far as the matter comes within the jurisdiction of my Department.

  Consignors of British Spirits (Allowances).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount paid by the Crown as allowances to consignors of British spirits exported during the last financial year; and can he state what proportion of that amount was paid to the distillers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The net amount was £114,393. The Board of Customs and Excise have no means of knowing what proportion of this amount was paid directly or indirectly to distillers.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the allowances originally made are no longer got by the consignors, but by middlemen?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My information is that the consignors still get them.

  Evicted Tenants Reinstated (Limerick).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in county Limerick since the passing of the Land Act; and how many have yet to be provided for?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): There have been 130 evicted tenants or their representatives reinstated or provided with new holdings in the county Limerick, and 65 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.

  National Schools, Ireland (Cost of Cleaning).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, if the national school managers in Ireland undertake to be responsible for half the cost of cleaning and heating the schools, he will see that the Treasury enable the Commissioners of National Education to meet the other half of the cost?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, I am prepared to consider fully, and to submit for the consideration of the Treasury, any suitable and financially practicable scheme for the heating and cleansing of national schools which may secure general acceptance in Ireland.

  Evicted Tenants (Kenmare Estate).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet completed their negotiations as to the reinstatement of evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate, county Kerry; and, if so, what has been the result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that six inspectors have gone down to the estate and that the proceedings have been going on already for eighteen months, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the negotiations will be completed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate with the Estates Commissioners, but I am not in a position at present to say when the negotiations will be completed.

  Athlone Board of Guardians (Clerical Staff).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a further resolution from the Athlone Board of Guardians in which some of his statements in reference to the clerical staff of the board of the Athlone (Nos. 1 and 2) Rural District Councils are denied; and whether, in view of the statement of facts mentioned in this resolution as to the former clerical staff and the salaries allocated for the new staff, and of the further fact that in at least four other instances, viz., Sligo, South Dublin, Oldcastle, and Dromore West, a division such as that proposed in Athlone has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, he will

  231
  request the latter body to reconsider its decision in regard to Athlone in order to give effect to the wishes of the representatives of the ratepayers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received the resolution referred to. As I stated in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Westmeath on 17th May last, one official was responsible for the duties of the three offices which the local authorities desire to separate. I understand that the clerical staff referred to in the resolution was only the usual assistance allowed to an executive officer for discharging minor clerical duties. I see no reason to question the view as to the suggested salaries taken by the Local Government Board, and indicated in my previous reply. In the four instances cited the Board were satisfied that a division of duties was desirable for the proper administration of the districts. This is not the case in the present instance. No fresh facts have been brought forward in the guardians' resolution to warrant a departure from the decision already arrived at by the Local Government Board in the matter.

  Hashish Smuggled in Indian Transport.
  The HON. MEMBER for SOUTH HACKNEY (Mr. Bottomley)had given notice of the following question: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a quantity of smuggled hashish or bhang was recently discovered by the Egyptian Customs officials on board the Indian transport "Braemar Castle"; whether a fine of £2,000 was inflicted; who paid the fine; what steps have been taken to discover the parties actually responsible; and what punishment, if any, has been inflicted upon them?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I understand that it is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that this question should stand over pending the result of an inquiry now proceeding?

  Employment of Reservists (Method of Selection).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the reservists who leave the Army and register their names at St. George's Barracks for employment are found employment in rotation; and, if not, will he state the method adopted in selecting Army Reserve men from the unemployed register?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Men whose names are registered at St. George's Barracks for employment are selected in rotation, subject to the following exceptions: For employment under the Post Office men are taken to fill vacancies in a postal district from the list of men who live in that particular district. Preferential treatment is given to men who have been previously employed under the Post Office, and who are asked for by name by the postal authorities, and to men of exemplary and very good characters. Men with special qualifications have them taken into consideration when candidates for employment in special appointments or trades are asked for.

  Land Valuation Returns.
  Mr CHAPLIN: May I ask a question of which I have given notice several times? Now I see the Minister in his place, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have formed any estimate of the approximate cost to the owners of land of the returns which are required of them by the Commissioners by clause 16 of the Finance Bill; and, if so, will he state what is their estimate of the approximate cost of those returns?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to apologise for not answering this question before. I am afraid it will be quite impossible for me to answer at question time on the days when the Finance Bill is in Committee. With regard to the question, I have to say that my attention has been repeatedly called to this. It is obviously impossible to prepare any approximate estimate of the cost of providing individual valuations. It would be just as easy to do it in the case of the Land Duties as in the case of the Estate Duties.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE DEPUTATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER.
Mr. HUGH LAW: A few minutes ago I gave private notice of a question which I desire to put to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is not now in his place, and I do not know whether I may be allowed to address it to the Home Secretary, who has cognisance of the matter. The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman can now say, as he could not do so two days ago, what reply he has returned to the request to receive to-night a deputation of ladies on the subject of

233
woman suffrage, and whether he and the Government have taken into full consideration the very grave danger to the public peace at the present moment?
Mr. H. GLADSTONE: I am not in possession of any information on the subject from the Prime Minister, and I cannot answer on his behalf.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether it is not a breach or violation of the privileges of the public for a deputation properly appointed to be prohibited from entering the precincts of this House in a perfectly orderly manner and having an inter view with the Prime Minister, and whether it is not a breach of the privileges of the public, especially in regard to the right of petition?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have not considered what the privileges of the public are with reference to interviews. They are of a very shadowy description. I would not like to commit myself on this point without full investigation.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is not it the case that the right of petition was assured to the public both in ancient documents as far back as Magna Charta and by an Act passed in the reign of Charles the Second, in which the right of petition is safeguarded by law, and does not that Act apply in the case of the ladies who want to present a petition to the Prime Minister?
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt that the public have the right to petition, but I did not understand that that was the point raised by the hon. Member. He spoke of a deputation, and I do not know whether there is any right on the part of the public to compel a Minister to attend a deputation.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On a narrower point, may I ask whether it was by your instructions that this deputation of ladies was this evening forcibly prohibited from peacefully entering the precincts of this House? May I be allowed a sentence to explain what I refer to? A deputation of nine ladies was to be appointed to wait on the Prime Minister this evening, and the police, as on former occasions, it was understood, have had instructions to prevent them from entering the precincts of this House. The question I press on you is this, whether it was by your orders and instructions that this action of the police is being taken.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have issued no instructions different from any which have been in force during the whole of this Session with regard to to-day. I am not aware of any occasion.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he would not represent to the Prime Minister that it would be a general convenience to Members of this House, to the public, and to the world at large if he would drop the Budget, and give the votes to women?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I, on the same point, ask the Home Secretary whether it is by his instructions that the police have prohibited this deputation of ladies from entering the precincts of this House this evening?
Mr. GLADSTONE: So far as I know the event has not yet taken place. The police act generally on the Sessional Order under which they are responsible for keeping the approaches to the House open.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The question I wish to ask the Home Secretary is whether it is under his authority and instructions that a deputation of nine ladies have been prohibited from entering the outer lobby of St. Stephen's Hall this evening?
Mr. GLADSTONE: I have given no instructions.
Mr. HUGH LAW: In view of the replies that have been given, I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the refusal of the Government to receive a deputation on the subject of women's suffrage, and the grave and imminent danger to the public peace that is thereby produced.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to consider a matter of public importance, namely, the refusal of the Prime Minister to receive a deputation on the subject of women's suffrage, and the consequent danger to the public peace. I have to point out that there is nothing new in this subject. This matter has been brought before the House for at least two years, during which the Prime Minister has refused to receive any such deputation. Under those circumstances, I can hardly consider it a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. H. LAW: May I point out that it is urgent in this sense that it is common

235
knowledge that the deputation will present itself to-night, and it is common knowledge also that the coming of the deputation will be under the circumstances, which are probably known to everybody, probably accompanied by scenes of very considerable lawlessness?
Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be an additional reason for not discussing it.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the Home Secretary on the same point whether he will give the police instructions to see that the deputation of nine members will be admitted to the precincts of St. Stephen's Hall this evening so long as they do not behave in a disorderly manner?
Mr. GLADSTONE: I am not aware at this moment under what conditions the deputation will arrive. So far as my knowledge goes, which has been derived from the newspapers, a deputation consisting of 300 or 400 ladies has been organised to go to this House accompanied by a considerable number of men. I cannot say at this moment what action would be right or wrong for the police to take. They must wait for the time.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

  OBJECTION 10 PRIVATE BILL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask a question in regard to a matter of privilege? I desire to ask whether your attention, Mr. Speaker, has been called recently to the fact that the chairman appointed on a Private Bill Committee in this House was objected to by some of those interested in the Bill. May I ask whether the Railway Chairmen's Committee have resented that objection, and insisted on the appointment of this Gentleman, and whether you can give the Members of the House any information on this point, which very nearly touches our privileges?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I have any further information to give than that which, it appears, the hon. Gentleman himself has, namely, that objection was taken to the appointment of an hon. Member to act as Chairman of a particular Committee, and that the matter did come before the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills. They entirely disapproved of the course taken by the Parliamentary agents, and they renominated, or, at all events,
  236
  they persisted, as I think quite properly, in the nomination which had been made. I think it must appear to the whole House that, having delegated to a particular Committee the duty of selecting a Chairman, it would be an intolerable situation if then-decisions were liable to be overruled or objected to by any outside parties.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am much obliged for what you have said. May I ask whether the action of the Parliamentary agents or others interested in a Private Bill, in imputing motives in any way to the Chairman or to any Member of any of those Committees, is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that under those particular circumstances there was a breach of privilege, but I can quite imagine that such a case might arise in future. Of course, it is my duty to watch that very carefully, and if my attention is again drawn to it I should probably have to bring it directly before the attention of the House.

  PRESENTATION OF BILL.
  Mr. HENRY VIVIAN—Public Health (Sewers and Drains) Bill.—Presented and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 5th July.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Fifth day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  PART I.—DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.
  Increment Value Duty.
  CLAUSE 1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied and paid on the increment value of any land a duty, called Increment Value Duty, at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, and the duty or a proportionate part thereof shall become due—

  (a) on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land, or the grant of any lease (not being a lease for a term of years less than seven years) of the land; and

  (b) on the occasion of the death of any person dying after the commencement of this Act, where the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the

  237
  property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections one and two of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and

  (c) where the land or any interest in the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate is defined by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, on such periodical occasions as are provided in this Act;

  and on each of those occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty, due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  Amendment proposed [28th June] to leave out sub-section (b), section (1).—[Mr. Carlile.]
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word' after,' stand part of the clause."
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The discussion on this clause in connection with this Amendment is entering on rather a new phase. Hitherto a new tax has been undoubtedly levied in some accordance with ancient custom; that is to say, when a tax is levied by the State there is some income from which to pay the tax; there has been money passing, there is consideration, and, therefore, to some extent it has followed the practice that has been adopted previously, namely, that the State only takes a portion of the consideration which passes. But with the Increment Tax we enter on a question of what is purely one of estimate and conjecture. In the uncertain circumstances which arise at death this Increment Tax is always to be charged and paid. In the first place, I would point out that there can be no question in this case that you are exacting from the estate a double Increment Duty. You have already the Estate Duties, because the estate is valued at the present value, and you proceed to tax it on certain percentages, according to its size. You now propose to put a second duty upon the very same corpus and the very same estate, and it is practically a double Estate Duty which you impose, and that at a time when there is no consideration passing, and when it is extremely inconvenient for the money to be found. The other day we were discussing the question of sale and transfer, and I would be quite willing to rest my case upon the excellent argument used against this particular form of
  238
  tax by the Attorney-General. He put the question with extreme plainness; at all events, we so far quite agree on both sides of the House that his opinion is to be taken on this point. He said:—
  "We may have estates, large estates, kept in the same hands from year to year and from generations to generations; and in order that such estates may contribute their fair quota of this Increment Duty, the only way of getting at them is by taking it on death, but that is certainly the least satisfactory of the necessary ways of getting at them. Where you are dealing with transfer on sale during life, you have, as I said, got the original site value fixed as in 1909, and then you have the value with which you compare it given in the transactions itself. When you are dealing with it in death, you have no selling price to guide you in what I may call the second or later valuation which is made the subject of the tax. There you have to deal with it largely by estimate. Nobody can compare an estimate in point of certainty with the actual sale price by which you proceed in case of life; and therefore to give up the tax or not to collect it when you can on a natural sale price with certainty of precision and at a moment when the owner is getting money with which to pay and select an occasion when you have to proceed by way of estimate instead of an actual sale price, and when you have to collect the tax at a time no profit is being brought to the owner, but when the money has to be raised by those who have to pay by drawing upon some other source of capital is, I say, a most foolish suggestion."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was arguing, of course, on another point; still his argument was very much apropos of the present discussion. It is hard, even in the opinion of the Government, to take the tax at death; it is a very inconvenient course, and they are only driven to it by the fact that they must get the increment of the estate which does not come by transfer or sale, and which remains in the same family for many years. After all, you have already received the increment through the Estate Duties, and why should you get a second Increment Duty which, where the estate remains in the same hands, only comes into being when there is an actual sale and transfer and money is actually received? Take, for instance, the case of a man living in a large house surrounded by 10 or 15 acres. There is no increment really to him as long as he keeps that 10 or 15 acres as necessary for the purpose of enabling him to live in the house. If he sells them, his house and one acre would be valueless, and therefore the land remains in the same hands, and the increment value is of no advantage whatever to the owner, because the increment does not come into being. On these grounds it seems to me to be extremely hard that the tax should be levied at a time when it is highly inconvenient to the person who has to pay. Not only does he not receive any consideration, but he has also to find a large sum of money, and he is driven to other sources of capital in

  239
  order to find the money for the tax which the community has put upon him. That is undoubtedly a most unsatisfactory way of encouraging the accumulation of capital in the country.
  The hardest case may perhaps come to the owners of moderate sized estates, where there is no other source of capital to fall back upon. There they have to pay Succession Duty, Estate Duty, and Legacy Duty, and they have to find the money probably by annual instalments, and in other ways to pay these duties. There, again, you impose a further duty for which no provision is made by which they can pay it easily, and which at once becomes a charge upon the estate without any mitigation whatsoever. See what it means to the owner of an estate valued at £100,000. On some portions of that estate it is very possible that a charge at death might mean 40 per cent. That surely is an unfair amount to take from the corpus of any estate, especially when it is of such an unrealiseable character, as so many of the smaller estates are. It is not only to the larger or richer owner that this proposal applies. You have taken precautions in connection with the Estate Duties that estates under a certain value are not to pay those duties. But this Increment Duty may fall upon the very poorest; there is no mitigation at all in reference to the wealth or property of the individual concerned. It is quite possible that when a man has been in possession of an estate for a considerable number of years the Increment Duty may prove a very serious incubus at death, seeing that it has not been paid for forty or fifty years, or even a longer period. If you are obliged to have this duty—of course the House has now decided that this duty is to be paid—it would be far better to have some periodical payment rather than the uncertain lottery of payment at death, which is admitted to be an extremely inconvenient time. If there were periodical payments people would then know that at a certain period they would have to find the money, and therefore they would be prepared, but in the case of death it is purely a lottery and gamble. It has always been urged, and urged very strongly some years ago on the other side, that in the case of the Death Duties the owner could insure against them. But here it is impossible for a man to do so in the case of the Increment Duty. He is unable to estimate it, because it might be sudden
  240
  and might occur at any moment, and the amount has to be approved by persons over whom he has no control and against whom there is no appeal. In these circumstances it seems to me that it would be a difficult matter to obtain any insurance that would be satisfactory to guard himself against the consequences at death. I do hope after what was said by the Attorney-General with reference to this matter the Government may see their way to suggest some better means than to fall back upon this crude method of merely repealing the Estate Duties. There should be consideration in this matter, whether it applies to the land or to the minerals, for they are also included. Many difficulties will arise if the present scheme is to be adopted. It will be far better that you should really limit yourself on this particular Question to raising the tax when there really is consideration to be paid. It is not a question of policy. In reference to the further taxes with which we shall deal later, the Undeveloped Land Tax, undoubtedly the Government confess they are putting it forward with a view of preventing the holding back of land and in order that it should be made use of to greater advantage, in their opinion, for the sake of the community. This tax has nothing to do with that question, because it seems to me that the effect of an increment value must be a deterrent to any person. As it is not a question of holding back, it is therefore unnecessary to load the unfortunate owner with this particular tax. I think there is every reason why we should desire to place this Increment Tax on a more satisfactory basis than can be done if you apply it in case of death, and, therefore, I hope the Government will very seriously consider the question, and either leave it out altogether or, at all events, give us some certainty by applying a periodical payment, but with a longer period than they have allowed to public companies. That would enable us to know what we have to pay, to some extent, instead of reducing the matter to a pure gamble.
  Mr. T. G. ASHTON: I also have an Amendment similar to that which has been moved by the hon. Member. I have no objection whatever to the Increment Tax in principle, but my objection is to the method of collection. It is a canon of good taxation that taxes should be levied, so far as may be, conveniently to those who have to pay the taxes. I think undoubtedly in this case it cannot be said

  241
  that on death is a convenient time to levy the tax. The hon. Member (Mr. L. Hardy) very truly said that is just the time when landed property has to face the Death Duties, and that Death Duties are more difficult to pay on landed property than they are on personalty. That is a very good argument, and I think that unless it is absolutely necessary a further tax at that time should not be levied upon landed property. There is undoubtedly a considerable grievance that a man may pay this tax and then the property may-fall in value afterwards, and that he may have paid on a sum of money which he has never realised at all. If the tax were only raised when property was sold, and were not raised when death occurred, that grievance, which is a very real one, and which will occur much more often than a great many people imagine, would be entirely done away with. Death will be a very difficult time at which to raise money on landed estate, and I know that in very many cases a man has to sell a piece of his property to pay the Death Duty. It is no argument at all to say that you can sell a piece of land as you can sell Consols. It is an answer that will not be agreed to by anybody who knows anything about land in this country. After all, when you are selling stocks and shares, as a rule there is probably a large demand, and it does not matter to the buyer whether his share is No. 1 or 500. They are all the same to him.
  It is very different in the case of land, because every piece of land differs more or less from any other piece of land, with the result that there are a very limited number of buyers for a piece of land. It may be that a particular piece of land was wanted a few years before, or it may be that a few years hence it may be wanted, but it is quite on the cards that nobody at the particular moment will require that piece of land, with the result that it will be impossible for the owner to get the real market value of his land. That will be a distinct hardship. If it were necessary I should say it was a necessary hardship that appertained to the ownership of land, but it does not seem to me that it is necessary. It is not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not get just as much money if he waits until the sale of the property. Take the case of land which has increased, say, from £50,000 in value to £100.000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get on that £10,000 for increment. Whether he gets that in driblets of £2,000 at a time, or whether he gets the sum total of £10,000
  242
  all at once, really does not matter to the Chancellor in the long run, except from the point of view of interest. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising this principle is not going on a minor point like that, but on the bigger question of the increased value. If the Chancellor does not get the increase now, then some future Chancellor will get it. I think he might select a more convenient season for this tax than the time of death. We all know the question of valuation is going to be a very serious one, and that a valuation for increment purposes must be of an exact character. If we can reduce the number of such valuations and give the Chancellor the same amount of money in the long run, it seems to me we ought to do what we can to so reduce them. The valuation for Death Duties is a rough-and-ready calculation, and everybody is willing to accept it because we know that valuations in such cases are always taken on a very low scale indeed. Capital valuations in America are done in a rough-and-ready way, but that does not matter so much, because there you are not taking part of a man's capital but merely rating him on the capital value. Therefore if there is an error one year it can be rectified the next. When you come to the case where you are taking away part of a man's capital you must then have a very careful valuation, which must be expensive, and therefore I urge upon the Government to limit the number of those valuations if they possibly can. If you get rid of the valuation on death and only take on sale, at any rate to some extent you will limit the necessity for this expense. I most seriously ask the Chancellor to take into consideration whether he could not give way on those points. I am sure it will be politic to do so, and that he would get rid of many grievances and a great deal of friction.
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): What is the position of our case? It is assumed for the moment, for the purposes of argument, and it is assumed in all sincerity by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton), that the Increment Tax is a fair one, and the question is the method by which you propose to collect it. When we were discussing the collection of the Increment Tax on sales exactly the opposite argument was used. We had then two very able speeches delivered, and speeches which made a considerable impression not merely on Members of their own side of the House, but on the House as a whole. Their argument

  243
  was if you are going to collect an Increment Tax it is infinitely fairer that you should collect it at death, and they produced elaborate arguments to show that collecting on sale was unfair, that it interfered with the purchase and sale of land, and threw all kinds of difficulties in the way, and that the right time to collect it was at death. That is an argument not merely used by them but cheered. That was the case that was made on Wednesday, and now that we have disposed of that we are told by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. L. Hardy) that we should collect it on sales when a man is realising his cash. That was the exact sort of speech made by the Attorney-General in his reply, and exactly the same argument, and really the hon. Gentleman might have studied the speech of my hon. Friend and used the argument used on that occasion. His argument was that is the time you have got in the cash, and that is the time to collect, and not at death, when you do no realise. Other Members say you ought really to collect it periodically. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) has always taken that view, and I feel that if the Government say, "We will collect it on a certain definite purchase," we will be told "Why do you not collect it when a man realises it?" It really does not matter what period we put down; it is always the "other" period that is said to be the fair one. Will the Committee realise what would happen unless we had this provision? All a man would have to do would be to hold up his land, and he would never pay Increment Duty. In fact, if you have not an alternative of this kind, merely to charge increment on sales will be a detriment to the sale and purchase of land; it will be an inducement to an owner not to sell. My hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says, "All you have to do is to wait. It is true you are losing revenue; you may have to wait 50 or 100 years; but it is certain to come, if you only wait long enough." That is really the argument also of the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Mr. Pretyman), who asks, "Why do you not wait until 1930 for your tax? You may not get it when you want it; you want it now, and you may not want it in 1930; but still you will get it." Unless there is this alternative there is a considerable amount of increment which may never be taxed at all for the purpose of revenue. An hon. Member opposite said that there is no consideration
  244
  paid at death. That depends on the interpretation of the word "consideration." I agree that when you are buying and selling something passes between the parties. But what happens in the case of death? A man gets a property and gives nothing in return. According to the hon. Member there is no consideration: if a man pays for a property there is something which ought to be taxed; but if he gets it for nothing it ought not to be taxed. There was no consideration paid for the Morrison millions. There came to a number of legatees property which did not belong to them, to which, according to British law, they had absolutely no more legal right than anybody else. The property comes as a gift, and I say that it is a very fair thing upon which to tax a man, and certainly it is just as fair an occasion as when he gives something in return for which he gets the property. But then my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says that it will involve a valuation. Surely the Death Duties involve a valuation. But, says my hon. Friend, that is merely a slipshod, rough-and-ready valuation. I do not know what cases he has in mind, but in the cases with which I am familiar most careful valuations are made. Let the Committee follow the argument of my hon. Friend. Take the case of a man who has to pay now a total of 20 per cent., not for Increment Duty on a small parcel of the property, but on the whole of the property. My hon. Friend says that when he pays 20 per cent, on the whole of his property a slipshod valuation will do; but if he has to pay 20 per cent, on only a small corner of the property, then the valuation must be very minute and careful, and the slightest precaution must not be neglected. I should have thought that if you wanted a careful valuation at all it would be when you were paying 20 per cent. on the whole of the property, and not on a certain portion only. But, as a matter of fact, my hon. Friend is misinformed. Every careful executor values his property very closely. It is true he does his best to put a low valuation. That is his business, and is only natural. The same thing will happen with regard to increment. I have not the slightest doubt that low valuations will be made. A man will try to prove that there is no increment at all or, if any, a very small one. The same tactics will be pursued, and really the same identical valuations will do for both purposes. It is purely a question between charging at certain definite periods and charging at death. The reason we

  245
  make our proposal is that then you will be charging when a man is getting something to which he is not legally entitled, which is an absolute gift to him, whether by a relative or a stranger. At that time the executor goes through the process of valuing the estate, and it does not involve a separate valuation. Instead of having a separate valuation at stated periods you have a valuation already. The first thing an executor does is to make a valuation of the property.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): Not the site.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course it includes the site. The site has already been valued before this is arrived at. All you want in the case of death is the total valuation, and then you arrive at the increase in the site value. It is the same process that takes place in any other transaction. I trust the Committee will stand by this proposal, otherwise a considerable amount of increment will escape taxation altogether.
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: There are certain arguments which seem to come naturally to the right hon. Gentleman. Those arguments are considered good enough for the Committee, and are trotted out every time. There is one argument in particular which I think we have heard sufficiently often, and which I do not think impresses the Committee. In defence of a tax which is levied on all the land in the country and will fall equally in amount on rich and poor together, the right hon. Gentleman invariably trots out the case of the Morrison millions. In the case of a millionaire who has to pay 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, the right hon. Gentleman holds that it is no hardship, and that because the successor of a millionaire can afford to pay this particular tax he contends that it is therefore a fair tax to levy on all the owners of land in the country, including thousands of small owners, upon whom the tax will fall as an excessive burden. The right hon. Gentleman ought to try and defend his tax in the average case, and not merely the extreme cases with which really we are not concerned. It is invariably assumed, both on the platform and in this House, by the defenders of this tax that our object in attacking it is purely to defend the rich. Take one point which the right hon. Gentleman was arguing. He said that where the tax was so high as 20 per cent., as in the case to which he referred, the mere addition of another 20 per cent, upon a small portion of the property was hardly worth considering.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really never said that.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood that to be the argument the right hon. Gentleman used.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was addressing myself to the point made by my hon. Friend that the valuations now made were of a slipshod or rough-and-ready character—that there was no great need for careful valuation at present, but that there would be such need for the Increment Duty. I said that if a careful valuation was required when the 20 per cent, was charged only on the increment, a careful valuation was certainly necessary when 20 per cent, was charged on the whole of the property.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: At any rate, there was a comparison between the heavy duty of 20 per cent, leviable in Death Duties on the whole of the property and the 20 per cent, which is levied only on part of the property. That may apply in the case of a large estate, but it does not apply in the case of a small estate where the duty is-20 per cent, on the increment, but possibly-only 5 or 6 per cent, on the total value of the estate. Where a man is a small owner of land, the Increment Value Duty may be quite as heavy a burden upon him as the Death Duty, and the two duties will fall upon him together. I will come to the question of valuation presently. At present I wish to confine myself to the incidence of this tax at death. The greater part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was taken up not in defending the justice or fairness of his proposals for taxation, but in trying to point out inconsistencies in the arguments used on this side of the House in attacking different portions of the tax. It is our duty in considering each Amendment to point out the particular hardships and objections germane to the part of the Bill under discussion, and in doing that we naturally contrast those with other conditions which-will occur. When the Amendment under discussion dealt with sales, we pointed out that there would be more interference with business if you levied the duty on sales and transfers than there would be if you levied the duty at death.
  We are perfectly justified in drawing that conclusion, which is a true conclusion. We are perfectly justified in our attitude with regard to the hardship upon the individual having to pay two duties at one and the same time, when it will be most hard and inconvenient to the

  247
  property. It is an extreme hardship, because, taking the ordinary case of an average agricultural property of the capital value of, say, £100,000, this is the value of a fair-sized agricultural property. At what will be the duties valued? There will be 9 per cent. Estate Duty. In case of a settled estate, as land usually is, there will be 2 per cent. Settlement Estate Duty as well. There will be Succession Duty, and, at the lowest, that will be about 2 per cent. Then there will be 20 per cent. Increment Duty on that part of the estate on which the Increment Duty is payable. Where the estate comes in direct succession, the duty will be something over 30 per cent. Where it does not come to a lineal descendant, it will be 40 per cent. [Cries of "No, no."]
  Mr. LEIF JONES: 20 per cent, only is the Increment Duty.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not quite catch what J said. I said on that part of the estate which was due for Increment Duty value. I said that distinctly. Of course, it would not amount to 40 per cent, on the whole.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Not on the capital value?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, on the capital value. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes, certainly, clearly. Of course, the increment is capital, and is assessed as capital.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member is always adding these figures together, and saying: "Now, here is 20 and 20, and that makes 40 per cent, on the whole." I do not think he wants to be unfair. I am sure he is in effect, because it is not 40 per cent., not even on that value which is increment. It is 20 per cent, on the whole of that part. It is not 40 per cent, on the whole of the estate.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I really think that the light hon. Gentleman has not gained much by this interruption. When an estate is valued for Death Duties it is valued as a whole, and at certain capital value. You do not divide the estate into parts. You aggregate it, and in this particular instance I put it at £100,000. To that £100,000 a certain amount will be accrued increment. On that accrued increment value 40 per cent, will be levied in the case I have specified. I went no further. I said particularly it would not be on the whole estate, but on that part of the estate
  248
  which has accrued as increment value. Whether it would be on the whole of the estate, of course, would depend entirely upon what proportion the increment bore to the total value. But is this great injustice, this gross hardship, this confiscation—are those words too strong?—to take place by your descending upon a few individuals who happen to be so circumstanced? A man may have happened to have got a little bit of building land near a town which is the only property he possesses, and where the increment value is a very large proportion of the value of the property. Is the injustice less because you only fall upon a few individuals? Has not one man as much right to justice as another so long as he is obeying the laws of the country? It is not necessary for me to show that everyone, or a majority, or a large number of people even, are going to have to pay 40 per cent. If I can show that under these taxes a few people in special circumstances may be practically squeezed out of existence by having to pay anything from 30 to 40 per cent, of the value of their property, then I think I will show a case for reconsideration. Even if 3, 4 or 5 per cent, had to be paid it would still be a very heavy burden. Is a burden of 20 or 25 per cent, all told one which this House desires to impose upon the owners of small pieces of land?
  After all it is supposed to be the object of this legislation, and the whole of the proposals affecting land in this Finance Bill to break up large estates, and force people into the market. I am of the opinion that it will not so much have that effect, because the owners of large estates have usually other resources from which they can meet the duties for the time being. But you are making the ownership of land so burdensome that the poor man will no longer be able to hold any. Perhaps hon. Members below the Gangway will answer this question: There is a heavy burden on land now on the poor man in the form of a rent. They are invariably saying that the poor man is over-burdened with the heavy rent which he has to pay to the landowner. What difference will it make to the poor man who wishes to occupy a piece of land whether that heavy burden upon it is in the shape of a rent or taxes?
  An HON. MEMBER: "It will be easier."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How will it be easier for that man to enjoy his piece of land or house built upon it if there is a heavy burden upon it in the form of tax or rent?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I answer the question of the hon. Gentleman? Simply because that he will be relieved pro tanto of his other taxation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the relief he would prefer would be the money which comes into his own pocket. I do not think it would be much encouragement for him to know that the taxes that he has paid are going into the general pocket of the community instead of going into his own pocket.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If these taxes are necessary, and a tax on bread or the other necessaries of life would otherwise be levied, I think his wife would be very thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If we are going to argue the incidence of the different taxes I am afraid the Chairman will consider we are straying beyond the subject. The burden upon the ownership or occupation of land by the poor man is a thing we ought to avoid, and by these taxes you are placing this crushing burden upon the poor man.
  In regard to valuation, the right hon. Gentleman declared that valuation for the Death Duties was comparable in every way to the valuation for the site value for the Increment Value Duty. It is very difficult to contradict, and I do not wish to be so discourteous as to contradict the right hon. Gentleman about his own Finance Bill, but we are bound to study the Bill so far as we can, and discover from the Bill, and so far as we know from the practice in the Death Duties, how the matter stands. It does not seem to be as the Chancellor has said. Where an estate comes in for Death Duties a single valuation is made. First of all, the agricultural value is calculated on a certain number of years purchase, and then on the gross extra value due to that part of the property which has building value outside or beyond the agricultural value. These two sums are added together, and that is the total value for the Death Duties. Is that same process here? I take it that as I understand it, and as the Finance Bill says, what is to be done to calculate the increment value due is this: there is to be first of all a separate valuation on every occupation or on every part for occupation which the Commissioners may desire to have separately valued. That valuation is the total capital value which is not taxable. In order to arrive at the tax-
  250
  able increment value you have to take from that certain items which I need not enumerate, but which have been discussed here over and over again, and which include what is called the value of land, good-will, anything personal to the owner, and which items I believe are likely to be added to a good deal before we get through these discussions. After all these deductions have been made you then arrive at something taxable in the form of increment value. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that these two operations are identical, that one is as easy as the other.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated that that was not his line of argument.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Well, if the argument was not that, what was it, and what is it worth? A statement was made that these two valuations would be different, difficult, and add largely to the expense. That was the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman. His speech, I may say, was-very interesting, for it amounted to a very severe and valuable criticism of the proposals of the Government, but—and in this he was similar to other hon. Gentleman who had spoken on that side of the House—he threw in a casual blessing at intervals on the general principles. But on every detail which he discussed his criticisms were absolutely fatal to the Bill.
  I will only raise one more point. I think we are entitled on this particular question of the incidence of this duty—the taking of this duty on death—to point out how it will act in combination with previous settlements where it is taken on sale. Take the case of an ordinary building lease. Thousands of these leases are running throughout the country. The owner of the estate upon which the building is situated has let that property for 99 years. During the currency of that lease there will be transfers from one tenant to another. On each transfer of that lease during the currency there will be an Increment Duty payable by the transferor calculated upon his interest in the property. There will also be running against the owner at the same time pari passu the increment value. How are these two cases going to be worked? But in the meantime each of these tenants under the lease will have been paying increment value. How many increment values does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take? I am not going to weary the House with figures, but I desire to tell the right hon. Gentleman I have worked

  251
  this problem out on paper, I have tried and tried to see whether it will be possible to work these two things side by side and to deal fairly on the one hand with the State and on the other hand with the owner and lessor. I cannot make the things agree, and I cannot devise any scale by which those two different sets of people with the varying circumstances of the case, where there are many transactions from one lessor to another, or in the case where there has been no transfer, which would render justice between them. Suppose there was no transfer in the last 50 years, and that there was an increment of £1,000 In value, the whole of that would have to be paid by the owner. Supposing, on the other hand, there were three or four transfers, the owner would have the whole calculated against him. The right hon. Gentleman thinks not, but I have gone most carefully into these points, and I cannot see any scheme by which an equal burden can be placed upon the different properties of the same value on the one hand where they change hands frequently, and on the other hand where no change has taken place at all. These are questions which will affect the whole business community, and if this Bill is to be brought out in the shape of an Act they have got to be dealt with and put in a form which will do credit to the House and the Committee, and in a manner which will not inflict undoubted hardships and that will not constantly raise for settlement questions of law and of fact and of valuation. I am bound to say that there is great difficulty before us in working out this matter for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the Exchequer. The problem before us on this land clause is, in my Judgment, sufficient to keep the House going for two whole Sessions, yet we are asked to enter upon this and further problems now at the beginning of July. I wish the right hon. Gentleman joy of his job.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is always listened to with great interest and attention when speaking on this Question, because of his intimate knowledge of agriculture and the obvious sincerity of his views, but he arrives at terrifying results by adding together figures in various parts of the Bill which are independent of each other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to hearken to the advice given by teachers of arithmetic to their scholars to be wary of adding together percentages unless
  252
  they are percentages of the same article and of the same quantity. In arriving at his 40 per cent, to be paid by some imaginary part of the estate of the landed proprietor I really think the hon. and gallant Member has been guilty of that elementary fallacy. He took the extreme case of an estate of £100,000, which I gather was an agricultural estate, and he said that 20 per cent. might have to be paid on it under other parts of the Finance Bill beside that which we are now discussing, and then he said there might be another part of that estate on which there would be an increment, and he declared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to take one-fifth of the value of that part of the estate.
  Mr. PRETYMANdissented.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That is what I took him to say.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I corrected that. I really did not say that at all.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I want to take an actual case in figures, which I think will dispose of some of the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Now let us suppose that of this estate of £100,000 which he took £20,000 of it is land subject to an Increment Duty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely agrees that under the Finance Bill we are not taking 20 per cent, of that £20,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take 20 per cent, of the increment. If the whole of the £20,000 is increment the land is really worth nothing at all at the present time. In no circumstances could he take 20 per cent, of the whole £20,000, and in no circumstances whatever could the hon. and gallant Member get the 40 per cent. which he mentioned. The more common case would be that the increment would be £5,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take 20 per cent., or £1,000, or 5 per cent. of the value of that part of the estate.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a very fair illustration.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Then again there is not any one acre on that estate that would pay more than 25 per cent., and in no circumstances could it pay 40 per cent.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I never said so. The hon. Gentleman has given a very fair case, and I do not think on such a property that the increment value would be more than £5,000. What I said was that on that £5,000 the duty under the Finance Bill would be 40 per cent. I said I could not

  253
  say what the burden would be upon the whole estate, but in this particular it would be 20 per cent.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: What I maintain is that there could be no individual acre of the estate that would pay more than 25 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman fixes £5,000 as being subject to 40 per cent., I do not know what he means. The money value may be said to equal the tax, but you cannot allocate that 40 per cent, to any particular part. I think the 40 per cent. is a figure which is supplied by the imagination of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  I am, however, disposed to think, if you accept the justice of the Increment Tax, it is better in the interests of rural estates that you should take this Increment Duty at death than at any other time. I am not saying whether it is too heavy or not, but if you are going to take it it seems to me that the moment of death, when the general settlement is going on, when the position should be fully realised and the value settled of all that is left, and when it is being distributed among a number of people, that it is then the claim of the Exchequer should be discharged. Personally I think a great many owners of estates would agree that when you are having a general settlement at the time of death you should take this Increment Duty, which is a small proportion of the total burden now placed upon estates. I am inclined to agree that the burden placed upon estates of £100,000 are exceedingly heavy, but the Increment Duty is not a very serious part of the burden. [An HON-. MEMBER: "It is the last straw."] It is the last straw, but it is better not to have a separate waggon for its conveyance; it is better that the one already there should convey away the whole of the large crop which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting. It is to be remembered also that the object of the occasion of the tax is to get at land which is not sold. Again, I think the owners of such land would very much prefer that it should occur at the time of a general settlement, than that there should be stated intervals, which is really the alternative that confronts the Committee. It has this advantage: one valuation has already got to be made, and that is a very strong argument. If the present valuation is not accurate for the purposes of Increment, and I suggest it would probably be accurate enough as a rule, it might be made more accurate so as to avoid the necessity for two valuations.
  254
  It seems to me that death would be a convenient time from that point of view also. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Ashton) stated that the owners of such estates would be in great difficulty because they cannot sell any land or realise the money that they would have to pay. I do not think the selling of land is so very difficult a process as hon. Members are inclined to represent it to be. I am of opinion that the owners of estates if they set themselves to do it will find it easier to sell a portion of their estates than they do at present; at any rate, dealing with the Increment Tax, it is not with that part of the estate which carries increment they will have any difficulty in selling. There are always people willing to buy something rising in value. The owner would not have any difficulty in selling that portion of his estate which had an increment value. My hon. Friend said—and this is germane to the whole of the discussion—it was impossible for the owner to get the market value of his land on these occasions. I submit that is an absolute contradiction in terms. The market value of the land is the value which the land-owner will get by sale in the open market. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at a forced sale."] Yes, even in a forced sale. That is the value that the land will bring in the market; if that is not that value, then what is "market value?" Surely it is the value which the owner of any property can get, and if he cannot get what he wants then what he wants is not the "market value." Is there any difference of opinion upon that point? I submit it is a contradiction in terms to say that a man cannot get the "market value."
  Mr. ASHTON: I meant the fair market value.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: But surely that is not "market value" at all. It is some metaphysical idea which has no existence. "Market value" is a question of fact. If an estate will not command what some people call "market value," then some other value is in reality "market value," and what I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—I take it what he is going to tax is not some imaginary value which may be represented by the fears of some people, but what he is going to tax is market value, and that, therefore, his tax will be based upon reality. I think one of the difficulties in dealing with land in this country is that owners, when it comes to a sale, may not be able to find a purchaser at the price they think they

  255
  ought to command; but that is not the market value, and that is not what is going to be taxed. The owner is going to be taxed upon the value which the land really has. I think it is better to have this settlement at the time of death, and so long as the tax is fairly put upon the market value, it will be fair, and will not add to the burdens of agricultural land.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not only been guilty of a certain confusion of thought, which ranges over a great many of our Debates upon this subject of capital value, but he must admit this if he compares the conclusion of his speech with some of the statements contained in it. His first proposition was that market value meant what you could get at any given moment, and that was what he called the market value of any property. That is to say, at 12 o'clock upon any given day of the year the market value of any property is what you could get for it at that moment. Then he went on to say that the landlords in this country put an artificial value upon their land more than it was worth for various reasons. According to the argument used by the hon. Member, nobody can give more than the land is worth.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: What I had in mind was Adam Smith's phrase of "value in use." The market value of land is now a good deal more than Adam Smith's value in use.
  Mr. BALFOUR: But the hon. Gentleman's "value in use" is something quite different to market value. The hon. Gentleman all through his speech has used value as meaning value at a given moment, but at the end of his speech he tells us that the market value is not the real value. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that he has muddled up these two ideas in his own speech. But, apart from all this, let me proceed to that part where there is no contradiction, for that is really the substantial part of the hon. Member's remarks. He lays down the proposition that there is always a market value for everything, and that that market value can be ascertained at any given moment by putting up the thing for sale. Now that is an entirely erroneous view, which has no real economic backing on the part of any sound economists. They begin by defining the market. Now there can only be a market value where you have a market,
  256
  and economists go into very fine distinctions as to what constitutes a market. There is constantly not a market in the true sense of the word. If it was not so the whole of these proposals to tax capital values would be an incomparably greater injustice.
  Just think what it would mean if the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite were accepted. Suppose you put up for sale a most costly article which is very valuable, and which has fetched last year an immense price and perhaps next year may fetch an immense price, but because it has to be sold this year in a big unit which involves the coming forward of wealthy buyers will not sell at all. If you are going to tax market value on that sort of basis is it possible to conceive anything more unjust? A man may have a property worth £100,000 last year and worth the same figure next year, but it may be worth nothing this year, and why? Because his £100,000 is invested in property very costly and rare, not easy of acquirement, which very few people want, but when they do want it they are willing to give large sums for it. Such people might have been willing to come forward to buy last year, but they are not willing to come forward this year, and, therefore, the man has no property at all this year, although he was wealthy last year, and may be wealthy again next year, but he has not got a bidder to-day. Common-sense revolts against the kind of philosophy of value which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Market value can only be defined when one of two things occur, namely, when the subject-matter is-capable of great sub-division, and when there is a large number of people wanting it in large or small quantities. Then there-is a market value. There is a perfect market value for Consols to-day, because you can sell them in small or large quantities, and the market value has a true significance because it is a divisable matter; but when you come to indivisable things and appeal to a very small and fluctuating number of bidders, then you can only get anything like a fair value if you allow a long time to elapse during which bidders may come forward. Then-you may get some estimate of the true value. This idea that on a given day in a given year you can always find out what the true value of a thing is by putting it up for sale is not only contrary to common-sense, but clearly creates the grossest and: most manifest injustice.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): These are somewhat academic and rather complicated discussions as to market value. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has addressed an interesting argument to the House with a view of showing that you cannot apply market value in any legitimate way to the valuation that would be required on a given day.
  Mr. BALFOUR: What I said was that you ought to take sufficient time to form your views as to what bidders may come forward, and then you may arrive at something which is not grossly unjust.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman said:—"When you are dealing with things easily divisible and saleable in small quantities as well you can then ascertain market value without difficulty." The right hon. Gentleman further stated that "when you come to divisible things appealing to a small and fluctuating number of bidders you can only get the market value if you allow a long time for a number of bidders to come forward." I think that is a perfectly sound observation, but surely it is a little remote from the difficulties we have to deal with here. How is market value to be ascertained under this Bill? Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1894 applies for this purpose with regard to the ascertainment of values. Now what are the provisions with regard to the ascertainment of values? There the value of the subject matter of assessment is to be obtained in this way:—"The principal value shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Commissioners such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased." There is a practical and reasonable provision. It is one which I daresay might lay itself open to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but we have an admirable answer to such criticisms; in fact, it is the best of all answers, namely, experience. It has been found ever since 1894 that whatever complaints may be made in regard to the amount of the Death Duties—and there are great complaints, which I for one very sincerely sympathise with, because I think the amount of the Death Duties is very high—there has been no complaint made of the method of assessment. For some years it has been my duty, as representing the Crown, to be concerned in the collection of the Death Duties, more especially from refractory subjects; but I do not re-
  258
  member any complaints in regard to the ascertained market value. It is true you might force any particular property into the market without notice. Suppose the value has to be obtained on the day when the testator dies. Suppose you throw his property into the market without giving any reasonable time to collect the bidders who constitute the market. If you were to do that it would be wrong, but we do not propose to do anything of the kind. When we use the phrase, "Market value," it is used in the sense in which reasonable men would use it, and the Commissioners are put there in order that in that sense alone the property shall be offered for sale. There really has been no difficulty about estimating market value.
  Now I will pass on to some observations which were made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: "Really we are tired of hearing these extreme cases," and he said: "Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with average cases?" Having laid down that sound principle, the hon. and gallant Gentleman began to quote extreme cases, a practice with which he reproached the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is an average case which puts 20 per cent. on the Death Duties falling upon a particular estate.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not say so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The moment the hon. and gallant Gentleman came to his case, he did not take an average case but an extreme case. I hope hon. Members will not allow his extravagant instances to get into their heads as representing either the average or normal cases. He, for instance, took the case of an estate over £100,000; and he mentioned particulars with regard to it. That he regards as an average case. Of course, it is a conceivable case, and he argued not on an average or even an extreme case but on a barely conceivable case.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman from my own experience the case of an estate which one firm of valuers valued at £4,000, while others valued it at £40,000, £15,000, and, finally, there was a compromise by which the value was agreed to be £10,000. That is a case which shows the great difficulties which stand in the way of valuing land. Therefore we cannot accept the dictum of the hon. and learned Attorney-General

  259
  and say that these valuations are very easy. I wish to say a few words on this Amendment. I shall support it, but for different reasons than those which have been put forward by my hon. Friend behind me. Assuming that Increment Duty has been collected, personally I do not think that the collection of it at the period of death is a great disadvantage. You should treat this sub-section as an isolated unit in the Bill. It should not be complicated with other clauses. We must read the sub-section in connection with the previous sub-section and with the following sub-section. In my opinion I fail entirely to comprehend how these two sub-sections are going to be worked in conjunction one with the other. We have to take the previous sub-section with this sub-section, and read them together. I have listened carefully to the Debates, and it seems to me that the legal Members opposite are more mystified by the provision of the Bill than we who are only their lay brethren. There is a valuation of the original site value; but it is also provided that there shall be a valuation on the occasion of any transfer of property either by sale or lease. What are the difficulties of this dual system? Let me assume, for instance, that there are two ground landlords owning the same class of property. Both let to small tenants. Both these ground lords die. But just before the death of one of them there has been a transfer of a lease by means of a sub-lease. In the one case the estate pays no Increment Duty, but in the other it does. That is the curious inconsistency which exists in the Bill. The second landlord either pays no increment at all, or a very slight one; and yet he may have done nothing in the develoment of his property. Again let me take the case of two tenants. They own land of similar character. They both sub-let; but at the moment before one sub-lets his ground lord happens to die. The value is fixed upon the ground landlord's death. So that no Increment Duty falls upon the tenant, or on the transfer of the lease, but it is not so in the other case. I propose to deal with a broad argument. Let me take the case of an estate which has been left to two brothers and a sister. Let each own a street, called Ann-street, John-street, and Charles-street. Ann dies. The Increment Duty is paid on her death upon that street, but the tenants if they sub-let have no Increment Duty to pay. The tenants, however, in John-street and Charles-street if they want to sub-let their houses have Increment Duty to pay.
  260
  There is a premium on Ann-street, but John-street and Charles-street are in a different position. Enterprising auctioneers would advertise "desirable premises; ground landlord dead, and no Increment Duty." There are other inconsistencies in this sub-section. In one case a man would have to pay a small duty, but if at his death a lease were sold his estate would be called upon to pay the whole of the Increment Duty on the site value. This particular sub-section seems to illustrate how easily the objects of this Bill are frustrated in consequence of the inconsistencies which it contains. As I understand it, the object aimed at is to tax those who have had the benefit of the increment without any great trouble or work on their own part, but, according to the cases I have put forward, these are the very people who are going to be relieved from the increment, whereas the tenant who takes the trouble to sublet the premises, and to look out for a new tenant, will have to bear the burden of the heavy increment. It is more in consequence of inconsistencies such as these in this very startling Bill rather than because of the difficulties of obtaining the valuation and the hardships accruing therefrom, that I shall support this Amendment.
  Mr. T. HART-DAVIES: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to stick to this particular sub-section. If the Amendment were carried the effect would be that the whole of the Increment Duty would be thrown on transfers only, and that would be an extremely bad thing, because it would have a tendency to interfere with the free passing, the free transfer, and the free dealing in land. We desire land to be dealt with as easily and cheaply as possible. Indeed, that is one of the drawbacks to the Increment Tax. It may have a tendency to interfere with the free dealing in land. It certainly would have that tendency if the duty were only imposed on transfers. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) has set us a good many problems. I do not think they are unsolvable. I think he should remember that the Increment Duty is leviable only on the man who gets the benefit, say, on the lessee, who has a long lease of 50 years or more to run, or, in the case of a short lease, the ground landlord. If only the problems which have been set could be worked out, I am confident it would be found that it is the man who actually gets the benefit from the devolution of property who has to pay the increment. That I submit is only fair. Many of the

  261
  problems which have been pointed out are really owing to the extraordinarily complicated provisions of the Bill. We think that if there were a universal tax on the actual value of all land we should not really have any trouble at all. That is what he wanted, and if that had been the proposal of the Government we should have had but one instead of the many discussions with which we are threatened. But there the Bill is. I accept it so far as it goes because I am willing to take anything I can get in the way of land reform.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I would not have risen but for the speech of the Attorney-General, who, when he was laying down broad principles without the qualifications contained in this Bill, was very impatient at my interruption. The hon. and learned Gentleman is extremely satisfied with his own working of the Finance Act of 1894. He says, in point of fact, he has been so fortunate that he has never really heard any complaint against the fixing of the market value in the case of the passing of estates. He has had a happier experience in the law than I have, because my experience has been that everybody who can possibly raise any point in trying to kick against the assessment of the tax put upon them by the Revenue Department has taken every opportunity to do so. One of the cases given by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) is, I think, a very ordinary case. I refer to the one in which the Commissioners fixed £50,000 as the value of an estate; an arbitration resulted in the reduction of the sum to £15,000, and it was eventually compromised at £10,000. Does the Attorney-General think that that is a satisfactory kind of operation for the subject to have to go through in relation to assessment for Death Duties? If so, what, I ask, will it be as regards estimating for the so-called Increment Duty? The hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to mention that there were two matters which kept the Commissioners in check even in these circumstances. In the first place, as regards agricultural land, the Finance Act laid down a limit of 25 years' purchase under Schedule A, and that enabled the prompt settlement of thousands of cases. The Attorney-General is, however, going to repeal that provision, which alone enabled a market value to be come to. The hon. Member for Westmorland, who addressed the House just now, talked of market values as if they were a kind of thing which could be fixed from minute to minute. But the Bill of 1894 ob-
  262
  viated all that trouble because it put in as a fair market value 25 years' purchase of the assessment under Schedule A. That enabled land, particularly agricultural land, to be more easily assessed than it could otherwise have been under the Act of 1894. The Government, however, propose to repeal that provision, and to leave the question of the market value of agricultural land absolutely at the will of the Revenue authorities, and subject to revaluation on every occasion.
  The next matter that kept the Commissioners in check was that if they did not come to terms with the person whom they were taxing, the latter had the ordinary right of every citizen in relation to other grievances to go to the courts, and that certainly had a very steadying influence upon an official like the tax-gatherer. He was not allowed to assess at his own free will, and the fact that the parties could go to the court resulted in his coming to terms rather than that they should resort to the courts. Here, again, this Bill does away with that provision. It ousts the authority of the Court, and it leaves the subject entirely at the mercy of the tax gatherer, who can come down and say: "The increment value is so much. There is no question of reducing it from £50,000 to £10,000. I am supreme, I say £50,000 is the value, and I stick to that amount." Who, then, is the tax-maker in this case? Is it Parliament? I say it is the tax collector, and the tax collector only. Having regard to the fact that you are now repealing, by this Bill, these two safeguards in the Act of 1894, which enabled that Act to be worked, I submit that to suggest that the fixing of the market value under your Bill is an easy process is absurd. It is only easy because you are putting the taxpayer at the mercy of the tax collector. I say that the self-congratulation in which the Attorney-General has indulged is entirely out of place. It has no relevance to this Bill, which makes a complete and absolute change—a change in the direction of tyranny, and it will make the subject resent more than ever he has done before the taxes which you are putting upon him, apart altogether from their justice or injustice. Let me point out that in the provisions of the sub-section which was passed last night, you were dealing with cases where the parties could come together, and where there was a consideration which justified to some extent the claim that a portion of the benefit should go to the State. You are not dealing with

  263
  that kind of case now. You are dealing with cases where no money passes So far as I understand it, you are even dealing with cases where the property does not pass. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that under the Finance Act of 1894 property is deemed to pass when it does not pass at all. Take the case of the assessment of an interest in the property which passes. Because the Act of Parliament says it is to be deemed as passing it is treated accordingly. Take an assessment of an annuity charged upon the land. The increment arises because the annuity falls in, are you to have to value the whole fee simple of the land, having regard to the value you put upon the annuity, and to collect the tax upon it. I say that to call upon men to have increment assessed on all these occasions is to render the management of any real estate almost an impossibility. There is a further question which I find it very difficult to answer. Do you mean, under this section, that all property that passes, or that is deemed to pass, under the Act of 1894, is to create an occasion for the collection of this tax? If you do it reversions and remainders come in, and I find it very difficult to understand this sub-section. We are dealing with the words, "where the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment." Within the meaning of those sections, reversions, and remainders would come in, but I find in another section a specific enactment, which shows they do not. What I want to find out from the right hon. Gentleman is this: supposing I succeeded to-morrow to a reversion, I should not touch the property until the life came in. I am not having the property, and am not receiving a particle of it, and yet I should be called upon under this Bill, to go and see what has been the increment upon the fee simple of that property, and having ascertained that, should I have to pay the duty, or would the owner of the life estate have to pay it, or who would have to pay it? The whole application of the Death Duties is absolutely inapplicable, in many instances, to the cases that will arise, for the purpose of finding the occasion on which you are to fix this Increment Duty, and I say the right hon. Gentleman will really have to go through the various cases that arise
  264
  under the Finance Act of 1894, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are suitable for the imposition of this increment value. If I wanted to obstruct this measure I could take 15 or 20 cases under the Act of 1894, and put them down to argue about them, but I do not want to do that. All I say is, that it is an important consideration and a practical matter, because I think you will find when you go through all these various cases—you will find many, if not most of them, are absolutely inapplicable to the collection on this occasion of the Increment Duty.
  I want to say one word upon the hardship of this duty, arising upon a death, for this reason: You are going to collect it twice upon the death, and I want to make that perfectly clear and see why you are doing that. In the first place, you put Death Duties upon the market value of the property as it stands, and therefore people pay Death Duty upon the income, because the market value must include the income of the parson. First, you put duty upon the income and include it in the whole, and these duties aggregated with other duties on estates make the figure extremely high. Then a man, having paid the Death Duties at increased rates—in some cases they have increased 75 per cent. since this Government came into power upon the higher grades—having charged your duty upon the increment— the increment aggregated so as as to increase the percentage of duty, then you say on this occasion you must pay a separate tax upon the increment value upon the same estate, the same property, if I may so call it. Is that reasonable, at a time when no money is being realised out of the land? I can understand if you postpone it and say that before the increment is paid the land is to be paying a profit, but at the time when a man is not going to receive sixpence, that you should first charge a duty upon the market value, aggravated by the Increment Duty, and then single it out for separate taxation by itself, is a hardship which the Government, I was going to say, can hardly have contemplated, but that I have no idea of what they have contemplated, or whether they have any definite idea in their mind at all or not. I want to point out something more than that. Not only do you charge the income with duty twice, but in the case of land, other than agricultural, which we are told this deals with chiefly, you are also to charge duty on prospective value, under the 7th section of the

  265
  Finance Act, "Due to the expectation of an increase of the income of such pro perty." Just see how that works out. You charge a duty upon the prospective value, and when next the property comes round again, by the letting of the land on lease, or becoming subject to the Death Duty, you again charge an increment value, although you have previously charged it upon the prospective value. What you really want the people to understand, if you are going to pass this Bill is, how you are accumulating these taxes one after another, and all upon the same property. I am expressing my own belief, that this section and the way in which it will operate, in regard to the Increment Duty, is far and away the worst sub-section of the lot, not that that is giving it any much worse character than the others, but it is worse because there is no money. It is worse because you have already charged it on Death Duties and prospective value, and I do submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be well for him to pause before he proceeds to put on taxes in this cumulative way at a time when it is extremely difficult to raise the money even for the payment of the Death Duties. Of course we are told that these Death Duties have not any effect upon any person, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have you believe that one of the kindest things he had ever done in his life was the great increase of the Death Duties, but I think if he will inquire he will find very great hardship in regard to those duties, and I do submit to the Committee that they would be well advised to know what is going to be done with regard to other sub-sections before they pass this sub-section, which in my opinion will create great hardship.
  Mr. J. D. REES: I rise not to complain of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but to explain what I said in the very brief interruption to which the right hon. Gentleman took no serious exception, because he is always patient and courteous, even to his friends. I understand him to argue that if the Increment Duty might fairly be paid when a man paid for an estate, still more might be properly paid, and I might almost add willingly paid, when a man succeeded to an estate. He said that succession in such a case is a great boon, and I interjected, that in the case of kin, such as of a son, it could hardly be regarded in this light, and the right hon. Gentleman said I must have been thinking of the laws of Persia and India. I submit
  266
  to my right hon. Friend that the laws of Persia are very good laws for the Persians.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not what I said. The statement I made was that he had no legal claim. I never used the word "boon" at all. I said he had no legal claim. I agree that he has every right to expect, but I was dealing purely with legal right. I was stating a legal right.
  Mr. REES: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I, of course, admit that the son has no legal right here, such as he has under certain Continental codes.
  An HON. MEMBER: He has in Scotland.
  Mr. REES: The hon. Member says he has in Scotland, but I submit that nobody but a Scotchman can be expected to understand Scotch law. But I contend that a son, in point of fact, has a right, in this sense, that unless a person deflects his property away from the son, if he dies intestate, the son and other kin naturally succeed in their degrees, and in that regard the law of intestacy crystallises the testamentary morality of the country in which it is in force, and I was not so far wrong in saying that a son had a right to his father's property, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to cast any reflection upon the laws of India, which he says I was thinking of when I made that remark, and I would submit that the laws of India, which it has been my duty in my time to draft, to make, and administer, are just as good whether on that account, or in spite of it, as the laws of this country, and it may fairly be argued that in very many respects they are a great deal better. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument was that an estate coming to a man by in-heritance was in the nature of a gratuitous gift, and that he should not only be bound to pay this duty, but should be glad to pay it. I cannot, however, take that view myself. When a man succeeds to an estate and two or more heavy taxes come on it at the same time, besides other charges, in that case his succession, instead of being a boon, may be a damnosa hœreditas. Can it be said that he is not properly the subject of some sympathetic consideration upon this occasion when he has to face one tax after another? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for Chelmsford, said that a great landlord always has other resources, but I was not quite sure whether he was not putting that

  267
  too high, although no doubt it is probable that all great landlords who have not other resources very soon cease to be great landlords. That is a case which may fairly be put, but I was thinking rather of the very small landowners. Take the cases around London, where a great many people have small property, which they buy for the purpose of building and speculation. I do submit in regard to land like that, there may be a question whether this succession of taxes, coming at one and the same time, may not hit them very hardly. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones) spoke of a bit of land, as of a bit of bread, or a bit of cheese, or anything which might be sold to a passer-by, but it is not of that character. I notice that the hon. Member for Newcastle was actually prepared to take Count Tolstoi, on whose advice no one in Russia would invest three halfpenc——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): These remarks are far too discursive.
  Mr. REES: My hon. Friend said the value was the value at any particular time. You may have land put up for auction with no bid at all. That does not prove that it has no value. It only proves that you have to wait until you can get a bid.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member forgets that he cannot take isolated remarks made by former speakers but must apply himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. REES: I cannot see that an estate coming from a near relation can be regarded as a gratuitous boon which drops like the rain from heaven. It is a thing he has a right to, and he is not in the same position qua taxation as other people, and, for that reason, I thought this Amendment was entitled to some sympathetic consideration. But what brought me up was that I thought I had some reason to rehabilitate my own character and convince my right hon. Friend that my head is not so full of the laws of Persia and India, that I cannot remember something like equity at home.
  Mr. JAMES MASON (Windsor): The occasions on which this Increment Tax can be collected appear to be, firstly, at certain fixed periods; secondly, on the transfer, or sale, of the land; and thirdly,
  268
  on the occasion of the death of the individual owning or having an interest in the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the periodical collection of the tax not from any specific reason which he gave, but principally because he would not get the benefit of the tax now. That is quite true, but I am afraid that is a remark which might equally apply to the present Land Taxes presented in this Bill. They are not designed to be collected immediately, and they are very much designed to collect revenue in the future. Hon. Gentlemen who are most in favour of this form of taxation seem to prefer collection at the death, principally because they acknowledge that collection at the time of sale or transfer will act as a cheek on the distribution of the land and its development. I think it has also been said that it will have the advantage of being more easy for the Exchequer to gather in the revenue at the time of death than on the other occasions. I quite agree with that, and I also agree that probably the occasion of death is preferable, because it will happen less frequently on the average than the occasion of sale, and the less frequently you have to make these valuations and disturb the owner of the property the better; but there seem to me to be certain considerable difficulties in collection at death which are worthy of careful consideration before we adopt it. Of course, the death and the sale may follow very suddenly one upon the other, and involve a double valuation, but the reply to that would be that two sales might equally follow one on the other and necessitate two valuations.
  But there is another difficulty which seems to be raised by the sub-section. A man owning an estate may die leaving a jointure on the estate to his widow with remainder, we will say, to his eldest daughter, and with remainder again if she has no children, to a second daughter. In the case of any one of these three ladies dying, the interest in the land will pass at death, and the whole estate will have to be revalued in order to get at the increment value of that small part which forms the jointure. The widow might die within a year, and the estate would have to be valued, and the thing may happen again on the death of the daughters consecutively, so it is quite possible that the provision for collecting at death may still lead to valuations far more frequently than apparently is the design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that difficulty arises

  269
  really through including the words "or Any interest in the land." Of course, if it was confined only to the occasion of the death of the owner, and you left out the words "or any interest in the land," the difficulty would be very considerably obviated. There are other objections which ought to be fully realised to collecting at death. Take two cases, one an ordinary case of a large estate, and the other a more ordinary case of a smaller estate. In the case of a large landed estate, where the owner has no other property—by no means a rare case—on the death of the owner, there being nothing but the land, the money to pay the duty must be raised either by a mortgage or out of the capital of the individual who leaves the property, and to that extent, of course, it has the undesirable effect of taking away the capital, which, above all things, is necessary for the development of the rest of the estate. Then, of course, there is the very hard case of the much more numerous class of small land-holders. We know that the land-owners in this country are far more numerous than is commonly thought apparently by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and among these land-owners are very many who own only the small site on which they live. There are great numbers of working men who have invested their savings in buying the houses in which they live, which in many cases are freehold. I suppose in such a case in which the owner apart from his savings has nothing but his wages to live upon, you could not find a more inconvenient time to come down upon his widow to pay the duty than at the moment the breadwinner of the family is dead, and she has no other source of revenue whatever. These are all instances of the inconvenience and hardship which must arise in the collection of the tax at this particular moment. At the same time I do not say that even now these inconveniences are greater than in the case of the transfer or the sale of the land, but they are arguments in favour of considering more seriously the possibility of raising a revenue at fixed periods, which would usually not coincide with the death of the owner, and which would therefore not be open to the objection that two deaths may happen very closely one upon the other.
  Mr. BECK: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that as regards hon. Members opposite it was never the right time for levying the Increment Duty, and there is no doubt that is so, but I can assure him that we on this side of the House are in
  270
  favour of Increment Duty on certain occasions, though we do not think that death, as a rule, is a suitable or a just occasion for levying it. The case that has been bandied across the floor of the House is the case of the man who dies worth a little over £100,000, and though there are very great hardships in this case, I really should be prepared to throw that man to my hon. Friends below the Gangway for the moment, and should prefer to deal with somewhat smaller cases. I should like to point out one little matter which has been left untouched, and that is, that it is always supposed, in this particular case of an estate worth £100,000 with an increment of £5,000, that the increment is unduly little taxed, but under the schedule of the Death Duties the mere fact that the property has increased from £95,000 to just over £100,000 involves the payment of nine per cent, instead of eight per cent. Death Duty, so that the increment costs, under the proposals of the Bill, instead of £7,600 Death Duties £10,000, a very considerable amount indeed.
  I should like to come to the very common case in my Constituency of small landowners—fruit growers, farmers, nurserymen, and people of that kind—who have land worth say £5,000. Suppose £1,000 of that £5,000 is owing to the proximity of the land to a town. Suppose £1,000 is increment, then ipso facto the Death Duty mounts up from £200 to £400 under this Bill. If you did not charge the Increment Duty at death it would pay £200, and if you do it amounts to £400. This particular case causes great hardship to little men of this kind, the very class of men whom hon. Members below the Gangway are so particularly anxious to encourage upon the land. If their sons want to continue to work the land, a very considerable burden is immediately placed upon them. I know very many such eases, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that they do deserve a great deal of consideration at any rate from the Government now in power.
  I would put strongly in another category the case of nurserymen. I think nurserymen, who have spent large sums in developing land to the highest possible degree, and who have got a great reputation in the towns in which they reside, could not sell what they have without great loss. That may be covered by sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and I hope it will be made clear if it is so. There is no doubt that they would pay the halfpenny tax, but I maintain it

  271
  would be a great hardship if they had to pay in addition what might be a very heavy Increment Tax on the occasion of death. I know there is great difficulty in dealing with all these things, and that it you do not levy the increment at death, you may never levy it at all. As has been pointed out many times a man sustains large loss of income by holding his land, and merely receiving agricultural rents instead of selling his land, and investing what he receives in gilt-edged securities. If the fact that he could increase his income by selling his land and so investing his money does not induce him to sell, I do not think anything else will. You have in the Housing and Town Planning Bill actual power to acquire land compulsorily for building purposes, and I do maintain that there is no need to penalise large numbers of deserving people by compelling them to sell their land to pay this duty. I consider that my Constituents are not only intelligent, but that they are people of the class who form the very backbone of the country. They are practically of the small yeomen class. Some of them represent families who have held land for generations in that part of the world, and I think it would be extremely hard on them and their descendants if they were forced not only to pay Death Duties but this Increment Duty when they do not handle actually the profit which accrues to their property. I support the Increment Tax when a man sells land for building purposes, but I do beg the Government to seriously consider the case of those small men to whom I have referred. I ask them earnestly to consider the great hardship these proposals will cause to a most deserving class of the community.
  Earl WINTERTON: We have had an interesting Debate this afternoon in which a great many legal technicalities have been discussed, but the question which concerns the vast majority of the people of the country is: How is the average owner of landed property on succeeding on the death of his father to find the money demanded under this clause without seriously crippling his property, himself, or his heirs'! That is the real question which arises, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given any answer whatever. We have had a great deal of discursive argument about the meaning of market value, but I think the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford has never
  272
  really been answered. The Attorney-General said that was an extreme case, but I am unable to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by that. I would venture to put a case which I do not think either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General can describe as in the least degree extreme. It is a case where the amount of the value is smaller. It is the case of an agricultural estate of £50,000 passing on the death of the owner to a man whose sole property practically is invested in this estate. The increment on that estate since the last valuation is £10,000, and, therefore, the increment duty would be £2,000. Assuming that the proposed Death Duties are adopted, the duty payable on that estate would amount to £3,500.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the Noble Lord is assuming a purely agricultural property. In that case there is no Increment Duty at all. In the case of a purely agricultural property the question of increment does not arise.
  Earl WINTERTON: That point has not been fully thrashed out in these Debates. I do not admit the right hon. Gentleman's premise. I have some not very pleasant reminiscences of Death Duties. It is one of those subjects of which I have very painful knowledge. I cannot see that a case of that kind would not arise, but let us assume that the question does not arise. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget, for instance, that it is predicted by many that we shall have wheat going up to 60s. a quarter. There might, therefore, be a sudden rise in the value of agricultural land. There might be circumstances outside of this country which would cause a rise in the value of agricultural land. I do not think that is at all an extreme case. At any rate, my supposititious owner would have to pay no less a sum than £5,500, assuming that the whole property is £50,000. It is no exaggeration to say that he will have to pay at once on the death of the former owner a sum which, roughly speaking, is equal, under ordinary circumstances, to two years' income of the property. We have not had a single word from the Government or any hon. Member behind them to show how the unfortunate owner is going to find the money. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that in more than half of the cases he will be unable to find the money. He will not get an insurance company to advance it. It will be said that he can dispose of the land by

  273
  sale. Assuming that he could do so, it is a dangerous argument to put forward. After all, why should he sell the property? Hon. Members below the Gangway think that it is wrong for a man to hold this kind of property, and that is really the whole argument put forward by the Government and their supporters. They say, "If he cannot pay, let him sell the land." Is that the way to deal with property which the Prime Minister said is a perfectly legitimate form of investment? I think it is a most extraordinary attitude to take up in any Debate in this House. This Amendment, more than any other we have discussed, raises the whole point whether the Government and their supporters believe that the holding of land is justifiable or not. The result of the Debate this afternoon has been to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he is not prepared to go so far in this House as in some distant part of Wales, and say that the holding of land is a criminal thing, is prepared to say quite lightly, "If an owner finds that the holding of land is too expensive a thing, and if he objects to the Budget proposals, let him sell the land and let someone else bear the burden." If that is the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman takes up, then the Debate this afternoon will have served a good purpose in eliciting the fact. I listened to the views put forward by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Leif Jones). I always thought the hon. Member was extreme in his views on temperance, but I find now that he is an out-and-out Socialist. If the views put forward by the Government and their supporters are acted upon, then I say that no Member of the party opposite will be able to go to the country and say honestly that he does not wish to cripple agriculture and property in land.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted the Opposition with what he called their inconsistency. I do not think that the accusation can be made against this side of the House. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to point out the objections to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be perfectly impossible in some cases to get the Increment Duty at all unless, having secured it in the case of sales and leases, he provides for getting it also in the case of death. It has been pointed out that in cases where public harm or
  274
  damage would result from the holding up of land the power proposed to be taken under the Housing and Town Planning Bill will enable the community to deal with obstructive owners of land who stand in the way of public development. I see no reason whatever why a man, in order to pay the Increment Duty, should be forced to part with his property when he has no desire to do so. This question of holding up land has been to a large extent exaggerated. The charge that landlords stand in the way of the public interest has been based on a few individual cases. The real hardship we want to avoid is the carrying out of the constant valuations which will be inflicted unnecessarily upon the owners of property. That is one of the reasons why it seems to me that death is an unfair moment to choose. No one can say how often Succession Duty may come round. In some cases it may be a long period; in other cases it may come two or three times in quick succession which may absolutely cripple some property that cannot stand the strain. It is absolutely impossibls from the Death Duty valuation to get the site value. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Death Duty valuation made before this Bill to endeavour to extract from it the site valuation. The hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) gave us a most illuminating speech on the subject of Death Duties. He argued from averages like the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told us that the average Income Tax was nothing like Is., that it worked out at something like between 10d. and 11d. I do not see how that is going to give any consolation to the man whose case at the moment is being argued who is paying an infinitely higher Income Tax than that. In the same way the hon. Member for Appleby tried to argue that the argument of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), when he said 40 per cent. would have to be paid in some instances on certain portions of the property was untrue, because it did not cover the whole average of the estate. It is perfectly obvious that the argument of my hon. Friend was perfectly accurate, and has not been shaken by anything that has been said. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) in dealing with this question of Death Duties, belittled the whole thing, and said they were not really harsh, that they were mainly paid out of income, and that it was very easy to raise them by selling the land and by gambling in stocks.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I never suggested gambling in stocks. I suggested selling the land.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Member suggested selling the land, and that if the money could be put to better use in another direction it would result in larger sums being made.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Do you deny that?
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Many owners of property have tried to recoup themselves, and the results have been most disastrous to unfortunate people who are trying to make money, but have never done so. That was the legal advice this hon. Gentleman gave on the Question of Death Duties. That is the advice he applied also to the increment value on death. When I asked him subsequently in private conversation whether he could give me one single instance of agricultural property which had paid its Death Duties out of income the answer, of course, was obvious—he could not give me an instance, and his argument is completely countered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who almost immediately afterwards during the same Debate stated that the payment of Death Duties accrued so easily that owners of estates had paid them at once rather than avail themselves of the system of paying by instalments and spreading the duty over the number of years that is allowed. That in itself proves that these duties are not paid out of income, but out of capital, which is the assertion that we have made, and which represents the fact. All these taxes are taxes on capital, and in the end are bound to impoverish land on the estates in this country. When we come to this question of taxes at death I do think that the attitude of a great many hon. Members of this House is an extremely mean one. What right have we to sit here and impose taxation on those who are to come after us which we are not prepared to pay ourselves? It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say, "This is an eminently satisfactory tax to put on as long a I am not going to pay it. What does it matter about my successor?" The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General (Sir William Robson), on previous discussions as regards the Death Duties, sneered somewhat at the idea of insuring against Death Duties. He said it was very unfair to reckon as a form of taxation the provisions that we may make for our successors. He says:—
  "It is most unfair to say that it is a tax upon a man himself. If he chooses to make provision for his successor that is very noble of him, but there is no need to do it."
  276
  During the whole of the Debate in 1894 the argument was constantly used on the Question as a means of saving estates from the serious effects of Death Duties that it would be also the duty of those who had estates to safeguard them as far as possible for their successors by insuring. But here is a thing you cannot insure. You cannot tell what the Increment Duty is; you cannot tell what an estate, burdened as it is by the payment of the Death Duties at a most inconvenient time, will be worth; you cannot tell what the additional burden will be which this increment burden will throw on it. You cannot have any provision to protect yourself against this imposition. That seems to me to add greatly to the hardship of the Bill. I hope that the House will consider the position of executors and the trustees, who have not, so far, been mentioned in this Debate. The position of the average executor or trustee will be made difficult in many cases if this Bill passes. It is obvious that not only are those Death Duties going to be very largely increased, but they would also have this purely speculative amount to provide for. I myself have the strongest objection to the increase of the Death Duties. I believe that they are the hardest part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. They will press most severely on agricultural estates, that is, on those who can least afford to pay them; and they will cause greater hardship to those who depend on estates in this country than to any other class. I strongly deprecate this provision, which makes the position more serious even than it is already.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Hon. Gentlemen opposite used to say that they intended to convert the land of this country from being the pleasure ground of the rich into being the treasure ground of the poor. I understood that they had in their minds some plan by which the landed property of England would be sold to persons who would turn it to better agricultural account than its present possessors. It is evident that they have no such plans, and that cannot have been their intention. From what I understand from them now, they do contemplate that on the death of what will be a large proportion, perhaps a majority, of those who now own land and use it for agricultural purposes in England, their successors will be forced to sell portions, at any rate, of those estates. That is the view of many speakers.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that this increment

  277
  is going to be charged on land for purely agricultural purposes. Not merely is it not the intention to do so, but I have taken measures in the Bill to introduce safeguards to prevent that being done.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I know that it is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that this duty, in addition to ail the graduation of Death Duties, will not affect agricultural lands. Does the right hon. Genteman then, believe that portions of such landed property will have to be sold on the deaths of the present owners? When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has taken measures which will prevent this duty which he is now imposing from being a burden on those who inherit agricultural land, I think he has not allowed sufficient weight to what fell from his own lips the other day. The other day he said most frankly to the House that in the ease where there is a large additional area used for market gardening then there would be an Increment Duty. That leaves the matter in great ambiguity. We, at any rate, on this side of the House believe that market gardens only flourish where they are either in proximity to a town or have some other adventitious aid which makes it proper, right and possible to turn purely agricultural land into a tract of land devoted to market gardening. That is the very converse of what I understood the hon. Gentlemen opposite to mean when they spoke of turning the land from being the pleasure ground of the rich into being the treasure ground of the poor. The contention is that portions of estate would be sold. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to whom would the;.' sell it? Clearly, not to the market gardeners; clearly, not to the small holders; and clearly, not to any municipality—though I believe that hon. Mem-
  bers have in their minds that by throwing land on the market it would be possible for county councils and other bodies to buy land cheaply. Those are not the persons to whom land will be sold in order to realise the money necessary to pay these Death Duties. It will be sold to those who can afford to give a fancy price. It is now being sold to those who can give a fancy price throughout England. Throughout England portions of agricultural estates are sold to men who have retired from business or have made large sums of money, and who cut bits out of the agricultural land of England, plant them, and make them a kind of small park or suburban residence. That is going on all over England. If you want to sell land you get a better profit if you sell it for a pleasure ground than for any other purpose, or if you sell it as a training ground for racehorses, or if you sell it to some millionaire or foreigner who comes and lays it out as a small ornamental estate. It is to those persons that land will be sold; and by selling it to those persons so far from turning the land from being the pleasure ground of the rich into the treasure ground of the poor it will make it more and more the expensive luxury of men who can afford such luxuries, and withdraw it more and more from the reach of men who are prepared to work in order to make the land produce a rich return.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 118.

  Division No. 208]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Agnew, George William

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Alden, Percy

  Bell, Richard

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney Charles

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cameron, Robert

  Astbury, John Meir

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bertram, Julius

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barker, Sir John

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Branch, James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brigg, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clough, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brooke, Stopford

  Clynes, J. R.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Richardson, A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cotton, Sir H. J S.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Lambert, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sears, J. E.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Erskine, David C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Snowden, P.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Faber, C. H. (Boston)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Falconer, James

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Summerbell, T.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Tennant, H. J (Berwickshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Massie, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Glover Thomas

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mond, A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Toulmin, George

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gulland, John W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Vivian, Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morrell, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morse, L. L.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walton, Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Napier, T. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgewood, Josiah C.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wiles, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pointer, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Winfrey, R.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Baring, Capt. Hon. C. (Winchester)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  280

  281

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renton, Leslie

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter (Dublin, S.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, G. Denison (York)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Winterton, Earl

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Oddy, John James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after,' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 136.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES.

  [6.55 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ferens, T. R.

  Agnew, George William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ginnell, L.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Barker, Sir John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Denelan, Captain A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Branch, James

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Elibank, Master of

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Erskine, David C.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hogan, Michael

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sears, J. E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Morrell, Philip

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morse, L. L.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehy, David

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hudson, Walter

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Myer, Horatio

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Snowden, P.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nicholls, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Hailey (Greenock)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Joyce, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Summerbell, T.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Toulmin, George

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Vivian, Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pointer, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Lundon, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wardle, George J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wedgewood, Josiah C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Weir J. Galloway

  Maclean, Donald

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Kean, John

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Richardson, A.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robinson, S.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Winfrey, R.

  Massie, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Mond, A.

  Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde)

  NOES.

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cox, Harold

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cave, George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Baring, Capt Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Beck, A Cecil

  Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bertram, Julius

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fell, Arthur

  284

  285

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton Rt Hon. Alfred

  Ronaldshay Earl of

  Foster, Philip S.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanier, Beville

  Harrison-Broadley H. B.

  Moore, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hay Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Napier, T. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Pretrsfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Oddy, John James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Pretyman E. G.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

  Renton, Leslie

  Younger, George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Renwick, George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the words of the clause to the word 'two,' ['Sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act'] in subsection (b), stand part of the clause."
  Question put, "That the Question that the words of the clause to the word 'two' stand part of the Question, be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 120.

  Division No. 210.]

  AYES.

  [7.7 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Alden, Percy

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cleland, J. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gulland, John W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barker, Sir John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cox, Harold

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crooks, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crossley, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Nerval Watson

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (inverness-sh.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Branch, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Falconer, J

  Jackson, R. S.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jowett, F. W.

  Cair-Gomm, H. W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lambert, George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pointer, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lupton, Arnold

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Verney, F. W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, A.

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walton, Joseph

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Robinson, S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Okney)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  Massie J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Moiteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mond, A.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sears, J. E.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Silcock, Thomas Bail

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Snowden, P.

  Napier, T. B.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Nicholls, George

  Stanger, H. Y.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeage

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faster, Herry William

  Moore, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmund)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Oddy, John James

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley H. B.

  Percy, Earl

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Campbell, Rt Hon. J. H. M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renton, Leslie

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

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

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  288

  289

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Younger, George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'two' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 211.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lambert, George

  Agnew, George William

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Maste of

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Alden, Percy

  Erskine, David C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Falconer, J.

  Lundon, T.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barker, Sir John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maclean, Donald

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gulland, John W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massie, J.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Branch, James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Meagher, Michael

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mortagu, Hon. E. S.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cameron, Robert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hogan, Michael

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Napier, T. B.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Clough, William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crooks, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Partington, Oswald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (staffs, Leek)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Laidlaw, Robert)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Pointer, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Vivian Henry

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sheehy, David

  Walton, Joseph

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Richardson, A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robinson, S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Winfrey, R.

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Toulmin, George

  NOES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Hagerston)

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Keswick, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Question, "That this Bill be now read the third time," put and agreed to.

  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to insert after "sections one and two" the words "sub-section one (a), (b), and (c), and subsection three."
  I move this Amendment really as a protest against the growing practice of legis-
  292
  lating by reference. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a lawyer, and, still more, the Attorney-General, in active practice, will sympathise with the object of the Amendment, which is to assist those who have to take part in the administra-

  293
  tion of the Act. In section 2 of the Finance Act, 1894, there are two sub-sections which clearly have no possible reference to Increment Duty. One—sub-section (d) —relates to annuities, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit has nothing to do with this subject. Sub-section (2) relates to property passing on the death of the deceased when situate out of the United Kingdom. I was not at all sure that, in their lust for Increment Duty, it was not the desire of the Government to take Increment Duty on land in Germany or Fiji which happened to be owned by British subjects. But I cannot conceive that the Government seriously intended to impose Increment Duty on land out of the United Kingdom, and the object of my Amendment is to exclude these two paragraphs. The system of legislation by reference is carried to extreme lengths. In this clause we are referred to the Act of 1894; in the Act of 1894 we are referred to the Act of 1889; and the Act of 1889 refers us to the Act of 1881. That is so. If anyone wants to find out what is the meaning of the particular section of this Finance Act that we are discussing to-day he has got to refer to the Acts of 1894, 1889, and 1881, before he can find out exactly what the law is on the subject. I beg to move.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that the insertion of this Amendment is necessary at all, because it is perfectly clear that annuities or land abroad could not come under the operation of this section. However, if the hon. Member thinks that it makes it clearer it cannot possibly do any harm, and I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but before it is put to the House may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the accusation which has been made on the other side that we have put on the Paper the Amendments which we have to delay and obstruct the passage of this Bill. Here is an instance which, clearly, if the sub-section had been allowed to pass un-amended, would have made it necessary for a valuation to be made out of this country. [Cries of "No, no."] Indeed it would. The provision which allows these nondescript Commissioners to affix a time might have made it absolutely impossible to take that valuation within the time given.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Though I am not anxious to delay the business I really cannot allow that to pass. There are Amendments that I will not be able to accept in the form in which they have been put. but I hope that every time we can accept an Amendment that the occasion is not to be taken as an opportunity to treat of the iniquity of the Government. That is not the way to encourage the acceptance of Amendments.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmoved to omit in sub-section (b) the words "any subsequent enactment" ["Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and"], "and to insert sections 14 and 15 of the Finance Act, 1896, and section 11 of the Finance Act, 1900." I think this is really a little more important than a mere drafting alteration. This clause brings into the purview of this Act sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act of 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment. That is to say, anybody who wants to find out whether his property is liable to pay Increment Duty under the provisions of the Bill we are now discussing has got to go back not merely to the Act of 1894; he has got to search through the whole of the Acts of Parliament passed since 1894 to find out if any of them refer to the Acts of 1894, which of them may have reference to the Act of 1890. and which sections relate and deal with the Act of 1909. I do submit to the Attorney-General that that is not a task which ought to be put upon anybody who wants to know what the law of England is. I have had considerable search made, and I can only find two amendments of the law which deal with this particular section of the Act of 1894. These are the Finance Act of 1896 (sections 14 and 15), and the Finance Act of 1900 (section 11). Perhaps the Attorney-General will believe that the effect of this Amendment is to make the Act a little clearer. If there are other amendments of the law passed since 1894 which I have not been able to find out other people will be in the same hopeless position, and it is the duty of the Government to tell us what amendments they include in these words, "or any subsequent amendment of the Act." It cannot be any future amendment. It must be amendments which have been passed into law between 1899 and 1904. If he says that there is an amendment of the law of which I know nothing—and I am not prepared to say that he is not quite

  295
  right—it would still appear to be necessary to either strike out the words complained of or accept the Amendment which I have suggested.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate the value and significance of the words of this section. He is quite right in saying that the only material amendment up to the present date of the Finance Act of 1894 which touches this subject are the statutes of 1896 and 1900. But the object of these words is by no means satisfied by merely covering the amendments which have been passed since 1894. The Increment Value Duty is put under the general provisions of the Finance Act of 1894. It is put under the same law with regard to assessments and collection as a distinct duty brought into existence by the Finance Act of 1894. It is desired that all future Amendments of that Act shall apply also to the Increment Value Duty. Unless we had in some such words as these, it will require separate enactments, or rather, we should have to deal with the subject in subsequent enactments amending the Finance Act of 1894. That is not desirable. We want the Increment Value Duty to run under the same general conditions, and on the same line, as the collection of the Estate Duties.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given shows that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one of substance and of very great importance indeed. As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that the section of the Act will refer not merely to the enactments passed up to the present time, and not merely to this enactment itself, which is now before us, but will automatically apply to any alterations which the House may subsequently make in amending Acts in subsequent years. If that be so, these words open a very wide question indeed. I do not propose to pursue the possible results into future years, but I only desire to make a few observations upon the effect of the words if they apply to the provisions of the present Act which are not yet law. If you turn from the subsection which we are dealing with to Clause 43, you will see that that clause has a very direct bearing upon the Amendment. It says: "In the case of a person
  296
  dying on or after 30th day of April, 1909, the period preceding the death of the deceased, before which a disposition purporting to operate as an immediate gift, inter vivos, must have been made…shall be five years to the set of twelve months before the death, and, accordingly, paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (as amended by section 11 of the Cus-tome and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, and applied by paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal Act), subsection (3) of section 2 of the principal Act, and section 11 of the Finance Act, 1900, shall be read as if five years were substituted for twelve months."
  The effect of what I have read shows that by the words which are now under discussion, and which my hon. Friend has moved to omit, it is directed that when a man dies there shall be collected from his estate Increment Duty on any property of which he has not divested himself five years before he dies. Therefore, if even within the course of the last five years he has sold any property, after his death Increment Duty is to be charged upon that sale. Now, is that really intended? I ask any representative of the Government to tell me if I misunderstand the effect of the words?
  Sir W. ROBSON: These words are applied to subsequent amendments of the Finance Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but this is an Amendment of the Finance Act. Section 43 is an amendment of the Finance Act. This amendment by this Bill, and by the words we are now discussing, is applied to the assessment of Increment Duty on value. I hope I make myself clear. Therefore, when a man dies his executors will have to ascertain whether he parted with any land or interest in land in the last five years of his life, and if he parted with it in the last five years of his life, they will have to have it valued for the purpose of increment, and they will have to pay whatever Increment Duty the Commissioners may decide upon. I ask, am I right in my law, and if I am right in my law, is that what the Government intend?
  Mr. ABEL SMITH: I think quite enough has been said to show that this is a very bad case, indeed, and I should like that we should repeat and emphasise the protests that have been made on this occasion. It may be possibly alarming to refer to the

  297
  Finance Act of 1894, but I must say I think it is very difficult to defend the reference to the Finance Act as amended by any subsequent Act. As the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has shown, it is not very easy even for him, who is a lawyer, to make out what these subsequent enactments are. The point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester shows what an extraordinary position we are getting ourselves into by proceeding with this legislation by reference. I think it is absolutely necessary for the Committee to be assured that the point raised by my right hon. Friend is not a substantial one, or, if it is a substantial one, that immediate steps should be taken by Parliament to put this extraordinary state of things right. I do hope that we may have without further delay a satisfactory answer from some Member of the Government.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I really think that the Government is treating the Committee with the greatest disrespect in not answering——
  Sir W. ROBSON: Surely we are at liberty, in order to appreciate the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, to look into the section. Here you have an Amendment handed in. The right hon. Gentlemen reads out a particular section with an immense number of references in it, and I am endeavouring to look at these references, and because of that I am told I am treating the Committee with disrespect.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We will endeavour to keep the Debate going while the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaged.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I never intended to insult the right hon. Gentleman. If I understood he was now reading this section for the first time my sympathy would be entirely with him.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point is this. A manuscript Amendment has been put in which I have not had an opportunity of considering. I have only seen it myself a short time ago, and until I see what the effect of it is, which will take some time and necessitate a reference to the section, I cannot express an opinion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Amendment actually appears on the Paper, Clause 1, line 6, leave out "as amended by any subsequent enactment."
  Sir W ROBSON: That, as far as I can see, has no relation whatever, absolutely no relation to the Amendment which we are now discussing.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the Amendment now before the House.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Surely the observation of the Attorney-General is not very well founded. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester was endeavouring to point out the effect of this Bill as it stood without any Amendment at all. It is not a question of what the effect of the Amendment will be but what the effect of the Bill really is. I do not think we are so very unreasonable generally speaking in assuming that the Government have mastered what the effect of the Bill was and the relation of its various clauses to one another. It is a perfectly simple and straightforward point and one I should have thought that must have occurred to anybody who looked at the Bill for the first time. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment." It is perfectly plain these words include the present Bill. The words "as amended by the subsequent enactment" must include the present Bill if the present Bill becomes law. The question is, what is the effect of the present Bill upon the Act of 1894. Apart from all the extraordinary verbiage of clause 4, which may or may not be necessary from the draftsman point of view, the effect is to bring in property passing at death of anyone within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Act of 1894, any property of which the deceased was possessed five years before his death. That is the effect of section 43, and that is the effect as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. So that the Attorney-General has not only not read the Bill, but he has not read the Chancellor's speech, because it comes upon him as a complete shock that the effect of the clause is to impose Increment Duty upon any land passing five years before death. Surely that is a simple point, and the only question that arises is, does the Government mean that? I do not think there is any doubt about the meaning of the clause, but what we want to know is, do the Government mean that property held by a person five years before his death is to be subject to Increment Duty? That is the sole point. The truth is that this clause is not only legislation by reference, but it

  299
  is also legislation by prophecy, and it is a most outrageous departure from all the canons of legislation ever attempted.
  Sir W. ROBSON: With the latter part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I have dealt by anticipation. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the only difficulty I have is to connect it with the Amendment now under discussion. I desired to read section 43 for the purposes of that in order to make sure, especially as I have not got before me the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has handed in. It is only unusual when the Question is put that I should at once try to make sure I appreciated the point. With regard to the Question, so far as he put as to Clause 43, he is right. He stated, as it appears to me, correctly the effect of Clause 43. He asked if the Government meant that. Undoubtedly they do. The Government will defend the provisions of Clause 43 when they come to it. So far as the matters which are the subject-matter of this Amendment are concerned, I do not think this question arises at this stage. We do mean to take Increment Value Duty from property that has been in the possession of the person who died during the preceding five years before.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is really the most amazing proposition that we have yet had among the many amazing propositions which the Government has laid down. What is it they really intend to do? A man sells an interest in property five years, or anything less than five years, before his death. Suppose that interest is a lease, does he pay duty on this lease when the lease is transferred in these circumstances? I am not quite sure. I understand he only pays that duty if it is a sale.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, I submit this is really nothing to do with the Amendment at all. I had these misgivings when the right hon. Gentleman raised the question about the words, "as amended by any subsequent enactment," which he wished to omit, and to insert section 14 and 15 of the Finance Act of 1896 and section 11 of the Finance Act of 1900. These are Amendments of section 1 and 2 of the Finance Act of 1894. These sections do not refer at all to the question of gifts inter vivos.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, they do.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The sub-section inserted by the hon. Gentleman does not deal at all with that. It is a wholly different matter, and I submit that it is a question which does not arise.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Question put from the Chair is that the words, "as amended by any subsequent enactment" stand part. It is to that Amendment I am speaking. The Attorney-General has explained it includes any Amendment made by this Bill, and I called attention to the Amendments made by this Bill in the obscure words of Clause 43, and the effect they would have upon the particular sub-section we are now discussing unless we omitted the particular words; and I submit that my observations are directed to the point.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I submit also that the object of moving that Amendment was to ask the Government whether the words included Amendments by this or any subsequent Act or not?
  The CHAIRMAN: The whole controversy between the two sides of the House appears to be as to whether the words "any subsequent enactment" affect the question of the increment value being levied upon gifts inter vivos made within five years before the death of the person. That seems a very intricate matter, and so far I am not sufficiently seized of the arguments to say whether the words in subsequent enactments here do or do not affect this matter, and I cannot on a question of order declare it is out of order, because there appears to be a perfectly clear difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the effect of the words. The difference is whether that effect is desirable or not. I asked whether that was the effect of the words, and the Attorney-General said it was, and now at the earliest opportunity we desire to challenge that intention. This makes the Amendment of my hon. Friend very important. The Government provide that if a man has given away property 4½ years before his death, at his death that property shall be deemed to pass at the moment of his death, and be valued then for increment to be paid out of the estate. That man is deemed to be the owner of the land. It is very necessary to discuss this matter at once, because the Government

  301
  have not perceived the effect of their enactment. The man who dies is deemed to be the possessor of anything which he has given away less than five years ago, and it is deemed to pass at his death. A having given away to B a property four years and six months ago, and dying today is deemed to be the possessor of that property to-day, and it is assessed for Increment Duty on his death on its value to-day, and that sum is taken out of his estate, and not out of B's estate, to whom it is given. I think that is rather strong, because B has the property and the increment and A pays. But that is not all——
  Sir W. ROBSON: Although the property is B's, section 2 of the Finance Act gives rise to the occasion for the collection of the duty, but it does not follow that the duty is collected from the heirs of the estate of the person who made the gift. It is a duty attaching to the land—[OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—and would be paid by the persons who are possessed of the land, and it would be an occasion on which they would clear their property of the Increment Value Duty. This occasion is one on which it is proper they should clear their property at some later date.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Attorney-General refer me to the section he relies upon?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes, I will refer him to the section. It is really part of the scheme of the Act, because the duty is put upon the land. [Cries of "Section 5."] Section 5 provides, "The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty." [Cries of "Read on."] "But where any interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable is property passing to the personal representative as such, the duty shall be payable out of that interest in land in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is only in that one case.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will leave other hon. Members to continue the argument who have a greater knowledge of the Question. See where we have got to now. Amongst the occasions on which you are to collect the duty is the death of the owner, but by the words under discussion in this case the death of the owner does not mean the death of the owner, but
  302
  the death of somebody else, who within the last five years was the owner, and the man who is not dealing with his land, transferring, selling, or leasing it, but who has had it in possession four years and six months may be called upon for Increment Duty because somebody else who gave it him has died. That is a preposterous proposal. I do not profess to be able to follow out all the possible consequences of this complicated matter, but the explanation we have had and the information I have been able to derive from the Government convinces me that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to omit the words from the Bill is a necessary one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what our proposal is. It is that you shall collect the Increment duty on two occasions—one on the transfer and the other at death. If a man is allowed to escape the Increment Duty or so arrange his property that the Increment Duty can be evaded purely by gifts inter vivos we shall never be able to collect the duty at all. I can understand from the point of view of those who want to avoid the duty that this might be a very desirable way of doing it, but here you have provision in the Act of 1894 which has been accepted by those who amended it, that a gift inter vivos is to be treated within the 12 months' period as if it were in the possession of the man at his death. We propose to amend that by saying it shall be five years instead of 12 months, and that is the proposal we shall discuss on Clause 43. There we shall decide whether the period shall be five, four, three, or two years, or whether we shall leave it where it is. I do not see that there is any reason why we should draw a distinction between the Estates Duty special enactment and that part which relates to the whole property, otherwise you will escape the duty altogether. The number of years we shall deal with in Clause 5, and by that clause we propose that the owner of the land shall pay the increment. He only pays when the person who gave the property to him dies, and that is a perfectly legitimate exaction, otherwise the duty might be avoided by the simple expedient of a person on the point of death making a gift, inter vivos, and there would then be no Increment Duty at all.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am very sorry to find myself in conflict with the Attorney-General with regard to his interpretation of Clause 5 under this Bill. Let us see what we are considering. A man has

  303
  given away property in land five years before his death, or for something less than five years before his death. Therefore, when he dies, nothing really passes at all. The case contemplated by section 5 is where leasehold property passes, and all that provides for is that instead of the Increment Duty being paid out of the personal estate of the man who has died, it is to be paid out of the leasehold property. Clause 5 has nothing to say to the question put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), because nothing passes, and, therefore, this increment has to be paid by him. Is it to be paid by the man who gets nothing? If it is not, who has it to be paid by?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: By the owner of the land.
  Sir E. CARSON: There is no provision in the Bill to that effect, and I do not think any lawyer in the House will say that there is. Let me now take the case, with which I do not agree, that it has to be paid by the owner, and look at the absurdity to which it leads. A property was given away five years before the man died. The man who got it sold it again, and he is called upon to pay the Increment Duty because somebody who was a predecessor in title dies five years afterwards. Could there be a greater absurdity? How can you carry it out in practice? Look what the predecessor will have to do ! If you purchase from a man who has had a gift you will have to say to the man, "How do I know that the man who made you this gift will not die within five years. I must therefore ask that for five years sufficient money shall be held back for the purpose of paying the Increment Duty which I should be called upon to pay if the man who made the gift died within five years."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Increment Duty will be paid on the sale.
  Sir E. CARSON: You are accumulating them all one after the other, and it will have to be paid again at death. If the man does not die within five years there will be no Increment Duty. If he dies there will be Increment Duty, and you are making the whole position, by attempting to carry out any sale in reference to tenure in English land, an absolute farce.
  Sir W. ROBSONIt is rather a little dangerous for anyone when stating what he thinks the law is to say that he is also of opinion that no lawyer will contradict him——
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and Private Business being set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL. (By Order.)
As amended, considered.
Clause 354.—(Agreements for Supply of Electricity.) —The Corporation may make agreements with the local authority of any district adjacent to the area of the Corporation for the supply of electrical energy and with any tramway company owning leasing or working tramways within such district and with the County Council for the supply of electrical energy by the Corporation to such local authority company or council for all or any of the purposes-for which such local authority, company or council are or may be authorised to use the same. Provided always that the Corporation shall not supply electrical energy to such company or for any purpose whatever within the district of any local authority without the consent of such local authority under their common seal, but no such consent shall be required to the supply of electrical energy by the Corporation to the Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company for use upon the tramways belonging to or worked by that company.
Mr. RAINY Mr. RAINY moved to omit from Clause 354 the words, "but no such consent shall be required to the supply of electrical energy by the Corporation to the Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company for use upon the tramways belonging to or worked by that company."
I do not wish to impute anything wrong to the Corporation of Greenock, but there has been a departure, a serious departure, from an agreement on this subject. The inhabitants of Port Glasgow and its corporation have a right to object to this departure. Greenock, Port Glasgow, and Gourock are not far from each other. Only on of these corporations has an electric supply. In 1902, when this tramway was proposed, it was thought necessary to insist upon this, that the tramway should get the supply of power from Greenock without the consent of the other two corporations. It was agreed that the corporation of Greenock should not supply electric energy to the other corporations without the consent of the local authorities. That was the basis on which an

305
agreement was arrived at in 1902. The clause to which I refer was inserted, and Port Glasgow withdrew all opposition to the Bill. Later on the words which I propose to leave out were inserted. What do they mean? They mean that the agreement between Port Glasgow and Greenock shall be taken out of the Bill. They say that the local consent is necessary in the case of the other two boroughs, but that the words shall not apply to the third borough. All that is nonsense. The case was taken to the House of Lords. This is a matter of some importance, although I have been told that, as a matter of fact, it is of no importance. I wish to say that I do not think local authorities ought to be deprived of their jurisdiction over a small area. I cannot see that there is any justification for it. More than that, what I feel very strongly about is that if the other boroughs are to get all their supply from Greenock, the inhabitants of Port Glasgow and Gourock should be in a position to protest against such a proposal. Under this clause what remedy has Port Glasgow? It will be in the hands of the tramway company. If the agreement stood Port Glasgow would be in a position to say that its tramway system should have a station of its own. In the other case it would be in the hands of the tramway company. I am going to rest my case upon this. There was an agreement which it was proposed to alter, and it was suggested that the matter should be put right in another place. These corporations are not extremely wealthy bodies, and to bring the matter before a Committee of another place would be a very expensive proceeding. Therefore I think we should restore the clause to what it was before, particularly as the tramway company has been working under the clause for six years. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Sir T. GLEN-COATS: I rise to second the proposal of my hon. Friend. What he said with regard to Port Glasgow holds very largely with the town of Gourock. This proviso, which makes it compulsory to allow the Greenock Corporation to supply electric force, would probably be a great injustice in the future to Gourock. It is true that Gourock does not stand in exactly the same position as Port Glasgow. They have an agreement with the tramway company in which that company have bound
306
themselves to take the electric energy required for the Gourock portion of the tram line in the event of Gourock establishing its own electric power station. They believe, however, that that would not safeguard them against this particular provision in the Bill, and it is on these grounds I second this Motion on their behalf.
Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: As chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill, I ask the House not to agree to the Amendment. The main object of the measure is to extend to these municipal boroughs and to consolidate the existing law. I venture to think it is a very unfortunate thing that this Amendment should be raised at this particular stage. It is essentially a point to be discussed in Committee. It is not possible here to go into the details of the quarrels which have unfortunately arisen between the three boroughs. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Rainy) very properly said, Greenock is situated between Gourock and Port Glasgow, and there is a system of electric tramways which runs through the whole of the three towns, and is worked by the one company. All the electric power is supplied by the Corporation of Greenock under an Electric Lighting and Provisional Order obtained in 1883, and, under another Order obtained in 1901, Greenock is only allowed to supply the power for running the tramways in Gourock and Port Glasgow with the consent of those two burghs, and subject to six months' notice. It may be of interest to the House to know that this is the largest private Bill which has ever been introduced into this House; it occupied the time of the Committee 22 days. It was found necessary to repeal the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders in order to insert in the present Bill the model form of Order, and thus to bring it up to date. The clause, as inserted, was agreed to by both Gourock and Port Glasgow, and these two towns withdrew their petition and their opposition to the Bill. But, unfortunately, the clause was amended without giving notice, and words were proposed to be inserted, to which they both objected. In the case of Gourock, I understood, until a few months ago, the objection had been withdrawn. The agents for Port Glasgow withdrew their opposition, and did not petition for an alteration, and, in consequence, they had no locus standi before the Committee. When the Committee considered this part of the Bill they thought it wise to adjourn it with a view

307
to some arrangement being come to with both Port Glasgow and Gourock, but, unfortunately, the parties did not see their way to agree, and now they are desirous of amending the Bill. I think this is an entirely unnecessary proceeding. The Committee has no reason to believe that Port Glasgow at this moment is able to supply electric power to the Tramway Company which is working the trams, and, if Greenock is to be prevented supplying the power, the only effect will be that the tramways will have to cease working in Port Glasgow. If at any future time Port Glasgow should wish to erect an electric power station, and to run the tramways through its own district they can come to this House and ask for permission, and, if they wish now to provide the power, it is open for them to have the matter discussed when the Bill comes up in another place. That seems to me the proper procedure to be adopted. The Committee think that the remedy of the Corporation lies in another place. I ask the House to give the Bill a third reading, and, if the parties wish to press the matter further they can present a petition and have it discussed in the other House.
Mr. HALLEY STEWART: I should like to point out that the hon. Member, who introduced this Amendment, is under a misapprehension in stating that, in the event of there being a bad service on the part of the Tramway Company, there will be no alternative for the Port Glasgow authorities. Their remedy is clear. The Board of Trade is always with us. The inhabitants can petition in the event of there being any dissatisfaction with the service. But if the hon. Member will look to the scope of the Amendment he will find it has nothing to do with a bad service of trams. It is simply a question with regard to the supply of electrical energy.
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]

GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Order for third reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. KEIR HARDIE Mr. KEIR HARDIE moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
At the outset I desire to make it clear that we are not opposing this Bill on its general merits or demerits, but solely in respect of one particular clause. The point at issue is really a small one, in so far as it affects the general purpose of the Bill, and it is a very large and important one, in its bearings upon a portion of the Constituency which I represent. I may say that, before bringing the matter before the attention of the House, we have endeavoured, by negotiation and by conference, to get the point at issue settled, but I hope to show in the course of my remarks that we have to complain of a very serious breach of faith on the part of the promoters of the Bill. The point at issue is, whether Aberdare shall be forced against its will to come within the scope of this Bill. Aberdare is an urban district in the county of Glamorgan, comprising over 15,000 acres, and is governed by a council of 20 members, with a population estimated now at 50,000, the increase for the last 20 years being at the rate of over 1,000 per annum. The estimated rateable value of the area for 1895 was £163,600. and the assessment value £130,912. Those are the figures for 1895, those for this year are £195,194 rateable value, and £167,213 assessable value, and the value of the place is steadily increasing. In 1900 the general district rate was 3s. 6d. in the £. in 1909 it had fallen to 2s. 9d. in the £. Therefore it may be assumed, if for any purpose the county council of Glamorgan should desire to compel Aberdare to come within the scope of any scheme of theirs, it is obvious that from the point of view of wealth and assessable value, it is worth making the effort to obtain. Since the public authority began to supply the inhabitants with water, altogether £200,000 have been spent, of which only £33,000 odd are now outstanding, the whole of the rest of the capital having been redeemed— the stock having been redeemed. For some years there has been an effort on the part of various authorities in the county of Glamorgan and in the county council, to come to some arrangement whereby the supply of water can be centralised, and to that general proposition I have not only no objection, but it commands my heartiest support and sympathy. It is obvious that, as the population increases, it will become more and more imperative for some general arrange-

309
ment to be made, whereby one district shall not be allowed to monopolise favourable water supplies, to the exclusion of other districts.
For years, I say, there has been an effort to find some basis of agreement in regard to this matter, and so late as 12th March, 1909, a conference was convened by the county council to discuss the position and endeavour to come to some arrangement. The meeting was held at Neath, and was attended by a Mr. Franklyn, the clerk, and other members of the county council, and also by the various authorities affected, including Aberdare. After considerable discussion the clerk of the county council undertook to modify the Bill they were preparing, and particularly to insert a clause to the following effect: "That no water district created under the Bill should include any city, borough, or urban district having a population exceeding 7,000 without the consent of the council of such city, borough, or urban district." The county council accepted the principle at the conference that no authority with a population exceeding 7,000 should be compelled to come in without its consent, and as the population of Aberdare, within the area of the Aberdare Council, is now 50,000, it is obvious that they are well outside the scope of the limit which the Council then agreed to accept. In the Bill subsequently framed to give effect to this agreement, it was provided that no water district created under this section shall include any city, borough, or urban district, having a population exceeding 7,000 without the consent of the council of such city, borough, or urban district, and sub-section 3 of the same clause provided that no area not within the limits of supply of any such mentioned company or authority shall be included without the consent of the local authority having jurisdiction within such area, unless such local authority shall have failed to supply the same area with a proper and sufficient supply of pure and wholesome water. That gave the proposed Water Board power to compel people to come in where it could be shown that the water supply was neither pure nor sufficient, and neither of these charges can be laid against the water supply of Aberdare. We ask that that agreement be adhered to. As far back as 1876 new waterworks were completed 850 ft. above the Ordnance level at a cost of £55,000 and with a storage of 40,000,000 gallons, to supply a population of then 38,000, the daily supply being 820,000 gallons. In 1898 an additional and new reservoir was built to the west of the
310
old one, at a cost of £43,000 and a holding capacity of 73,000,000 gallons. The consumption now is just over a million gallons a day, and the reservoirs have a storage supply of 110 to 120 days. It is obvious, therefore, that Aberdare has not failed in any of the respects contemplated by this clause. Then, in the event of Aberdare being compelled to come within the scheme of this Bill, it would have to do so at considerable financial sacrifice. Clause 7 provides that where the works of a private company are taken over the Lands Clauses Act shall operate, which means the full price as a growing concern, plus 10 per cent.; and under Clause 16 it is laid down that where the waterworks belong to a public authority they shall be acquired at the cost of construction less depreciation. Therefore, a private company speculating for gain is to reap an advantage when their works are acquired under this Bill, and the public - spirited public authority is to be called upon to undergo considerable financial loss. At the present time, owing to sales of water to public companies and other large concerns, Aberdare's income is £1,700 per annum. There is no provision whatever for compensation for the loss of this income. The income arises from the public spiritedmanner in which the affairs of Aberdare have been managed, and now, because of their foresight and business capacity in providing this excellent supply of pure water, they are to be penalised.
I ask, in the first place, that Aberdare shall not be compelled to come within the scope of the Water Board which this Bill creates without its own consent, or, if that be not conceded, that at least the financial position of the council shall be so safeguarded that no financial loss shall ensue. In taking up this attitude I expect to have the support of the President of the Local Government Board. Every objection which Aberdare takes to this can be found in the Report which Mr. S. B. Travis issued before the Committee sat upon the Bill, in which he analyses it clause by clause and generally condemns it. It is obvious that so far as the Local Government Board is concerned, this Bill is no favourite of theirs. Mr. Travis, in his Report, says: —
"The Board are aware that the water supply in several areas in the county is deficient, and there may be difficulty in finding separate sources of supply suitable for meeting the separate requirements of those areas…It is to be observed that the Bill does not propose to authorise the acquisition of any new sources of supply, and that the works proposed are mainly for the utilisation of a source of supply authorised by the 1908 Act of the Pontypridd Water Company."
The object I have in view in reading these two paragraphs is to point out the danger that Aberdare is in. It has an abundant supply, which, no matter what the extension of the population may be, can be relied upon to last and be adequate for many years to come. A number of the areas which have been taken in by this Bill have a deficient water supply. The risk, therefore, is that this Water Board, if set up, may desire to bring Aberdare in so as to draw a portion of its present superabundant supply to make good the deficiencies of other parts of the county. On the point of compulsion Mr. Travis goes on to point out that in all former measures of this kind the county council did not take part, but they were usually effected by agreement between the local authorities, who had statutory powers for the supply of water. Then in the same paragraph he adds:—
"The Board submit for consideration whether a measure of this exceptional nature should he allowed to succeed without the effective concurrence of the local authorities and ratepayers who will be affected by its provisions."
That is our case put in a single sentence: that provision should be made in the Bill that Aberdare shall not be dragged in against its will. That is the opinion of the Local Government Board, and I hope it will be given effect to in the measure now before us. This Report also points out that there are no precedents for a measure of this kind, and that the only apparent precedent is the Metropolis Water Act of 1902, but that there are special circumstances which justify that Act, and which do not apply in this case. The Report also deals with that, and points out that the local authority may have its financial position worsened unless some safeguard be inserted. These are the words used in the Report:—
"It is proposed that the consideration for the purchase of so much of the undertaking of a constituent authority as is to be acquired under the Bill is to be the cost price after allowing for depreciation, and is to be determined in default of agreement or on the requisition of any other constituent authority by the standing arbitrator, whose remuneration is to be fixed by the Water Board. As regards the company's undertaking, however, the purchase price is to be determined, in default of agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the Land; Clauses Act, and the companies will therefore receive the value of their undertakings as going concerns, with the addition of 10 per cent, in respect of compulsory purchase."
Here is the moral which this Report draws from that statement:—
"It is to be observed that the constituent authority may be provided with a source of supply ample for its
312
own requirements without any guarantee that the cost of obtaning a bulk supply from the Water Board will not exceed the cost of its present supply."
I think when a Department like the Local Government Board sounds a note of warning so serious as the one I have just read, it is incumbent upon Committees considering these Bills, the Department in charge of them, and the House of Commons itself, to see that the lead here given is strongly followed. The final quotation I shall make from the Report deals with the possibility of a district having its supply of water worsened. The Report says:—
"In the case of a deficiency in the water supply such as is referred to in sub-clause 5 of clause 30, the district which draws last on the distributing main might conceivably be left with very little water if clause 37 is construed literally."
It so happens that Aberdare is beautifully situated at the very top of the valley, and that at the present time, under its old supply, it has abundance and to spare, but if brought within the scope of this Bill it may find itself one day not only bereft of its own supply but without a sufficient supply for its requirements, public and private. For these reasons we ask that provision shall be made in the Bill that Aberdare shall not be compelled to come in without its consent. The retort may be made that the position of Aberdare is safeguarded under Clause 5 of the Bill, which sets forth that no district outside the scope of the Bill shall be brought in save by Provisional Order introduced by the Local Government Board. That means practically that the proposal would come before both Houses of Parliament for inquiry and discussion. It means inquiry by the Local Government Board, and I have no doubt that Board would be anxious to do the right and proper thing by the authority that is being brought in, but the Aberdare Council and the inhabitants prefer to safeguard their own interests. We know what the Local Government Board is, and we know what its President is. We know that we are perfectly safe as things are to-day, but we do not know what the Board may be like five, eight, or ten years from now, and so we prefer not to take any risks. There is this further consideration: An inquiry of that kind would involve tremendous expense. A Provisional Order requiring to be opposed would involve the Council in great outlay, and I submit that, without good reason shown, it is not fair to a progressive local authority to act towards it in that manner. That is the case for our opposition. I trust that we shall have an assurance from the Chairman of the Committee perhaps, or from the President

313
of the Local Government Board, that when this Bill reaches another place words will be inserted to safeguard the position of Aberdare, so as to prevent the possibility of its being compelled to come unwillingly into this agreement; or, at least, if that cannot be done, that its financial position shall be safeguarded so that, if brought in, it will not be in a worse position, either as to the cost of water, or as to its position generally, than it is at the present time. The clause as drafted is very loose. It may be construed to mean that not only the county council, but any local authority, may apply to the Local Government Board to have Aberdare brought in. The promoters of the Bill have expressed their willingness so to amend the clause as to make it clear that only the county council shall have power to make application. That is so far good, but remembering the fat, rich area which the Aberdare Council represents in regard to rates, the Country Council doubtless will be only too desirous to have it brought in. For these reasons we prefer that words should be inserted, that nothing shall be done to compel the Aberdare Council to come in without the free and willing consent of the persons affected. I beg to move.
Mr. JAMES PARKER: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
Sir LUKE WHITE: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has stated that this Bill provides for the constitution of a Water Board in the county of Glamorgan, and that the area of the Board will comprise a considerable portion of the county. During the past few years considerable sums of money have been expended by the County Council of Glamorgan, and by various local authorities—borough, urban and rural councils—in promoting and opposing Bills for a water supply in the county of Glamorgan. Ultimately Parliament passed a measure some three years ago giving the County Council of Glamorgan power to make inquiries with regard to water supply, and to bring in a Bill so as to constitute a Water Board in the county. It is in pursuance of that Act of Parliament that the County Council of Glamorgan have promoted this Bill. It is a very intricate and complicated measure. When I mention that it con-
314
tains no less than 97 clauses, and a number of schedules, the House will recognise that it is a measure of very great importance to the county of Glamorgan. This Bill has occupied the attention of a Committee for a good many days. The county council, as the promoters of the Bill, and the various urban, rural, and other authorities, water companies, colliery companies, and a great many other interests affected by the Bill, were represented by counsel before the Committee. In the end the Committee were unanimous that the Bill was promoted in the interests of the various districts within the proposed area. There was also included in the Bill, words giving power to the Water Board, to be constituted under the Bill, to apply at any time after the passing of the Act to the Local Government Board in order to obtain a Provisional Order to bring within the area of the Water Board all the districts in the county of Glamorgan which are at present left out of that particular area.
It is in regard to the words in Clause 5, and only in that particular clause, that the Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie). I certainly think it would be very disastrous to the county of Glamorgan if on this small question as to Aberdare the county should lose the benefit which this Bill will provide. In 1906 Parliament set forth in a Bill which then was before the House of Commons, and ultimately became an Act of Parliament, that Glamorgan was in a special degree in the position of having its water supply in such a condition that it was absolutely necessary for the county council of the county to take steps in order to make provision for the inhabitants in large and populous areas in that county. With regard to the question of Aberdare, as well as other urban and rural districts lying outside this particular measure, evidence was given before the Committee, and Aberdare was represented by counsel and witnesses. After hearing witnesses with regard to the special clause mentioned, the Committee came to the conclusion that within a very short time it would be necessary in many parts of Glamorgan that the districts outside should be joined within the Water Board to be established by this Bill, and the promoters added words in Clause 5 to the effect that if a year after a Water Board came to the conclusion that it was necessary that any district, including, of course, Aberdare,

315
should come within the area of the Water Board, the Water Board should have power to apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order. Evidence was given before the Committee, and after carefully considering this point the Committee were unanimous that it would not be right or proper to give power to apply for a Provisional Order to the Water Board to be constituted under the Bill, but that it would be best in the interests of outside districts to confine an application for a Provisional Order to the County Council of Glamorgan, who would be entirely independent of the Water Board to be established under the Bill; and the Committee accordingly came to the conclusion that they would so alter the clause that on the application of the County Council of Glamorgan, or any one of the urban or rural district or borough councils left out of the area, the Local Government Board should be empowered to issue a Provisional Order, and that stands in the Bill to-day.
The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) states that his great objection to this particular clause is that Aberdare, like any other outside authority in the county of Glamorgan, might be compelled to form part of the area of the Water Board against its will. I do not think that that could possibly happen under the provision of the Bill and under clause 5 as it stands to-day. What would be the provision of Aberdare? If a year after Aberdare thought it was expedient for the district to come within the Water Board they could apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order. But if, on the other hand, the council of Aberdare took no steps in the matter, but the county council, which represents to a certain extent for water supply purposes under the Act of 1906 the district of Aberdare, in common with all other districts throughout the county, came to the conclusion that it was necessary with regard to Aberdare that it should form part of the area of the Water Board, then the county council could apply to the Local Government Board, and the first step of the Local Government Board would be to send down an inspector in order to make local inquiry at Aberdare with regard to this water supply and the proposal to bring it within the area of the Water Board, and if after hearing witnesses and obtaining the Report of the inspector the Local Government Board
316
came to the conclusion that a Provisional Order should be made, then, after that Provisional Order was made, Aberdare would have the right to appear before a Committee of the House of Commons and to have a Committee appointed so that the question of the Provisional Order with regard to bringing in Aberdare should be finally decided upon. Therefore there would not only be a Committee of the House of Commons, but if the House of Commons passsed the Provisional Order there would also be another appeal, and Aberdare could go to the House of Lords. But what would be the provision suppose we had not put in this clause in this particular Bill? We placed it in this Bill because we found that there had been an enormous expenditure by local authorities throughout the county Glamorgan, and that it was necessary to put a stop to this large expenditure. And as we knew that under the Public Health Act and other Acts of Parliament Parliament had laid down that a local authority could come to Parliament through the Local Government Board by means of a Provisional Order and obtain an Act of Parliament at very little cost, we thought it was expedient that we should give this power to the local authorities within Glamorgan and to the county council of Glamorgan, so that they might-be placed in the position of any other local authority throughout the county.
That is the sole reason why we gave this particular authority. The hon. Member states that if the county council of Glamorgan came to this House for a Provisional Order great injustice financially would be placed upon Aberdare, and that they would have to come within the Bill, the third reading of which is now under consideration. But there, again, the Committee after considering the points raised by counsel on behalf of a number of local authorities, such as Aberdare, and including Aberdare, unanimously came to the conclusion that we should so alter the clause in the Bill with regard to applying for a Provisional Order that any outside authority hereafter to be brought within the Water Board should only come within the Water Board here on terms to be decided by the Local Government Board, and should not be obliged to come in under the terms of the Bill itself. What the Committee did was this. We inserted a provision that any Provisional Order made should contain such terms, conditions, and provisions as the Local Government Board

317
thought fit, having regard to all the circumstances in each particular case, including Aberdare.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE:May I ask whether the cost of the undertaking would not be governed by Clause 27?
Sir LUKE WHITE: I am quite clear that is not so. That point was brought before the Committee, and we so elaborated Clause 5 as to make it clear that if a Provisional Order was made in regard to any outside district that might hereafter be brought in by Provisional Order, the Local Government Board would have full power to insert in that Provisional Order the terms and conditions and provisions of their case, and according to the inquiry which had been made. Therefore those terms are safeguarded. I appeal to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to withdraw his Amendment, which would destroy the Bill if it were passed. The opposition of Aberdare is on a small point, though perhaps, from Aberdare's point of view, it is one which they may consider to be prejudicial to them, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Committee were absolutely convinced that within a very few years after the establishment of the Water Board constituted by this Bill there would be applications to bring other areas in the county of Glamorgan within the Water Board. If this clause were not inserted, the county council of Glamorgan would have power next year, or in the following Session, to bring in a Bill to put Aberdare within the Water Board if the county council thought it was expedient to do so. We only put in these words with regard to a Provisional Order in order to save the cost of a Parliamentary inquiry, if it was possible to do so, by the parties coming to terms on the question of the Provisional Order itself. I do hope that the hon. Member, after having heard this explanation, will withdraw the Amendment. Any question of the clauses can be considered in another place. The Committee have fully considered this question, and have come to the conclusion that they would not be doing their duty if, in addition to constituting the Water Board provided by the Bill, they did not also pass a clause, with the alterations I have mentioned, to enable the county council of Glamorgan, or any local authority, to apply for a Provisional Order, so that other districts, without incurring the expense of bringing in a Bill, may have the benefit of the Water Board such as is now being established.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): After the clear and admirable speech made by the Chairman of the Committee, which sat upon this Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) will not press his Motion. I would add as an additional argument to those advanced by the Chairman of the Committee that if the hon. Member's Motion were carried this Bill would be destroyed, and it does seem to me that would be a very serious responsibility to undertake upon a Bill that contains some 97 clauses in 84 pages, that has occupied three weeks of Parliamentary time, and has, I believe, cost the district concerned nearer £20,000 than £15,000. If the hon. Member really wishes to secure the point he has raised that Aberdare should be adequately treated, instead of moving that this Bill be read this day three months—because that destroys the measure—it would have been a better course for him to move that it be recommitted so far as this particular point as to Aberdare is concerned. In my judgment even that is like trying to crack a nut with a steam hammer. The facts brought forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil himself were adequately revealed to the Committee by competent and expert counsel, and Aberdare had all the advantage of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member during a fair and adequate hearing upstairs. If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil be right upon the broad facts, namely, that Aberdare has a superabundant water supply, is at the head of the valley, and commands, almost dominates, the watershed to which it and neighbouring communities have the right to get access, it seems to me that is a condition of things on which both Glamorgan and all the communities in that area have a right, through the agency of a Parliamentary Committee, to say that such particular area shall not be so dominated As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil himself frankly confessed, to prevent one local authority monopolising for itself what Nature intended for all, seems to be the object of this particular Bill, and I appeal to him not to press his Motion. There are many arguments in support of the Chairman's view, the chief in my judgment being that Aberdare has not got a particularly strong case for preferential treatment. It has a good water supply out of which it makes a profit by supplying; water to others.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: For public works within the area.
Mr. BURNS: It is the same thing. Aberdare, having a super-abundant water supply, has power to make a profit by exploiting either the industrial or commercial necessities of the area, while lower down the valley there are other communities equally entitled to the water and to the protection of Parliament, and who have no right to be put under disability during which Aberdare can make a handsome profit to the detriment of those other communities. The Local Government Board, as guardian of the local authorities, does not treat a particular one as a pet lamb, that shall have all the pure and abundant stream to drink from, while in the lower regions of the valley they are to have none at all, and it would promote a Provisional Order Bill, after a local inquiry had been held, at which Aberdare had an opportunity of putting its case, and it would be seen that Aberdare got just, generous, and co-equal treatment, more than which it has no right to claim over and above other local authorities, whose water rights ought certainly to be taken into consideration. I would ask the hon. Member for Merthyr to rest content with the Chairman's assurance, and above all, he can rely on it that the Local Government Board will do its best to safeguard all the local authorities, and from now until the Bill reaches another place I am pleased to hear that the promoters are prepared to make things a little more clear with regard to the phraseology of one or two of the clauses. I trust with that assurance that the House will give this Bill a third reading.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask leave to withdraw? I do so on the understanding that it is only the county council has the right to make the application. May I suggest, also, that the wording of Clause 5 should be made clear that in acquiring an undertaking like Aberdare the financial position would be safeguarded. That would be simply carrying out what is the intention of the Committee, and which I am not sure is clearly expressed in the Bill. Aberdare does not want preferential treatment, but asks not to be penalised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Fifth Day.]
[MR. CALDWELL in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Clause 1.
  Which Amendment was to leave out the words "any subsequent enactment," and insert the words "sections fourteen and fifteen of The Finance Act, 1896, and section eleven of The Finance Act, 1900."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Sir W. ROBSON: When the adjournment interrupted our proceedings, I was dealing with a point which had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), who emphasised that there was no provision in the Bill to say that the owner of the beneficial enjoyment had to pay the Increment Value Duty in cases where he had it from a donor who died within five years of the passing of the Bill. I am afraid he had mistaken wholly the provisions of the Bill with which he was supposed to be dealing. Clause 1 places the Increment Duty on land, and Clause 5 says: "The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty." What are the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894? They are set out very clearly. Clause 8, sub-section 4, says: "Where property passes on the death of the deceased, and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty in respect of such property, every person to whom any property so passes from any beneficial interest in possession." There, every person to whom any property so passes, or who has a beneficial interest in possession, "to the extent of the property actually received or disposed of by him shall be accountable for the Estate Duty." We may here read the words "increment value" instead of Estate Duty, so that the person accountable for the increment value is the person who finds himself in beneficial possession of the estate.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Have there been cases in court and legal decisions on the interpretation of the words?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I cannot charge my memory with any such cases for the moment. I dare say the hon. and gallant Member is right.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not say that there were. I am not sure.
  Sir. W. ROBSON: This clause left only one gap. It obviously did not deal with the case of leasehold owners. By Clause 5 of this Bill we extend the same principle to leasehold interests. Clause 5 may be read in two parts, the first part applying the provisions of the Finance Act of 1894, which cover fee simple estates, and the second part, which deals with leasehold interests, making in each case the person who gets the beneficial enjoyment of the land the person responsible or accountable for the payment of the Increment Value Duty. That deals, I think, completely with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said there was no such provision in the Bill. I do not wish to cast the slightest reproach on anybody, even the most distinguished lawyer, who should not be able to discover in any modern statute provisions which depend so much on reference. I myself desired a moment or two when the point was raised in order to look up the reference, because one cannot carry the whole of the statute in memory. I think that shows that the hardship does not arise in the Bill as now framed. Of course, it looks very hard at first to make the death of the donor an occasion on which you take Increment Value Duty from the donee. But one must not look at it in the light of the death of the donor being made the occasion of a payment which otherwise would not be made, because it only means that the donee, having got possession of the property, has to clear it of Increment Value Duty. If he did not clear it then he would have to clear it later on, either on death or transfer. It has been thought not an inconvenient proceeding in this particular case to make this an occasion for making the person in enjoyment of the property clear it of Increment Value Duty. He has got to clear it some time or other, and it does not seem to be very unreasonable.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How does he clear it of Increment Duty, or is it possible to clear any estate of Increment Value Duty? You can only pay to a certain date, but you cannot even clear an estate of the duty. I do not know what he means by that statement.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I did not mean that you clear it so as to make the duty never payable again, but up to the date of the occasion.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On the death of the man five years later would it not be payable again?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Up to the date of the payment. And the moment you pay Increment Value Duty it begins to accrue again.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The point my right hon. Friend made was that if, on the occasion of a gift, the donee did what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, namely, franked the gift by having a valuation made, and four and a-half years afterwards the donor died, there would be a further claim for increment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Certainly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely that is most unreasonable?
  Sir W. ROBSON: He would only frank it up to the date of the gift. If the donor dies within four and a-half years his death is made the occasion for collecting any Increment Value Duty which has accrued since the date of the gift. The hon. and gallant Member says that that is very unreasonable. It means that a donee has got to frank his property again up to that date. But he would have to do it at some time; and it must not be treated as though he were making a payment which but for the death of the donor he would not have to make at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This is a matter upon which ordinary lay Members of the House can form their own opinion as a clear business matter. The statement of the Attorney-General makes the case far worse. Certain property is in the ordinary course handed over by its owner to a child or under a marriage settlement, and the owner franks it up to the date of the gift. He has a valuation made, and pays the Increment Duty up to the date of the gift, so that there can be no possible attempt to evade the duty in any shape or form. The contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this was necessary solely in order to escape avoidance of the duty. That was his sole defence. But it is perfectly clear that in this case there is no attempt to avoid the duty, let alone evade it. The property then passes into the hands of the donee; and what-

  323
  ever may happen to that property—it may be sold and sub-divided three or four times; on each occasion a further valuation may have to be made and a further Increment Value Duty paid—if towards the end of the five years the original donor dies, these people are to be come down upon for fresh Increment Value Duty.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That follows, I think.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Not unless there is fresh increment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not quite sure about that. I do not think that that is so. A valuation has to be obtained, whether Increment Value Duty is payable or not, in order to ascertain whether, in the opinion of the Commissioners, there is or is not any increment of value. The Attorney-General by his silence acknowledges that that is so. Will any hon. Gentleman opposite suggest that it is reasonable in the case of a property which has been passed over to another individual, which may have been franked and the duty paid up to that moment, whatever may happen to that property afterwards, whoever may hold it, however many times it may have been sold, however often it may have been subdivided, that a valuation of it should be made, and possibly Increment Value Duty charged upon it simply because the original donor of the property happens to die? It is an impossible proposition for any Government to bring before any legislative assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot really reasonably profess to defend it. I know he has to defend it; but it seems to me it is an impossible proposition successfully to defend. Do the Government really consider it necessary to impose such difficulties upon the ownership of property? If so, we can only debate the point, and call the attention of the country to its extreme unreasonableness, and there the powers of a minority end. There seems to me, however, to be some responsibility upon every Member of the Committee who votes in support of such a monstrous proposal.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise the position in which he is putting all land which is the subject of any gift within five years of the death of the donor? I have always understood it to be the policy of the party opposite to induce people to part with their property and to make as many owners as
  324
  possible. Under this clause in its present form it is perfectly true—as I understood the Attorney-General to admit—that if an owner, within five years of his death, settles a piece of land on his daughter on her marriage there is this Increment Duty as a clog upon that land for five years. Surely that cannot be the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not add to the amount of duty the Government will obtain. They are bound to get 20 per cent. of the whole increment accruing on that piece of land. The owner cannot escape it. The duty must be paid whenever the land changes hands by transfer, on sale, or on the death of the owner. But under this extraordinary clause, on any land which once forms the subject of a gift or a marriage settlement, Increment Duty, although it would accrue and be payable when the land was sold or the donee died, is to be payable on a date over which the donee or the purchaser of the land from the donee has no possible control. Anybody who buys this land from the trustees of the marriage settlement will have to say: "I wonder if the original donor is going to die within five years." The purchaser has to buy the land not merely with the knowledge that Increment Duty has to be paid, but with the knowledge that, if the donor chooses to die within the five years, he will be put to all the trouble and worry of paying Increment Duty, or if there is no increment in value, he will have to satisfy the Commissioners on the point; and, if he wants his title to be good, he will have to get a denoting stamp fixed the moment the unfortunate donor dies. That is the legal position. Beyond the legal position there is the actual—I will not say moral position, but the reasonableness of the position. There have been other Amendments proposed of a technical character, but this Amendment seeks not to do the Government put of the slightest shilling of duty, but is intended to make it possible for a man to settle property upon his children with a clear title to that property, free of Increment Duty. The point has been made legally clear by the Attorney-General, but the point has not been made reasonably clear outside the law. I do appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment in order that this very grave inconvenience, to put it no stronger, may be avoided.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I very much regret that my miscalculation of the business allowed me to miss the statement

  325
  which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. I have heard from my hon. Friend what that statement was, but I will not attempt to answer the arguments I did not hear. I rise to ask the Attorney-General if he will kindly give me an answer to another question which I think has not been mentioned in the course of this discussion: Suppose that A leaves property to B, and B sells it to C at once; A dies in less than five years after his gift to B. Increment Duty has to be paid by someone. Is it to be paid by B, the donee, or by C the purchaser from B?
  Sir W. ROBSON: C would pay the Estate Duty in such a case, and, therefore, would also pay the Increment Duty. There may be many cases under the Finance Act of 1894 under which questions of this kind crop up, and an answer cannot be given to these various queries off hand, but that is the general answer that I have to make.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I ask him to turn his attention to the point at once, because I think we ought to know before we part from this Amendment, which really raises the matter. It is a matter of considerable practical importance, probably involving very great hardships.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I was quite right in the answer I gave before. I guarded my self because I had not got the section immediately under my eyes. I find now on looking at section 8 of the Finance Act of 1894, sub-section (4), "where property passes on the death of the deceased, and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty in respect of such property, every person to whom any property so passes for any beneficial interest in possession,…. shall within the time required by this Act, or at such later time as the Commissioners allow, deliver…… and verify an account, to the best of his knowledge and belief, of the property," and so forth, so that in that case C will be the person to pay, and C therefore would, and, I think, quite properly, be the person who would have to clear the
  estate of the Increment Duty rising out of the death of the person who was the original donor.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Supposing both donor and donee die within the five years of the date to be given, what is the position of the executors of the donee? How can they ever wind up the estate if they have this incubus hanging over them? It seems to me to suggest a whole series of difficulties. I speak with some feeling, because I am at this moment an executor of a- somewhat complicated estate.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for saying there is nothing further to add. If the hon. Member had done me the honour to follow what I already said he would have had no difficulty in understanding the position. I have dealt with the case he has raised.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How can the executors ever know how they are to wind up an estate?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Gentleman would be surprised to find how well executors manage to wind up estates.
  Mr. FELL: I have wound up many estates myself, and in the case of gift, in which the testator happened to die in 12 months or five years, that estate has to pay duty as part of the property of the testator. The executors are liable for the Estate Duty upon it——
  Sir W ROBSON: The hon. Member has not been here when all these points were made. I hope he will not now go on dealing with points which have been amply, adequately, and completely met already.
  Mr. A. FELL: I have not been here during the whole of the discussion, but, as I say, I have wound up a great many estates and the executors have to pay the whole of the duty, and they take care not to distribute the estate until they pay the whole of the duty.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 86.

  Division No. 212.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Alden, Percy

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Boland, John

  Armitage, R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Branch, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bright, J. A.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Sir W. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rees, J. D.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Charnning, Sir Francis Aliston

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richardson, A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamb, Ernest H (Rochester)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon, R. R.

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lundon, T.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crooks, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sears, J. E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duckworth, Sir James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Kean, John

  Snowden, P.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Essex, R. W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Steadman, W. C.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ferens, T. R.

  Massie, J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mond, A.

  Toulmin, George

  Gill, A. H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ginnell, L.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Vivian, Henry

  Glover, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Wardle, George J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Myer, Horatio

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Napier, T. B.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, George

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, C. J. Walworth)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Partington, Oswald

  Winfrey, R.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pointer, J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  328

  329

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renton. Leslie

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renwick, George

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Col. Thos Myles

  Clive, Percy Arther

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Arthur Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Younger, George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) comes in on Clause 3.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I shall be able to deal with my Amendment more shortly on account of the discussion which has already taken place, and which has very largely paved the way for this Amendment. I propose to leave out some words in the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, and it will then read to insert after the word "enactment," the following words: "Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, then it shall be deemed to be valuable consideration." Under the sub-section we are discussing it is provided: "On the occasion of the death of any person dying after the commencement of this Act, where the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act, 1894." Therefore, you have to turn to section 1 and 2 of that Act to see what is meant by "property passing on the death of the deceased." This involves you in a considerable maze of statutes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for the drafting of that section, but it is one of the most confused it has ever been my pleasure to read. The effect of it is this: it brings under "property passing on the death of the deceased" all property of which he was possessed within 12 months of his decease, and it says all such
  330
  property shall be comprised in that Act. Consequently under the provision of this sub-section Increment Duty will be payable in respect of the property to within a year of his decease. In considering the whole effect of this enactment, you must take into consideration the proposals later on in the Bill to extend one year to five years. All property which the deceased was possessed of at any time within five years of his death is included in the expression "property passing at his decease." It is quite clear that that only deals with property which he has not sold for "valuable consideration." If he has sold for valuable consideration, then the property is not included as part of the property which passes at his decease. The question arises whether property settled on a daughter at her marriage, where that property is given away by a donation inter vivos, is to be deemed a valuable consideration. In the case of property which has passed by valuable consideration, it has been held to be property which was given away. The. Attorney-General will agree with me when I say that that decision was one which was not generally expected. The result is that all property settled within a year of a man's life is treated as "property passing on his death," and therefore the daughter or the son-in-law, as the case may be, becomes liable for Estate Duty if the man dies within a year. Under the proposal of the Government, such property will be liable if the donor dies within five years. I think that is a very harsh condition even with regard to the Estate Duty. It is a mistake to suppose that marriage is not a "valuable consideration," because it is really a very important matter. You are

  331
  going to receive property, and the question how you are going to live and the scale of your life necessarily depends upon whether you are married or single, and, therefore, to say where you marry on the strength of certain property being given to you that you do not give any "valuable consideration" for that gift is not common-sense. It is really a hardship that that should be treated as a mere voluntary gift. The matter becomes much worse if you are going to have that state of things existing for five years, because the unhappy married couple will not know what property they are to rely upon for five years after their marriage. Let us take a small case. Take that of a property worth £1,000 on its site value. It has been settled on a daughter on the occasion of her marriage. Supposing that in five years its value has risen to £1,500, so that there is an increment value of £500. Therefore in that time they would have to pay £100, which would inflict a great hardship. The Death Duties are hard enough at present, but the five years would make them still harder. The Government might well consider this point, for it does not touch the general principle of their proposals. My Amendment would really safeguard a great number of people from hardship at that particular period of their lives.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The object of the clause is to prevent the evasion of the Death Duties. No man gets married in order to pay Death Duties. I was in some doubt about the words; but the matter can be dealt with on Report. I shall therefore accept the Amendment on the clear understanding that its object is to safeguard a marriage settlement.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has most reasonably dealt with the suggestion of my Noble Friend. I have had experience in the drafting of clauses, and it is necessary to be particular as to the form of words used. They must be drafted with very great care. Subject to reconsideration in regard to drafting, it is quite satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In the absence of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) I beg to move to leave out sub-section (c). This is one of the sub-sections, the meaning of which
  332
  can only be properly ascertained by reference, and the reference in this Act is to section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885. Turning to the White Paper, I find that one of the bodies referred to in this sub-section is a body unincorporated, and that, of course, includes every unincorporated company. It appears that any company or society will be liable under this sub-section to the duty on any land, or interest in any land, which they may sell. These words are extremely far reaching, and they will affect a very great number of different bodies which I am sure the Government do not wish to penalise. Take the case of the British Land Company, a perfectly bonò fide, undertaking. That is a body unincorporated. It is an association formed for the purpose of buying land in large quantities and selling it in small lots. A great many other companies and societies of a like nature will come under the operation of this clause. It is now proposed that they shall be liable for Increment Duty on any land or interest in land they dispose of, whether by sale or lease. This will introduce the utmost uncertainty into their operations. They must go on on business principles; they look forward to equalising their losses on some transactions by the gain on others. The operation of this clause will make it impossible for them to do that. If the periodical occasions are to occur, say, every 15 years, whenever they make a profit on any part of a transaction they will be liable to the duty, but any concurrent loss they may sustain on other parts of the transaction will not be made up to them. It seems to me to be a case of great hardship in regard to these bodies. I do not want to raise the question as to whether all kinds of incorporated or unincorporated bodies should or should not be taxed, but I do submit that the words of the sub-section will bear very hardly on a number of perfectly legitimate undertakings, and, in order to give the Government an opportunity to show how they propose to differentiate between these various bodies, some of which may get unearned increment in the fullest sense, the profit on which might justly become liable to duty, while others will be severely hampered in perfectly legitimate operations. I formally move the omission of this subsection.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Masterman): The meaning of this particular section must be very apparent to the Committee, and I can understand—

  333
  though I do not know whether I am right in the understanding—why the hon. Baronet did not move, after the decision we came to on sub-section (b). If you have already decided that you take the Increment Duty at the death of the individual, you must also decide to have some arrangement for taking the Increment Duty in the case of corporations, which never die, and under these circumstances the Government have placed in the Bill a general provision to take such increment on periodic occasions, leaving to later clauses to define what bodies and to what extent those bodies should be exempted from the duty. Under those circumstances, I do not think it is my function to-night to deal with any special case of any special corporate body. There are provisions under Clauses 24 and 25 which deal with exceptions, and which deal with exceptions in regard to other besides Increment Duties, and there will probably be exceptions in various forms of corporate and unincorporate bodies. It is on these clauses evidently that exceptions should be dealt with. Again, it might be said that the periodic occasions as provided by this Bill are of too frequent a character, or not frequent enough. Those years, according to a later clause, will be for the first occasion 1914, and for subsequent occasions every 15 years. That is rather an attempt to make a kind of parallel of the frequency with which land might come under the operation of the Increment Duty at the time of sale or at the time of death, and that also might be the legitimate subject of discussion at that time, but on the general principle, surely it must be evident that, having decided that land in the possession of individuals and passing from father to son, was to pay Increment Duty on the occasion of death, there is no other way of putting land in the hand of a corporation in a parallel position, except by deciding that at certain specified intervals the increment shall be taken by the State. That is the whole meaning of sub-section (c).
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that these periodic revisions in the case of property held by bodies corporate or unincorporate represented a kind of amalgamation, equivalent to the incidence of sale in the case of property owned by a private person and the incidence in the case of property passing at the death of a private person.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not mean that. I was dealing with what I ought not to
  334
  have dealt with—with the period of time as which the action of the Increment Duty will take place. A corporation will, of course, pay on sale as ordinary people, but if the land is not sold they will pay every 15 years.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member did say a periodic incidence of this duty, taking into account both these cases. He has now made it clear that it is only a substitute for death, and in the case of any sale of the land owned by a body corporate or unincorporate then the duty falls in that case, and these periodic revisions are only set off against the time of death, and not against the time of sale.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: We have not had a sufficient explanation on the question of the right of set-off. We are referred to subsequent clauses, in which we are told we shall see justice done; but I fail to see in any of these subsequent clauses where the right exists every 15 years for a friendly society to take an estimate of their property and pay on the basis of the present value of their land. As it stands at present, the Government reserve the right to take a proportion of any increase in the value of the land, but where there is a decrease, not to allow any diminution. Ordinary insurance companies and banks have branches throughout the country. Is there any clause which gives the right of adjusting these interests inter se? I take it there is none, and we ought to have an explanation as to whether that is so, and banks, friendly societies, and insurance companies, when they pay their 15-Yearly Tax, have a right to take their property as one, and pay the increment on the nett results. It can hardly be just and proper that great friendly societies which have numerous branches should be mulcted by paying where there is increment and not being allowed any diminution when there is a decrement. If we are to pass these taxes, hard as they are, they should be just. Men pay willingly where there is justice, but not where taxes are taken on the basis of paying on profits without any reduction for losses.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is one matter on which I should like the opinion of the Attorney-General. This sub-section imposes the duty of making a valuation, and provides an occasion for collecting the tax on two different classes of bodies—corporate and unincorporate. The case is perfectly clear as regards

  335
  bodies corporate, but as regards bodies un-incorporate it is not as fair as it should be, because for a definition of "body unincor-porate" we are referred to the Customs and Inland Revenue Act '85, which says:—
  "A body unincorporate includes every unincorporated company, fellowship, society, trustee or nominal trustee to whom any real or personal property shall belong or be vested upon such permanent trusts that same shall not be liable to legacy duty or succession duty."
  I would like to know from the learned law officers what are the permanent Trusts which are not liable to Legacy Duty or Succession Duty. Before we can decide as to the meaning of the section, it is necessary to know what is meant by a "body unincorporate."
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think you could not have a clearer definition of a body unincorporate than you have here. I do not think that I could improve on the language of the clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I really think that we ought to have an explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner). There are three eminent representatives of the law sitting on the Treasury Bench—English, Irish and Scotch—and surely among that galaxy of talent there will be one who will be able to reply on this very important point. I myself viewed with a little misapprehension the Motion to leave out sub-section (c). I believe if you are going to put this tax on private owners you ought also to put it on public owners of every description, including municipalities. I will give a concrete instance which I know, and I am prepared to communicate to the Attorney-General the name privately if he so desires. I know a bank which has 200 branches. The head office is in London. In 15 years there will very likely, if we have not too much Radical Government, be an increment in the property of the bank in London. There is a very great probability that there will be a decrement in the 199 offices of the bank spread over England. Under this clause as it stands the Government are going to say, "There is an increment in London of, say, £20,000. There is a decrement in the provinces of £50,000, but with that we have nothing to do. We claim £4,000, or one-fifth of the increment in London." Therefore, although the property taken as a whole shows a loss, the Government are going to take £4,000 because in one case there happens to be an increase. That is a very simple instance, and it is
  336
  one that will occur in many cases. It does not require very much legal knowledge to say whether that is or is not the intention of the Government.
  If it is the intention of the Government I shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment. If it is not their intention, and they can give a pledge that such hard cases will not arise, then I am not at all sure—much as I detest this Bill, and much as I should like to oppose every part of it —that paragraph (c) is not the natural sequence to paragraph (b), and that I ought under those circumstances to vote against it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I should like to ask a question. I am not sure whether it is a question of order, but it is a question of convenience. The question is whether this is not a moment at which the Government ought to be asked to explain their general policy under this sub-section. It is quits true that there are sections later which qualify this sub-section, but this is the first sub-section in which they deal with corporations. It is a sub-section, therefore, by which, in the first instance, they show how bodies corporate and incorporate are to be dealt with. As regards the Increment Tax, I should have thought that while it might be inexpedient to deal in detail with the exemptions, the Government ought to give some notion as to what their views are with regard to the bodies which they mean to tax. There are rumours—I do not know whether they were founded or unfounded—that the Government mean to qualify the bare statement contained in Clause 1. I do not know to what extent these qualifications apply or what justification they have for the qualifications they have to make, or whether there is any general consideration underlying the exemptions which they mean to introduce. I should have thought that on Clause 1, imposing the tax, we should have some clear idea of what the policy of the Government was on these generally important matters. I put it to-you whether this would not be an appropriate occasion for asking His Majesty's Government to make some important statement on the broad question of policy.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order I agree that it is a very important question, but I could not possibly make a statement on this clause, and certainly not on this particular Amendment, which would be complete. There are several sections dealing with corporations on which I have made promises of concessions

  337
  in attempting to meet difficulties which have been presented to me. There are several, for instance, on Clause 25, but I could not possibly set out the difficulties which have been presented to me, and I could not detail the concessions which the Government are prepared to make. They would be subject to discussion, and we should be discussing on Clause 1 what really pertains to Clause 25, and one or two other clauses. For instance, there are concessions which we shall have to make with regard to railway companies who are not under Clause 25, but certainly we could not have them under Clause 1, and though I shall be very glad to respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) I do not see how it is possible to do it in order under Clause 1. If I made a statement it would be open to any Gentleman in the House to discuss it and criticise it. For that reason, though I would be very glad to respond to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not see how I could possibly deal with the question of exemptions which come under Clause 25 in a discussion on Clause 1.
  Mr. BALFOUR: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he really has stated in sub-section (c) all the bodies that he means to deal with? There is a broad statement as to the bodies corporate that are to be dealt with, and all the bodies unincorporate, as applied under section (12) of the Act of 1885. There is, therefore, a clear definition in this clause of the bodies that the Government mean to tax under the first clause. But, first of all, we know of no exceptions to the broad statement which the clause contains, and which is perfectly clear in its terms. Perhaps the Government can now tell us what is the general tenour of their exceptions.
  Mr. W. PEEL: On the point of order. On looking at Clause 25 I find that the exceptions are of a particular kind of bodies, corporate, educational, and otherwise. That is quite true; but there is another class of exceptions which I think meets the point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who raised the question as to whether any particular corporation which had property scattered about different parts of the country——
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that the hon. Member is speaking to the point of order. In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of course, it is in order to ask a question as to what the Government
  338
  means generally by the words "by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate." The hon. Member was speaking of leaving in or leaving out this particular paragraph, and it is wholly in the discretion of the Government what reply they will give upon the point. It is obvious, of course, that we ought not to get into a discussion as to whether this or that particular specimen of a body corporate or body unincorporate should or should not be included, because that is a matter which should be left for the exemption clause.
  Mr. M. HICKS BEACH: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to answer the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, will he give an answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool and by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)? It is a very important point, and one which clearly concerns the general purport of the sub-section, and one on which the Committee as a whole ought to have a clear understanding. The point is whether a corporation is to be taxed on the increment value of a certain portion of its property or on the increment value of its property taken as a whole. You may have an increment value on a certain portion of the property, while there may be a serious decrement on another portion of the property. An instance has been given of a bank with 200 branches, of which a dozen may be in the county of London. On the whole of those dozen branches there may be an increment value, and therefore there would be Increment Duty payable. On the other hand, the bank may have a number of branches in Liverpool on which there may be a decrement. Will all these branches be balanced together, or will the Inland Revenue say:— "You have made a profit in the county of London, and therefore there will be an Increment Duty on that profit?" And you are not to allow against that the decrement suffered in the city of Liverpool? I think that is rather a material point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to answer it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) raised two separate issues, neither of which is relevant to this clause. They refer to the question of increment and decrement; and the Chairman has already ruled that questions of decrement should be discussed under Clause 2. The question of increment or decrement has got to be discussed. It is one of the important issues which will

  339
  have to be settled one way or the other by the Committee. There are several Amendments on the point which raise it specifically. The point put by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool is in regard to a particular corporation. There again I see there is an Amendment, and I should submit that that is a question on Clause 25, where you come to the exemptions. Both those points have no reference at all to Clause 1. The Increment Duty arises under Clause 2, and the other on Clause 25.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit to you and the Committee the difficulty we are in is really due to the arrangement which the Government have adopted in drafting this Bill. If the Committee will look at the drafting of the Bill they will 6ee that in the part dealing with Reversion Duty there is a clause dealing with exemptions, and in the part dealing with Undeveloped Land there is a clause dealing with exemptions from that duty, but in the part dealing with Increment Value Duty there is no clause dealing with exemptions which are special to that. The Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have postponed the special exemptions in the Increment Value Duty from the part which deals with that duty to a certain clause at a part of the Bill which is general to the whole of it. That is to say, that while the special exemptions for each of the other taxes are following immediately upon the enactment of the tax, the special exemptions of Increment Value Duty are left to an entirely different place, and are put amongst the general exemptions. Clause 25 really stands out of its place, and if the Government had followed a consistent plan it would be one of the very earliest. The whole trouble arises because the Government have drafted the Bill in this muddling way.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Clause 25 deals merely with bodies who hold their land for charitable purposes, and who do not desire to make any profit out of the property. It does not deal with the body un-incorporate at all. The marginal note says: "Exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes." When he comes to Clause 25, shall we not be ruled out of order if we endeavour to discuss the question relating to people who hold land in order to make a profit out of it, on the ground that Clause 25 only deals with land held by people for charitable purposes? It
  340
  is all very well to tell us now that we ought not to discuss a certain question because it may be discussed later on. I am afraid when we come to later on, we will be told it has already been decided by the Committee, and that, therefore, we cannot discuss it. If we do not discuss it now, it is almost probable when we come to the point indicated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) that we shall be told we cannot discuss it as the Committee have already decided upon it. I think the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and, as the Chairman has accepted the Amendment as in order, I hope he will discuss it now.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: At an earlier stage of the proceedings I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me a distinct pledge that garden suburbs should be entirely exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I mentioned that the Government had introduced a Bill giving strong powers to municipalities for the direct purpose of furthering these enterprises, and when I asked how it would be consistent with that policy, at the same time to place upon such enterprises fresh and onerous burdens, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if I would only wait for the Bill I should find that provision was made for their exemption. I have studied the Bill very carefully, but I can find no such provision. Speaking generally, garden suburbs are undertaken by companies, who impose upon themselves a limitation of dividend, say 5 per cent., and all surplus earnings are devoted to public enterprises which are universally admitted to be for the good of the community. It seems ridiculous that such enterprises should be taxed on account of the increment which may attach to them, when they themselves have by their own scheme devoted their surplus earnings to the good of the community.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to discuss on this Amendment the question whether or not garden cities should be exempted. It is perfectly proper to ask whether or not it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include garden cities, but this is not the occasion on which the question can be discussed. The exemption of garden cities is not the Amendment before us, and I do not think it could be on Clause 1.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Then I will simply ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to exempt these

  341
  enterprises from the scheme of the Bill, and, if so, what measures he has taken to do so.
  Mr. PEEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that half the yield of these taxes is to go to the municipalities, and I presume that the amount is to be divided according to area. If one of these garden suburbs is put in the area of a municipality, is the municipality to lose half the tax? If so, there will be strong objection on the part of municipalities to garden suburbs.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The questions asked me by hon. Gentlemen shows how utterly impossible it is at this stage to satisfy these questionings. It has been ruled from the chair that you cannot discuss the question until you come to the exemptions. If I give an answer it must be one that will be subject to discussion, and if I do not answer the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is purely and simply because I cannot give an answer that the Committee can take cognisance of. The right hon. Gentleman will find that as regards the utterances he refers to that I safeguarded myself. Three clauses, which will be subjected to amendment, protect garden cities. I cannot conceive anything worse in the interests of these charities, public bodies, etc., which we wish to safeguard, than this random discussion. For that reason I think it far better to confine ourselves now to the general question. Exemptions are gathered together at the end.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman when he has not quite made up his mind on any point, either refers us to a clause later in the Bill or else shelters himself behind an imaginary point of order. I entirely disagree with the, Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I do not think, Mr. Emmott, that you have ruled that it would be out of order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the questions which have been addressed to him. The subject of this Amendment is to leave out the clause dealing with the imposition of the tax on corporate and unincorporated bodies. Before we are asked by this clause to impose that tax, before we decide and vote, if we have the information asked for, we may be influenced by the particular kind of corporation upon which the tax is to be imposed. I have introduced a very long Amendment a little later on in connection with this clause, and have put in a large
  342
  number of subjects that I want excluded from the provisions of this clause. I do not know whether you are going to rule that that Amendment is in order or not, so that I might decide whether I am going to vote for the duty on corporate bodies or against it. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make that difference in principle felt in regard to those bodies mentioned in the Amendment. I do not want to raise a Debate on this section on every single corporate body—railway companies, friendly societies, universities, charities, hospitals, and all those different institutions. At the same time I think we are entitled to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by bodies corporate and unincorporate. Unless he gives us an answer I am afraid I must divide against the clause.
  Mr. JAMES F. MASON: The Chancellor referred specially to an Amendment I have on the Paper, and he said we should be able to raise the subject in that Amendment on Clause 25. I venture to submit that on Clause 25, which deals with bodies and persons carrying on business with no view to profit, the question of friendly societies would be out of order, and that the only way to raise it would be by a new-clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: Clause 25 would be the proper place to raise that question.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On Clause 25 would it be possible to move exemptions which are not covered by the words "public or charitable purposes"? My attitude on the present Amendment would depend somewhat upon your ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: Of course, a question of that kind is very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. I often have to consider many points in order to give an answer that is thoroughly satisfactory to myself and that is conclusive. I notice that in Clause 25 these words occur—"for purposes which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, are public purposes or charitable purposes." Therefore, if the words "public purposes" are within the scope of the clause, I should certainly rule that anything that came within the words "public purposes" would be a proper subject of Amendment to the clause.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I submit a point in connection with this matter? Will there be ground for asking for exemptions for particular kinds of corporations and societies from Increment Duty

  343
  which would apply to Undeveloped Land Duty or Reversionary Duty? I venture to ask whether it would be in order to discuss Amendments on this clause bearing on this kind of estate, having in view that it is a narrower point?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot be expected to answer every question right off. I must have time for consideration, and I must see the concrete proposals. I should think that exemptions of that kind could be raised either on Clause 25 or Clause 24, or by a new clause.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: There is considerable ambiguity as to whether we shall be able to move general exemptions under Clause 25. If they are not in order on that clause they will have to be moved on the new clause, which will come in at the end of the whole Bill after we have discussed, not only land values, but also Liquor Licences, Death Duties, and all the rest of them. Had your ruling been different, Mr. Chairman, I should not have desired to press this Amendment, but, as it is clear that this will be the only chance we shall have of discussing exemptions, I feel compelled to press my Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite understand that it is impossible for you, Mr. Chair- man, on the spur of the moment to give a ruling on Amendments which are not I before you, but there are on the Paper three or four definite Amendments raising questions of exemptions. It has been your practice Mr. Chairman, when you have said that an Amendment was in order at a later stage, to indicate where it would be best to move it. The Amendments I allude to are on the Paper, and it would be very convenient for hon. Members who have put them down to know if they will be more conveniently raised at a subsequent stage or at this stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: All I have to do in regard to Amendments is to say whether they are in order or not at the point at which they are raised. As a matter of courtesy I sometimes indicate where they should be raised. When we come to the Amendment about friendly societies I shall be prepared to give some indication where it comes in.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 213.]

  AYES.

  [11.14 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

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

  Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Agnew, George William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Armitage, R.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barker, Sir John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crossley, William J

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Boland, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Branch, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brocklehurst, W B.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brodie, H. C.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hogan, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Falconer, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Seely, Colonel

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Napier, T. B.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Jenkins, J.

  Nicholls, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soares, Ernest J,

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stead man, W. C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, T.

  Pointer, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lynch, H. B.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Reddy, M.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richardson, A.

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wills, Arther Walters

  Meagher, Michael

  Robinson, S.

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Middlebrook, William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Mond, A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Winfrey, R.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Morse, L. L.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  NOES.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Arkwright, Sir William Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Baring, Cant. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Foster, P. S.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Moore, William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Oddy, John James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Coates. Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Percy, Earl

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  346

  347

  Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Renton, Leslie

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

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanier, Seville

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Arthur Fell), which proposes to insert in sub-section (3) words excluding from its operation "a railway" company or other corporation authorised to acquire and hold land under compulsory powers of purchase, should either come in on Clause 25 or be proposed in the form of a new clause.
  Mr. FELL: I am sure that upon this point of order I may be allowed one moment, as the subject is of such vast importance, and the delay in regard to its coming on on another clause is so great. This question refers to all gas and water works and corporations who have purchased under compulsory powers, and, unless there is some indication given as to whether these are included, there will be great anxiety felt. It was hoped that it would be allayed by discussion on the present occasion on the first clause, so that it may be known whether these corporations holding such a vast amount of land are to pay such an enormous amount of duty and are included in this Bill or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it will come in here, and the same remark applies to the next two Amendments—Mr. Mason, after "unincorporate" to insert "not being a registered friendly society"; Mr. Bridgeman, after "unincorporate" to insert "not being a registered friendly society."
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I handed in an Amendment in manuscript a moment ago which comes in after the word "corporate" and is to insert the words "other than a body corporate sole." I am sorry to raise this point at the last moment, but it has been forgotten, and it raises the whole question of the clergy of this country, and is a matter which, I think, ought to be dealt with. Apparently the position of the ordinary clergyman may be one of extreme difficulty if the periodic payment becomes due during his time.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Is the hon. Gentleman in order, Sir? The corporations referred to in sub-section (c) are corporations which are defined as any body corporate or unincorporate, as defined by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885. Corporations sole are not within section 12.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Attorney-General must read his own clause, and if he does he will see that the definition in section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act does not refer to corporations, it refers to bodies unincorporate; and my hon. Friend in his Amendment is not dealing with bodies unincorporate; he is dealing with a corporation sole.
  Lord R. CECIL: And may I add that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act has-nothing to do with bodies corporate?
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I can assure the Committee that I am moving this Amendment in a perfectly genuine spirit and with a desire to clear up this matter which, I think, the whole House would wish. It would be unfair to the clergyman to find in the middle of his term that he had to obtain a large sum of money which the glebe or his stipend would have to pay. It is perfectly clear that at any moment he may find himself in this great difficulty, and as under the Finance Act of 1894 the clergyman is exempted from paying Death Duties a similar exemption should be allowed in this case. If this case has not been contemplated, it is only right that before we pass this section we should consider what the position of the clergy is going to be under this section as it stands now. It is obvious that the House has not in the least realised what the position is going to be, and I think I am justified in asking whether the position which I apprehend may arise by which suddenly a man who can very ill afford it may be called upon to find out of a very small stipend a very large sum. I hope the Government will clear up the position and do away with a great deal of anxiety which exists all through the country among a great many people who deserve the consideration of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN: This has only just been handed to me at this moment. The sub-section deals with the taxation of land. It appears to me that this ought to come under the exemption of land in one of the sections dealing with exemptions.
  Lord R. CECIL: May I submit that this is just the case which I alluded to just now where it would be very desirable to exempt glebe land from Increment Duty, and it might not be so desirable to exempt it from Undeveloped Land Duty. It ought to be exempted from this particular section, but ought not to form part of the general exemption in Clause 25.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would not make this the proper place to move it, even if the Noble Lord is correct, because it might be moved as a separate clause. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University should be on Clause 25.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am prepared to accept your ruling, but this is a very important Amendment to a very large number of societies, and its purport is to retain the exemption which is swept away in clause 6. Might not my Amendment be brought on under section 6? I have some reluctance to place my Amendment in that lumber-room for inconvenient Amendments, Clause 25, and I should be very glad to have an opportunity for full discussion at a convenient time, and I should like to ask whether I might not bring it on under section 6.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet has put to me a question in regard to a point which I must confess I have really had no time to consider in a somewhat busy afternoon. Of course, if he puts down an Amendment to clause 6, I will consider it and let him know whether it is in order. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) has handed in an Amendment, which is practically to the same effect as one which has already been ruled out of order in regard to the relation of land which is held by the Crown to the proposed duties.
  Mr. PEEL: I would respectfully submit that my Amendment does come in here as sub-section (d,) which I propose to insert.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Crown is not a body corporate or unincorporate, the Amendment cannot come in here.
  Mr. PEEL: If the Crown is not a body corporate or unincorporate, surely the Amendment could come in here. This is an entirely separate sub-section, and I submit it has no relation to the question of bodies corporate or unincorporate.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Quite independently of the argument of the hon. Gentleman, I submit that the Crown has never been included in statutes unless provision is expressly made for its inclusion by the Government, so that apart from the question whether the Crown is a body corporate or unincorporate, a private Member certainly cannot move to legislate on behalf of the Crown.
  The CHAIRMAN: It was sought to bring in the Crown under sub-section (c,) and I objected to the Amendment as out of order. I think it is still out of order to bring in the Crown in the way now proposed by the hon. Member. I do not make any general ruling as to whether the Crown can come in at all or not. That is a question of considerable complexity, on which I ought not to be asked to give a ruling now.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to move to leave out the word "due" ["for proportionate part of the duty, due"], because it is entirely unnecessary. We have already decided what the duty is, and on what occasions it arises, and I do not know what is intended by the word "due" in this part of the clause.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'due' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree with the hon. Member, and I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to move to leave out the word "collected" ["shall be collected"], and to insert the word "paid." This duty is not collected in any shape or form. We have to go to Somerset House and pay it. A duty which we pay is not collected.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'collected' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already accepted one of the draft Amendments of the hon. Member, and I think he might be satisfied with that. I do not think that this is an improvement. I was inclined

  351
  to agree with him on the last Amendment. The use of the word collected is, I am advised, a proper use. It is used throughout the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEYmoved to add at the end of the clause the words," Provided that no duty shall be payable under this section on any increment value of land or part of such increment value which has already been paid over to any taxing or rating authority."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the principle of that Amendment. I trust that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that. I can see exactly what he wants, but I am told that it would be better in the form of a new clause. I will take care to put it down, or if the hon. Member puts it down I will accept it. I am told that as a question of draftsmanship, it ought not to go in here, but I will accept it.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I will draw up a new clause, and submit it to the Attorney-General.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISmoved at the end of the clause to add, "Provided that for the purposes of this Act no Increment Duty shall be levied unless the site value of the land on the occasion on which the increment value becomes due exceeds the original site value by an amount exceeding fifteen per cent." It will be in the recollection of the House that this Amendment was referred to last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he was prepared to favourably consider it. The right hon. Gentleman said that no doubt I had framed it on the custom which has been observed with regard to land in the past. It is quite true that in Frankfort there is a similar provision which applies, but my reason for putting the Amendment down was not in any way due to what obtains in Frankfort. I had two reasons for putting it down. The first was that where you get two valuers valuing the same piece of land it is almost certain you will find that there is a variation between their valuations, sometimes slight and sometimes very large. In the case of difficult valuations, such as this with which we are dealing, that is, valuations with frequently a long time separating them, some exemption ought to be made from
  352
  the Increment Duty to allow for the variation in the valuations due to the personal examinations and influences of the valuers. I have put down 15 per cent., so that the Increment Tax would not apply where the increment is less than 15 per cent. Another consideration I had in putting down this Amendment was that it deals to some extent with the case where there was a very small but admitted rise in the increment value. Such cases very often follow each other with great rapidity. Where you get land which is steadily rising and where you get a small increment each time you take it, it involves, of course, that the increment is ascertained at very short intervals, and I have put down the Amendment to meet such cases as that. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to consider the point of leaving it to the Commissioners to say whether a valuation is or is not necessary. The Amendment, as it is drawn, would seem to suggest that the second valuation is necessary, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider this if he is going to accept the Amendment. He might improve it in such a way that where manifestly an increment does not exceed 15 per cent. a second valuation should not be necessary, so that the owner of the fee simple, the tenant, or whoever it may be, may be saved the very often great expense of having a separate valuation made. While I do not insist upon the actual wording of the Amendment, I hope, at all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it in substance.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Last night we had a discussion on an Amendment which dealt with the same sort of case as that which the hon. Member has put down this Amendment to meet. I felt last night that the Amendment of an hon. Member for one of the divisions of London did not quite meet the case, and I intimated on behalf of the Government that I thought that of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) was much better as far as the general principle to meet the practical difficulty which we all experience with regard to dealing with small increments. At the same time the hon. Member realises that it does not quite meet the point. One reason which I could point out is that it simply postpones the operation, and the second man, whose increment might only be 3 per cent., might have to pay the whole Increment Duty, although, perhaps,

  353
  14 per cent, of the increment accrued during the period of his predecessor's ownership of the land. That is obviously unfair, and that would be the operation of the words as they are put on the Paper by the hon. Member. I am not so sure his second suggestion was not a better one, that a certain discretion should be allowed to the Commissioners, and that they should be able to say if the increment does not go beyond a certain figure then the Commissioners should be entitled to say: "We do not want to trouble you further about this case, and we frank it." That is one of the points I am considering very carefully to-day with the advisers of the Government. I am very anxious to meet this point. The question I then have to decide is whether it should be in Clause 2 or Clause 4. The suggestion of the hon. Member would come in Clause 4, and power would be given there to the Commissioners to deal on the spot with a small increment. It may be that would be the better suggestion. I hope the hon. Member will not ask the Government to say definitely now the suggestion with which they are prepared to meet this difficulty. If he will withdraw his Amendment, which he realises does not altogether meet the point, I promise that either the Government will introduce a specific Amendment on Clause 2 or Clause 4, or consider any further Amendment which is moved by the hon. Member, or any one interested in this question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the increment being small. That I understand is not the point of my hon. Friend, but it is the percentage of increment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I meant a small percentage.
  Mr. W. MOORE: If this were an isolated case I should not make a complaint, but it seems to me to be happening all through the evening. When we had the Resolutions we were told we need not ask questions, but that we would find the matters in the Bill. We have now got the Bill, and we are told first of all on a point of order raised by a Member of the Government when a question is raised that it ought to be dealt with on a later stage, and then we are told "we will tell you on the Report stage, or, at a subsequent period." We never can get to close quarters. It is true the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always promise, and of course we will accept his promise, that he
  354
  is going to give these matters his most careful consideration. We are entitled to have that careful consideration by this time, instead of being put off to subsequent stages of the Bill. It is not treating the House fairly, and on these Amendments we ought to know the Government's position instead of a general system of procrastination.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: May I make a suggestion as to the proposal to invest Commissioners with a dispensing power in case of small increments that the power should it be given should be a power not merely to examine that particular transfer, but to frank the land, and that it should be deemed that the duty has been paid?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: In view of the definite assurance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PEELhad given notice of an Amendment to add at the end of the clause:
  "Provided that where Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid in respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land the amount of the Increment Value Duty shall be reduced by a sum equivalent to the Undeveloped Land Duty so paid."
  The CHAIRMAN: The point dealt with in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) must be raised on the Undeveloped Land Duty clause.
  Mr. PEEL: May I point out that the deduction in respect of Increment Value Duty comes in on the Undeveloped Land clause] I submit, therefore, that my Amendment, which is in the nature of the converse of that, should come in where I have put it.
  The CHAIRMAN: If we had the Undeveloped Land Duty already in I should agree with the hon. Member, but I think he can raise it on Clause 10; at any rate, he can raise it somewhere.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely the deduction from Increment Value Duty must be on the Increment Value Duty clauses.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have not got to the Undeveloped Land Duty yet, and I do not think we can take this Amendment

  355
  here. If I can I shall certainly find an opportunity for it to come in on Clause 10. If it cannot be done in any other way it must come as a new clause.
  Mr. PEEL: It is really a substantial matter, and I would press for an opportunity of raising it before we get to the new clauses.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have said that it is not in order here; but I admit it is a substantial point, and if I can I will find an opportunity for the hon. Member to raise it before we get to the new clauses.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have now finished the Amendments on the Paper on Clause 1, and I hope the Government will allow us to separate without entering upon the important Debate which must necessarily take place on the general principle of the tax. It would be extremely inconvenient to commence that discussion to-night, but I am quite ready to postpone my Motion to report Progress until after the Question is put from the Chair, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," as I feel that the Government have a right to prevent new Amendments being put down for to-morrow.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I recognise the reasonableness of the request of the right hon. Gentleman. If we are to have a discussion on Clause 1 it is hardly fair to start it now. I would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, seeing we have discussed every feature of this clause, that the Debate to-morrow ought not to be a very lengthy one.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Committee report Progress. To sit again to-morrow (30th June).
  And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Seven minutes after Twelve o'clock a.m.

  Crown Agents (Inquiry Committee).
  Crown Agents (Inquiry Committee).
  Tailors' Wages (Dublin).
  Tailors' Wages (Dublin).
  Irish Linen Industry (Depression).
  Irish Linen Industry (Depression).
  General Post Office (Annual Leave).
  General Post Office (Annual Leave).
  Tralee Post Office (Mr. M. J. Downey).
  Tralee Post Office (Mr. M. J. Downey).
  Scarlet Fever (Metropolitan Asylums) District).
  Scarlet Fever (Metropolitan Asylums) District).
  Island Bridge, Dublin.
  Island Bridge, Dublin.
  Lord Kitchener's Visit to Australia.
  Lord Kitchener's Visit to Australia.
  British Mediterranean Fleet.
  British Mediterranean Fleet.
  Agricultural Land (Definition).
  Agricultural Land (Definition).
  Plymouth Marine Division.
  Plymouth Marine Division.
  Case of a Northumbrian Teacher.
  Case of a Northumbrian Teacher.
  Application for Reinstatement (Tralee).
  Application for Reinstatement (Tralee).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (Loughrea).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (Loughrea).
  Photographing Delegates.
  Photographing Delegates.
  Advances for Farm Purchase.
  Advances for Farm Purchase.

Preamble
SIR ANGUS HOLDEN, Baronet, having been created Baron Holden of Alston in the county of Cumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the

TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
Read, and agreed to.

NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
HARROGATE GAS BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
LLANELLY WATER BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVE MENTS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (STREET TRAFFIC) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading I am afraid I must detain you for a few moments, owing to the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Montagu for the rejection of the Bill. The object of the Bill, in the words of the Preamble, is to—
"regulate the traffic in the streets of the City of London so as to prevent obstruction and to enable the increasing traffic of the City to be conducted with less delay and in a safer manner."
The Bill passed its Second Reading in the other House without opposition. It then went to the Local Legislation Committee of that House, and passed through that Committee with a few Amendments. The only serious opposition, I understand, came from omnibus owners, and the part of the Bill to which they objected was this provision in subsection (2) of Clause 2—
"The Court of Mayor and Aldermen with the approval of the said Secretary of State may from time to time make regulations to be observed by all persons within the City with respect to the following matters namely:—
(a) The route to be taken by all vehicles or any particular class or description of vehicles with power to prohibit or to permit on certain specified conditions either generally or during particular hours the passing of all vehicles or any particular class or description of vehicles into or along any street or part of a street."
I understand that the noble Lord who will move the rejection of the Bill shares the views which were expressed by the omnibus owners when the Bill was before the Committee in the other House. On the other hand, the promoters of the Bill maintain that by this provision the Bill will give effect to certain recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. In their Report the Commissioners attached great importance to

61
the proposed power of regulating traffic, and stated that omnibuses formed such a large part of the traffic of London that some regulations as to routes in their case were essential.
The promoters of the Bill contend that the interests of the public generally, and of omnibus owners in particular, are fully safeguarded by the provision requiring the approval of the Secretary of State before any regulations can be put in force, and, further, by the proviso in subsection (2)—
"Provided that the Court of Mayor and Aldermen shall hold a public inquiry before making any regulation with reference to any of the matters aforesaid."
I know that the opponents of the Bill argue that it would enable the City authorities to exclude any particular kind of traffic from the streets, such as motor omnibuses; but it cannot be supposed that, even if the authorities wished to do anything of the kind, the Secretary of State would give his approval. The promoters of the Bill do not wish to exclude any traffic at all. Their object is to regulate the traffic, and when I tell your Lordships that between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening over 7,000 omnibuses pass the Mansion House I think it will be admitted that it is highly desirable they should be regulated. Many of these omnibuses follow the same line along streets which are congested by traffic, and I submit that it would be much to the convenience not only of the public, but of the omnibus proprietors themselves, that certain of these vehicles should be diverted along parallel streets, so that those going in one direction should pass along one street and those going in the opposite direction along another. Those are the objects which the promoters of this Bill have in view. They do not for a moment wish to exclude any particular traffic. I hope that with these assurances the noble Lord may see his way to withdraw his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord in explaining the objects of this Bill were
62
so moderate in tone that I confess I am to a certain extent disarmed. But I think the House should realise that if this Bill passes in the form in which it is presented to-day it will be introducing a very important new principle in our legislation. For the first time it is proposed in the regulation of traffic to allow a preference to be given to some vehicles as compared with others.
If the Traffic Board recommended by the Royal Commission were to-day in existence, I for one would be quite content to refer this and other matters of a highly contentious nature which have to do with London traffic to that Board; but owing to reasons too long to discuss to-day that Traffic Board is not in existence. I regret it very much. The result is that we see in this Bill an attempt of one part of London to legislate for traffic without any reference to the remaining parts. That is rather a serious principle to introduce without very careful consideration. I maintain that, as a general rule, the traffic of a great city should be interdependent and should be regulated by the various authorities acting together. It seems to me that to give the City of London power to stop any particular class of traffic within its area will be introducing a dangerous principle. I admit that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen are people of common sense who would be likely to do their best to act with justice, but if the powers sought are granted to them they must be extended to others. The power of excluding traffic from streets, if placed in the hands of such a body as the London County Council, which owns tramways, might lead to a very difficult and contentious position. Interference of this kind has hitherto only taken place in the Royal parks, but there is a provision that the regulations have to be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for forty days, which gives an opportunity, if necessary, for protest to be made and for Parliament to interfere. There is no such safeguard provided by the present Bill.
My noble friend referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. I have again read the passages in the Report which refer to this particular point. First of all, with regard to routes for vehicles, they recount that in the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, there was a proviso that the number of metropolitan stage coaches that might pass down

63
any street should not be limited. That is a very important point, because it shows that as long ago as 1867 Parliament realised that the number of services plying for public use on the streets must not be limited. In paragraph 167 of their Report the Commissioners say that if mitigation of existing evils is to be carried out and if traffic is to be controlled in any way, this should be combined with street improvements providing alternative routes. With that we shall all be in agreement. In Paragraph 168 the Commissioners say—
"It is obvious that in prescribing routes for vehicles, the case of omnibuses plying for hire requires special consideration. It would inflict loss on the owners of such omnibuses, and be an inconvenience to the public, if omnibuses were excluded from streets where they had to set down, or were expected to pick up, any considerable number of passengers."
That is so strong that I think I hardly need argue it further.
It is obvious that, after hearing all the evidence, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that it would be dangerous to interfere with omnibus traffic using certain streets. They suggested that a method of overcoming the difficulty would be by—
"leaving the making of regulations in the hands of the Commissioners of Police and providing that the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, and the Metropolitan Borough Councils should be authorised to suggest to the Commissioners of Police routes for vehicles which, after examination by the proposed Traffic Board, might be approved or rejected, or approved on conditions, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
Unfortunately we have not yet got a Traffic Board. I do think the powers which the City is asking for in this Bill are very dangerous powers, and I am rather inclined to the opinion that we ought to object to this Bill unless we can get concessions in Committee to meet the objections I have stated. The danger of the provision in subsection (2) of Clause 2 which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill read to your Lordships was recognised in the other House, and the proviso to which Lord Ritchie also referred was inserted. My Amendment for the rejection of the Bill was prepared prior to the insertion of that proviso, which only shows how strong my case would have been had the Bill not been so amended.
I have in my hand one of the plans which the City authorities have drawn up showing how the proposed alternative routes might be worked. It is proposed not to allow omnibuses which come from certain parts of London to go in front of the Mansion House, but to divert them. The Mansion House is one of the great places for the exchange of traffic, and if omnibuses coming from certain parts of London are no longer allowed to go in front of it, as is proposed, much inconvenience may be caused to passengers. It may be said that the fact that the approval of the Home Office is necessary before the regulations could come into force would be a sufficient safeguard against injustice; but the Home Office are not really experts in this matter. The provision would be, no doubt, a great safeguard, but the question is whether it would be a sufficient safeguard. I do not wish to detain the House longer. I shall be content if the promoters can suggest between now and the Committee stage some means of further safeguarding paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 2; and I suggest that it might be done by the machinery of the Parks Act requiring that the regulations should be laid on the Tables of both Houses for forty clays. I regard the clause as it stands as a dangerous one, and I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I only rise on behalf of the Home Office to state what their attitude is with regard to the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord opposite. As in the case of all private Bills, the Government Department concerned are entirely neutral; and I can only say, on their behalf, that they think this a very proper subject to go before a Committee of your Lordships' House. We have had a useful discussion, and I think those of your Lordships who have listened to it will agree that this is just the kind of subject which will be best discussed by a Committee of the House, before whom the parties may argue their case. We submit that the Committee will be better able to decide the matters put before it than your Lordships on such an occasion as this. In these circumstances I would

65
venture, especially as there is an important debate coming on this afternoon, to suggest that your Lordships should agree to this Bill being sent to a Committee in the usual way; and if the noble Lord is dissatisfied with the conclusions of the Committee he will have an opportunity of raising the matter at a subsequent stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps I might say a word or two on this Bill. The noble Lord who moved its rejection made a great point that the Bill contained a new principle. I venture to say that the principle is not really a new one at all. Parliament for many years past has given powers for the regulation of traffic to local authorities both inside and outside the City. It is quite true that the Bill contains one proposal which is to some extent novel—namely, that the City authorities should be enabled to place a limit on the number of vehicles that may use a particular street. That in itself is new; but I think the noble Lord will find that the promoters of the Bill have adhered as closely as possible to the recommendations of the London Traffic Commission, and that in effect the object of the Bill is to carry out the recommendations made to Parliament by that Commission.
The noble Lord is afraid of what I suppose he would call the "thin end of the wedge." He is afraid that if you allow the Corporation of the City of London to regulate traffic within their area you may not be able to refuse similar facilities to the body governing the metropolis outside the City, who are themselves owners of a form of traffic which would compete with motor-omnibuses, in which, I think, the noble Lord is interested. I do not attach much importance to that, because, after all, the City is a very peculiar portion of the metropolis. It is by far the most crowded area except certain isolated parts, and I would venture to say that the neighbourhood of the Mansion House is probably the most crowded spot in the whole of the metropolis. I think we may safely leave it to the good sense and the good feeling of the Corporation of the City of London, whose only desire would be to meet the public convenience.
I think there need be no fear that the Corporation of the City of London will seek to stop the passage of all motor-omnibuses
66
or motors through the City; they will only regulate them so as to cause the least inconvenience, and so that the use of the streets may be secured for the greatest number of His Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord's objection is confined, I think, to one single point. He desires that Parliament should be able to exercise control over any regulations made by the City Corporation. But no regulations can take effect until they have the sanction of the Secretary of State. The noble Earl who has just spoken, like the poor, we have always with us, and if at any time regulations are made which do not commend themselves to my noble friend who has moved the rejection of this Bill he has every opportunity of putting a Question to the representative of the Home Office and of discussing the matter in your Lordships' House. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time and to go to a Committee, where the matter can be discussed at greater length and at greater leisure.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, when I saw the Amendment on the Paper I came down to the House prepared to extend to my noble friend a rather qualified support. I hope he will not think that support so qualified as not to be worth having. But on the general question of the regulation of traffic I take a very strong view that in a town traffic cannot be too closely or minutely regulated, and in a paper which I read on the "Scientific Regulation of Traffic" some two years ago I advocated a far more minute and strict regulation of traffic than does take place in towns. I think that by careful regulation of traffic the capacity of our existing streets could be enormously increased, and that if we gave our minds to scientific regulation we should be able to do without a great many of the street improvements now forced upon us. Therefore, so far as regulation goes, I am not sure that I am a supporter of the noble Lord in his opposition to the Bill.
I do not think the noble Earl who spoke on behalf of the Home Office quite sufficiently appreciated the point made by Lord Montagu. It was hardly a point of detail for Committee, but rather a point of principle as to the regulation of traffic, not by a town for itself, but by a particular small area in a town, which would affect the traffic of the whole of that town. The City is a very important area of London, and while personally very much

67
in sympathy with the desire of that authority to regulate their traffic—and I admire the way in which the traffic is now regulated in the City, though it is by no means perfect—I suggest that it is rather a dangerous principle to give a small spot like that, in the centre of a large metropolis, power to control, without much check, traffic that goes through from all sides. There is a check—an important one—in the requirement of the sanction of the Secretary of State. I attach more importance to that almost than to the laying of the regulations on the Table of your Lordships' House, because in the case, to which my noble friend referred, of the Royal parks, I think some of the regulations were made by a species of device, which was held, it is true, by the Divisional Court to be a legal device, but which had the effect of withdrawing the regulations from the Table of Parliament. Consequently Parliament never had an opportunity of discussing, among other regulations, the one prescribing ten miles an hour for motorcars. Therefore I attach more importance to the sanction of the Secretary of State being required than to the laying of the regulations on the Table of Parliament.
I agree that it is not likely that regulations would be made by the City authorities to which in themselves objection could be taken, but I do not wish to see this principle extended and every borough council in London asking for similar powers over their particular area. If the power sought for is allowed in this instance, I hope it will be regarded as special to the City and not as a power which it is desirable to extend to any other part of London.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, after what has been said I do not think it necessary to press my Amendment at this stage. I have made a protest which I hope will have its effect, and I trust that when the Bill goes to a Committee it will be fully considered. I shall, of course, have an opportunity on the Report stage of making any further protest I may think desirable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Petitions for an address to His Majesty praying him to withhold his assent to the Minute of the Council of Education in Scotland, dated 3rd June, 1909; of the School Board of Glasgow;—Committee on Secondary Education for the Burgh of Glasgow;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 90.)

INDIAN MILITARY ADMINISTRATION.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Motion of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to recent changes in the Military administration of the Government of India.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I feel strongly that it is my duty to speak out my mind to your Lordships on this question. It is not a pleasant or an easy duty to discharge, for it obliges me to express serious disagreement with some of those under whom I served and with whom I worked while I was in India, and from all of whom I met with kindness and friendship which I shall ever remember gratefully. As regards the two great adversaries in the famous controversy which ended in the calamitous resignation of my noble friend who opened this discussion, I will only say that it is possible, indeed it is inevitable, to admire the great work which was done by either of them, although it is necessary to disagree with one or the other. I there-

69
fore wish to say at the very outset that I am second to none in my admiration for the great work which has been done by Lord Kitchener, and which I venture to think stands quite apart from this particular question of the administration of the Army in India.
Perhaps I may explain the special responsibility which I feel in regard to this question by reminding your Lordships that for a while I was the "man on the spot" in India with regard to this question. For a period of eight months—no inconsiderable time in the evolution of an important political question—I was actually in the thick of the controversy, and I was personally responsible for the initiation and the execution of important changes which preceded the revolutionary change of the system. I think there must be others besides myself who felt a strong disappointment at the speech of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India. I venture to think that that speech did not rise to the height of the occasion in the manner which all his former speeches have led us to expect. I was particularly sorry that he introduced a personal note which was singularly and admirably absent from the speech of my noble friend who opened this discussion. He did not, I venture to think, treat my noble friend quite fairly, and, indeed, on one occasion I thought that he used a dum-dum bullet bearing the obsolete mark of the Army Department in India. They have quite a peculiar whistle, those bullets. The speech seemed to me to have been prepared against circumstances which did not arise. It was evident that the noble Viscount expected to find himself in the position of a tertius gaudens in a personal controversy between my noble friend who opened the debate and my noble friend the late Secretary of State for India.
But the greatest disappointment was when the Secretary of State declared that he did not even then know what was the practical object which my noble friend had in view, or how he himself was concerned by the raising of this question at this time. I will tell the noble Viscount what is the practical object of raising this question, and I will try to do so in language so simple that it is impossible for him to misunderstand it. The system which was instituted by the late Government in 1905 has broken down or, if you prefer
70
to say so, come to an end. That is an undeniable fact. What remains of that system has been condemned in theory by every single authority, including the late Government. That, again, is a fact which is beyond dispute. Therefore, we wish to know whether the Secretary of State is content that things should remain as they are, or whether he is contemplating any future change, or, at any rate, the consideration of possible change. I think that that is a practical object of the greatest importance. It is a question which we are in every way justified in raising.
I will try to explain a little more fully, and will begin with the predictions of my noble friend over which the Secretary of State for India made merry. He was, I think, rather unfair when he included in them rhetorical arguments which did not pretend to be predictions. The real predictions of the late Viceroy were contained in his telegraphic Despatch of August 10, 1905. I will give chapter and verse, and ask your Lordships to judge of the fulfilment from the facts which are before the House in the Papers recently presented. After summarising the proposals which had been made by the Commander-in-Chief for carrying out the orders of the Secretary of State, the Viceroy wrote as follows:—
"Whatever be the merits of individual proposals in the above list, their net result can only be to concentrate all military power in the hands of Army Headquarters, to lead to serious congestion of business, and to reduce the Military Supply Department to impotence. Indeed, in those circumstances the creation of a Military Supply Member would involve an unpardonable waste of public money, and it would be better to dispense with the Department altogether."
The Papers recently presented to Parliament record the striking fulfilment of that prediction. The Military Supply Department was at once reduced to impotence, and has consequently been abolished on the very ground that it would be a waste of public money. All military power has, as a necessary consequence, passed into the hands of the Headquarters Staff of the Army, and there is, so I hear, serious congestion. This does not appear on the Papers, but I think I shall be able to show your Lordships how impossible it is that it should be otherwise. The main point is that the system inaugurated early in 1906 has failed, or, if you prefer it, come to an end. That is an undeniable fact. Before three years had elapsed it had to be changed in its most essential and

71
vital principle. If that is not failure, I do not know what failure is.
Now I should like to explain, if I may, the principle which has had to be sacrificed to the new system. Your Lordships may remember that in May, 1905, a Committee, to which reference has already been made, was appointed to inquire into the system of Army administration in India. That Committee, after careful consideration, reported that two courses were open. The first was that the Military Member should be abolished altogether and that the Commander-in-Chief should take over his functions; the second was that the Military Member was to be retained, but that his duties and responsibilities were to be largely reduced. The Committee said that they were forced—I ask your Lordships to mark the word "forced"—to discard the first alternative, and accordingly they recommended the second. Now the singular result of the adoption of their proposal is that it has led immediately to the substitution of the alternative course which they had rejected on the ground—again most important to note—that it would be opposed to all modern principles with regard to Army administration. That is what has been done. That is what you have got now. You have a system which is opposed to all modern principles in regard to armies, and I do not see how you can possibly get away from that position. They say that extremes meet, but I cannot recall any instance in which the results of political action have proved so absolutely contrary to the intentions of Statesmen.
How are we to account for this singular failure? It seems to me—it has always seemed to me from the beginning—that it was due to a want of understanding and appreciation of the elementary principles underlying the constitution of the Government of India. We in India—and when I say we in India I mean the overwhelming mass of articulate public opinion, much of which was strongly opposed to my noble friend on every other subject—we in India were simply astounded at the misapprehension, the elementary misconception, which underlay much of the criticism which was made in this country, and which influenced opinion in this country. The position was simplicity itself, but it was not understood in England. The very reference to the Committee to which I have just alluded
72
betrays this extraordinary misunderstanding. This was the first question which was put to them—
"Whether it is advisable that Army administration in India should, subject to the Viceroy in Council, be, as at present, under two separate heads of departments?"
It would be inconceivable if it had not actually occurred that such a misleading, fallacious, incorrect and question-begging direction could have been drafted in the India Office.
Army administration in India was not under two separate heads of departments until the late Government made it so in 1905. It was no more under two departments than Army administration was in this country when we had a Commander-in-Chief. Army administration was under the Government of India; the Military Department was the War Office of India; the Military Member was the War Minister—the Secretary of State for War of India. The Commander-in-Chief—and this is the point—was not a War Minister at all. He was the executive head of the Army, and in that capacity he was a subordinate of the Government of India in Council. The administration of the military machine rested with the Government of India, whose only representative for that purpose in the Indian Cabinet was the Military Member. The position of Commander-in-Chief in Council was, I maintain, mainly honorific. He was put there to increase his status and his prestige. He had no portfolio, but, so far as he was a Minister at all and had to take part in administrative duties, his functions were dual. His distinctive and exceptional position was marked by his very designation, held only by himself, as Extraordinary Member of Council. When this is understood it must be apparent to all those who have any acquaintance with the analogous system of Government in this country that much of the criticism which prevailed in England proceeded from misapprehension, which was, to say the least of it, inexcusable.
There was talk of the iniquity of the Military Member giving orders to the Commander-in-Chief, who was his senior in rank and superior in military reputation. The Military Member no more gave orders than Mr. McKenna gives orders to the Navy; and as regards his military position, it had nothing more to do with his position than the rank of my noble friend as an officer

73
of Yeomanry had to do with his position when he was Secretary of State for War. The Military Member was merely the agent and the mouthpiece of the Government of India. Just as well might it have been said that it is iniquitous for Mr. Haldane, who is not a soldier at all, to presume to give orders to a soldier of such eminence and high rank as His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. The late Duke of Cambridge was, so far as I am aware, well able to adapt himself to precisely similar conditions.
Again, it was said to be monstrous that the proposals of the Commander-in-Chief should be criticised by officers junior in rank. Is there nothing of the kind in this country? Surely every noble Lord who knows anything of the inside of a Government office will see a hundred analogies. Supposing that my noble friend the Leader of the House, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Colonies, submits to the Treasury some scheme for the improvement of a Crown Colony. That proposal will, as a matter of course, be criticised, in the first instance, by the junior clerks of the Treasury, who will bring to bear on it their knowledge of precedent, their practised judgment, and all those other qualities which we expect of the Civil Service. I have never heard of any Minister in this country stipulating that his proposals should be dealt with only by his colleagues in the Cabinet. Why, even the proposals of the Prime Minister himself, so far as I am aware, are constantly and regularly submitted to the criticism of junior clerks. It is the ordinary, necessary, inevitable, official procedure, and I cannot for the life of me see that it is more of an indignity to a soldier than it is to a civilian. As a matter of fact, this thing happens daily in the course of ordinary military administration. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War opposite will no doubt bear me out in that. I think I am right in saying that the proposals of Generals may be negatived by Staff captains acting as the mouthpieces and delegates of higher authority.
But in all this criticism the other side of the question was quite forgotten. It was forgotten that nine out of ten proposals which were made in the name of the Commander-in-Chief were made without his personal cognisance by junior officers acting in his name. I should also like to point out that there is nothing at all unparalleled in the former relative positions of the Com-
74
mander-in-Chief and the Military Member. We have only to look to the greatest of all armies—the German Army—to find a parallel. I have it on good authority that the question of seniority as between the War Minister and the Generals commanding Army corps does not arise. The present War Minister, I am told, was junior to all the Generals commanding Army corps at the time of his appointment; but the Germans are sufficiently capable of "clear thinking" to be able to distinguish between administrative and executive functions, and to treat a War Minister as a War Minister even though he sometimes may wear a military uniform. It was confusion of thought on these ordinary elementary principles of the Constitution which led to a change which I always have regarded and always shall regard as disastrous.
And now, my Lords, you have a principle of papal infallibility established at the head of the military hierarchy in India. Any officer who denies that infallibility has been, is, and will be in a military sense excommunicated, and that is what we mean by the military autocracy which the Secretary of State for India derided with so much levity. Most of your Lordships know what military discipline means. Discipline is required, not only in the Army, but in other branches of life; but military discipline has something quite distinctive about it. It means in a very peculiar sense subordination of private judgment as well as obedience to orders, and that principle, which is universal among soldiers, has now been rendered absolute by the famous dictum that no officer junior to the Commander-in-Chief may criticise anything that the Commander-in-Chief proposes.
Think, my Lords, what that means. It means, although the Secretary of State denies it, the establishment of a military autocracy of the most exaggerated type. It means that the Commander-in-Chief is deprived of all the advantages which civil Ministers derive from the varied experience and the trained judgment of their official subordinates. It means that if there should be discontent at any proposal of the Commander-in-Chief in India, not a breath or suspicion of it will reach these shores, or even the Government of India, through official channels. All this may be right so long as the present Commander-in-Chief remains in office, but we cannot expect that the infallibility of all future Commanders-in-

75
Chief can be absolutely relied upon. I said at the outset that there was congestion of business at the present time. I think it follows from what I said just now that that congestion is not likely to be admitted in any official Papers. It would not be in official human nature to make such a confession, and every Department at all times naturally defends itself. But I think I can show that it is inevitable that there should be such congestion. Under the old system there were four Commands, which at the last were reduced to three. The Lieut.-Generals at the head of those Commands had charge both of administration and training. Now, under the present system there are two Army commanders, commanding the Armies of the North and the South, who are really inspecting officers charged only with the training of the troops. They do not touch administration at all. Therefore, the whole of the administration is now centralised at Army headquarters, which has to deal direct with ten divisions and four independent brigades.
It is a well-known and much-quoted maxim of Napoleon, that no Commander should have to deal with more than four or five subordinates. The Commander-in-Chief, in his dual capacity as Secretary of State for War in India and Commander-in-Chief, has now to deal with fourteen subordinates instead of the three which existed under the old system. I think it must be obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about military correspondence and the methods which are peculiar to it, that the delays and the confusion must be proportionately increased. It is quite true that the power of the divisional Generals has been increased so that they are able to dispose offhand of more buisness than they did before, but this could have been done under the old system, and it is not in any way a direct consequence of the introduction of the new system. To resume, the system set up by the late Government broke down in practice. That which remains has been condemned in theory by every authority, including the late Government themselves.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: No.
LORD AMPTHILL: The late Government condemned a system under which the Commander-in-Chief would be the only Military Member of Council. It cannot be denied. The only test of
76
armies and of military organisation is the test of war, and what we are here to ask the Secretary of State is whether we are going to wait until that test is applied. If so, do your Lordships contemplate with equanimity the one result which is absolutely certain—the immediate disintegration of the Indian War Office, for it is intended that the Commander-in-Chief and the principal officers on the Headquarters Staff, who, as your Lordships know, are also the principal officers of the Indian War Office, should take the field?
The Secretary of State said that no Commander-in-Chief had taken the field since 1857, and seemed to imply thereby that it was not likely he would do so. But he might have remembered that in 1857 it was the field which took the Commander-in-Chief, and that is exactly the contingency which we have to contemplate again. It might be inevitable that the Commander-in-Chief should take the field. I ask your Lordships, Can you conduct a big war without a War Office? It is quite true that the idea is to replace the members of the Indian War Office with substitutes, but there is an old, and, I think, a true maxim which says that it is not advisable to swop horses when you are crossing a stream. This is not a matter for expert military opinion or for the elaborate theories of constitution-mongers. It is a matter of common sense, and I ask, from the point of view of common sense, Are your Lordships content that the Indian War Office should be put under new and untried men the very moment a big war breaks out? To ask this question is the practical object of raising this discussion.
I should like to assure the Secretary of State that, so far as I am concerned, and certainly from what my noble friend who opened the debate said, there is no question of criticising his action. My noble friend and I agree that it was absolutely inevitable that the Supply and Transport Department should go. That was what my noble friend predicted, and, that being so, it is impossible for him to criticise the Secretary of State. But what we do want to know is whether the noble Viscount is satisfied with the present system, or whether he thinks there is good cause for considering further changes. I venture to think that the experience which I had the honour to enjoy as serving the Crown in India still charges me as a member of this House with some re-

77
sponsibility for Indian affairs. I feel so strongly on this question that I was prepared to raise it myself, and, as your Lordships may remember, I put a Motion on the Paper which had the effect, although it was never moved, of eliciting the Papers which have given rise to this discussion. What I have said this evening I have said because I will not, even to the insignificant extent of personal abstention from discussion, share in the responsibility for the present unique system of military administration in India.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I was greatly struck yesterday, as was the noble Lord who has just sat down, with the remark which the noble Viscount the Secretary of State made in the opening of his speech. He declared that, while he had no fault to find with the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, for raising this question, he was at a loss to know what the noble Lord's object was in doing so. I have no clue to Lord Curzon's intentions beyond that supplied by the speech which he delivered yesterday, and from that speech I inferred that his object in raising this discussion was to challenge the policy of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India in regard to the Military Department of the Government of India, and to press for a reconsideration of that policy.
There is no doubt that substantial changes in the Military Department of the Government of India were necessary, but I confess to great sympathy with those who regret that the changes have taken the direction which they have done. The question is not of such recent origin as some noble Lords who spoke yesterday were disposed to think. I might almost say, with accuracy, that it is coeval with the establishment of settled government in India. Settled government was established in India by the Regulating Act of 1773, which created the office of Governor-General and created his Council. That Act appointed the Commander-in-Chief in India to be an ordinary member of the Governor-General's Council. That was followed in 1784 by another Act, well known as "Pitt's Act," which reduced the Governor-General's Council by one member, but definitely prescribed that one of the three remaining members should always be the Commander-in-Chief in India. It will thus appear to your Lordships that in the commencement of our Indian administration the Commander-in-Chief of the
78
Indian forces was a member of the Governor-General's Council.
But a revulsion of feeling soon ensued. In England amongst the Statesmen of that time the opinion grew up that it was undesirable that the Commander-in-Chief should be the military adviser of the Governor-General in Council, and, accordingly, in the Charter Act of 1793 the Commander-in-Chief was excluded from Council, although a discretion was left to the Court of Directors to appoint him a member of the Council if necessary. That was the policy which prevailed in England. But a different view of the functions of the Commander-in-Chief and of his utility as a military adviser prevailed in India and also in the Court of Directors, so that from the year of Pitt's Act in 1784 until the great Act re-establishing the Government of India on modern foundations—namely, the Act of 1833—the Commander-in-Chief was invariably a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council.
I would advise those who say that it is impossible to conduct a great military administration while having the Commander-in-Chief as the Viceroy's adviser to reflect upon the history of India in that momentous period which covered the last quarter of the Eighteenth Century and the first thirty years of the Nineteenth Century. No period in the history of India is so full of military achievements grandly conceived and successfully carried out as that period. In the beginning of it you have the victories of Porto Novo, Wandewash, and Cudalore, which destroyed the French supremacy in the South. Then you have the victory of Seringapatam, which destroyed the power which had been built up by Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saheb. Then you come to the victories of Argaum and Assaye, which brought the name of Wellesley into notice, and which shook the Mahratta power, and finally you have the victory of Laswari and the victory of Bhurtpore, which completely destroyed it. Therefore, I do hold that it cannot be stated as absolutely and without qualification correct that military administration cannot be conducted while the Commander-in-Chief is not only the executive authority but also the administrative authority in military affairs.
But it must be said that in those days the method of administering the Government of India and disposing of Indian affairs was

79
entirely different from that which grew up at a later period. In those days you had action, and you had very little writing. To one to whom, like myself, it has fallen to examine the old records of the Government of India nothing is more remarkable than the succinctness with which the orders on the most important affairs are recorded. The fact was that the Governor-General and his Council sat together. There was no delegation of authority to the various members of Council. Every matter of importance was brought before the Council as a whole, was discussed across the table, and the orders then and there recorded. Some of the most important orders regarding war and peace were recorded on a sheet of notepaper of the ordinary size. But that method of administering business was not in accordance with the views which prevailed amongst English Statesmen. When the condition of India was most fully examined, as it was before the Charter Act of 1833 was passed, it became known that the orders which had been issued and frequently repeated in regard to the exclusion of the Commander-in-Chief from the administrative business of the Council had not been observed. Consequently in the Act of 1833 it was provided that, if any military officer was a member of the Governor-General's Council, he became thereby excluded from all military command in India. The effect of that was peremptorily to exclude the Commander-in-Chief from the direction of administrative business in the Governor-General's Council, and to introduce in his place a Military Member. But the influence of the Commander-in-Chief was so great and the benefit of his advice so manifest that power was given to the Court of Directors, if they so desired, to make the Commander-in-Chief an Extraordinary Member of the Council, and from that day to this the Commander-in-Chief has remained an Extraordinary Member of the Council, while the administrative military business of the Government of India has been conducted by a Military Member of Council.
That change was introduced in the year 1833, and when again, after the Mutinies, the condition of India was carefully enquired into that same provision was repeated in the Indian Councils Act of 1861, so that, in accordance with the spirit of this legislation, it is impossible for a military officer holding the position of Military Member of Council also to hold any combatant charge
80
in India. I am well aware that when a member is appointed to the Governor-General's Council no particular work is allocated to him. He is merely appointed a Member of Council. Then the Viceroy, through the statutory powers which he exercises, allocates to each member the work which he desires him to perform. Of course, there is reason in things, and when a great soldier is appointed an Ordinary Member of Council he naturally is given military duties to discharge. When a lawyer is appointed to the Council he is given legal business. But it rests entirely with the Viceroy to allocate to any particular member of his Council the work which he desires him to perform.
It may by some stretch of ingenuity be argued that the Extraordinary Member of Council is a member of the Council, and that it rests with the Viceroy to give to the Extraordinary Member any particular work which has to be discharged by the Council; but I venture, with all deference, to say that seeing that the object of the Act of 1833 was to exclude the Commander-in-Chief from the administration of military affairs in the Council, seeing that that exclusion was repeated in 1861, it would be in contradiction to the spirit of the Act if now by any Executive Order the Commander-in-Chief, an Extraordinary Member of the Council, is made, for the purposes in hand, an Ordinary Member, and if the practice which has been abrogated for seventy years is now again to be brought into operation. I respectfully submit that in appointing the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchener, to perform duties which have hitherto been performed by the Military Member a strain has been put on the legislation which governs the Government of India which a reasonable and moderate interpretation of the Act will not confirm.
But, my Lords, if that be the case, and if now your military administration in India is out of harmony with the law which should regulate it, is there no remedy, no means by which, except by an appeal to the Legislature, the difficulty can be overcome? I venture to say that if an appeal were made to your Lordships' House with the object of reversing the legislation of 1833 and 1861 and of making an extraordinary member as available for work in the Viceroy's Council as an ordinary member, your Lordships would not be disposed to regard it with much favour. But it seems to me that

81
there is one way out of the difficulty by which the objects the Secretary of State and your Lordships have in view may be attained while at the same time regard and respect may be paid to the legislation on the Statute Book.
The solution—and this is a matter on which I do not express an opinion formed immediately but an opinion I have held for many years—the solution of the military question in India in my opinion lies in the application to the Army of that same principle of decentralisation which, applied to the civil Government, has worked such marvellous wonders. If the Commander-in-Chief be regarded as a local Government; if the whole business of the Army be handed over to his control, as the whole business of civil administration in a local Government is handed over to a Governor or Lieut.-Governor; if the Commander-in-Chief, subject to the orders of the Government of India, is allowed to administer his own Budget, and if the only obligation imposed upon him is to give an account of his stewardship, as every local Government in India gives, you will effect, within the Constitution, that transfer of military control and command to the Commander-in-Chief which it is desirable he should have. That some such change is necesssary nobody more than I believes.
I well remember a day in the early summer of 1897, when the province of which I was Lieut.-Governor was just emerging from a severe and protracted famine, and when the efforts of all the civil officers were directed to enabling and encouraging the people to cultivate their fields and sow their seed in the hope of a harvest. Their cattle were emaciated, as might be well understood after a protracted famine of eight months when no blade of grass was to be found. I was startled one day on hearing that the Military Department of the Government of India had sent out a number of soldiers to seize the plough cattle, impress them, and take them off to the frontier, where they were required to drag commissariat wagons into difficult country. Of course, these cattle were not suited for that work, and the only result was that the frontier was strewn with their bones. It then struck me as an extraordinary thing that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, while capable of mobilising his troops and sending them off by rail to the rail head, was unable to move
82
them beyond rail head because the transport controlled by another Department was not ready. That was a striking example of the desirability of transferring from the Military Department to the Commander-in-Chief those branches of the military service which are necessary for effective action in the field.
I have only one word more to say. It has been stated that the difficulty has been bridged over by appointing a Secretary to the Government of India in the Military Department in order to keep the Viceroy au courant with what happened in military affairs. I myself have been a Secretary to the Government of India, and I well remember the time when, on a very important matter, I took advantage of the power which I certainly possessed of going direct to the Viceroy without consulting the Member of Council. The result of it was a serious conflict between the Member of Council and the Viceroy, while I spent a bad quarter-hour. When I hear this suggestion made to supply the deficiency of the Military Member of Council, I appeal to my own experience of how these things are worked. When I knew the Military Department of the Government of India the junior ranks were a brood of young lions. Some of them have since become distinguished officers; some, unhappily, are no longer with us; but while they were waiting for their natural prey on the frontier they were perfectly willing to dispose of any number of Secretaries of the Government of India who attempted to interfere with them in military affairs. Either your Secretary will be a weak man and then the Viceroy will reap no benefit from him, or, if he is a strong man—and circumstances in India do develop strength of character in every way—he will become in reality, if not in name, a Military Member of Council, but without the responsibility. He will not in any case satisfactorily supply the loss of the Military Member of Council. I make these remarks, my Lords, not with any object of criticism or finding fault with the Secretary of State for India, but with the view of showing how the thoughts of other people have been running on this question, and how the matter might, in their opinion, have been solved without the heroic and, in my view, illegal measures which have been taken.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Viscount who represents

83
the India Office at the outset of his remarks expressed, unless I misunderstood him, a certain amount of surprise that anyone should think it worth his while to provoke a discussion upon the matters which have engaged our attention yesterday and to-day. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can seriously have supposed that events as important as these, that changes in the administration of the Indian Army as fundamental as those which he has required the Government of India to accept, should pass unchallenged and un-discussed in your Lordships' House. All I can say is that, in my humble opinion, your Lordships would have been guilty of something like a serious neglect of duty if we did not call attention to the Papers which have been presented, and to the important new departure for which His Majesty's Government are responsible. And I think my noble friend Lord Curzon would have been almost superhuman if he had refrained from recurring to the events of 1905, and from calling attention to the very striking fulfilment of some of the predictions in which he then indulged. Nor, I venture to think, should it be a matter for surprise that the members of the Government of 1905 should desire to say a few words, as my noble friend Lord Midleton did last night, as to the circumstances in which the memorable compromise of that year was brought about.
I desire at the outset to say that I range myself alongside my noble friend Lord Midleton in thinking that it would have been altogether beyond the power of any Government to refuse at that time a full reconsideration of the system upon which the Indian Army was then administered. The circumstances were too strong for us. We had as Commander-in-Chief a General, celebrated not only as a great leader of troops, but celebrated as an Army administrator, and that distinguished General was not only a critic, but an irreconcilable critic of the system of Army administration which he found in existence when he went to India.
Most of your Lordships are probably familiar with the historical Minute forwarded upon this subject by Lord Kitchener in 1905. I think it covers something like twenty-four pages of printed matter. Whether you agree with it or whether you do not, it is impossible for any one to pretend that it was not a weighty document
84
demanding the attention of the Government to whom it was addressed. On the other side we had the Despatch and the Minute of my noble friend Lord Curzon, written, like everything which he writes, with much persuasive power and dialectic skill, and we had the Minute of the Military Member of the Council, Sir Edmond Elles, a gallant officer of whom I wish to speak in the highest possible terms—a Minute of the same length as that from the Commander-in-Chief. That was the problem with which the Government of 1905 was confronted, and to my noble friend Lord Midleton fell the extremely difficult and thankless task of endeavouring to find a way out of a position which had all the appearance of becoming a deadlock.
My noble friend made one suggestion—he mentioned it last night—I think an admirable suggestion, the failure of which I shall always regret. He desired to put an end to all this lengthy correspondence by sending out to India a kind of Commission, the members of which might on the spot discuss in a friendly and unofficial manner the views of the two opposing sides, and who might have endeavoured on the spot to find a way out of the difficulty. I for one was sanguine that Lord George Hamilton, Lord Roberts, and Sir A. Godley would have succeeded in the endeavour, and I believe now that the tact and ability which enabled Lord George Hamilton to grapple with the intricacies of Poor Law administration in this country would have enabled him to find a reasonable solution of the difficulty; but, as your Lordships know, climatic reasons rendered Lord George Hamilton's visit to India impossible.
Well, we fell back on another expedient—we appointed a Consultative Committee, which included among its members men whose opinions on any Indian question were entitled to considerable weight, men of business capacity well known by all who have had to do with Indian affairs. It included two ex-Indian Commanders-in-Chief—Lord Roberts and Sir George White—Sir John Gordon, Sir Edward FitzGerald Law, and Sir James Mackay, a gentleman of unrivalled business experience, besides my two colleagues who sit behind me; the Committee, moreover, found the means of ascertaining authoritatively the views of Sir H. Brackenbury, of Sir E. Collen, of Sir David Barbour (ex-Finance Member of Council), of Lord

85
Elgin (an ex-Viceroy), and of my noble friend Lord Cromer, who spoke last night. I mention this to show that any recommendation proceeding from such a Committee was entitled to our utmost consideration and respect. It is remarkable that the Committee was unanimous in favour of retaining in some shape or form a Military Member of the Council; that is a cardinal point, and on that point the Committee were unanimous. The scheme they proposed was concurred in by my noble friend Lord Roberts, who has throughout these discussions been a protagonist on the side of those who desired that besides the Commander-in-Chief there should be a member of the Viceroy's Council responsible for the administration of the Army.
The noble Viscount suggested last night that I had myself indicated that the scheme adopted by His Majesty's Government on the recommendation of the Committee was one that might require reconsideration in regard to points of detail. He seemed to think that the change he is now making is a change of detail such as I had in mind. But if he will look at the context of my speech he will see quite clearly that in my view the kind of change I looked forward to was a change, not in the direction in which he has been travelling, but in an opposite direction, that of restoring to the Military Member some of the attributes of which he was then shorn. I do not know whether the noble Viscount's idea of a detail is the same as mine, but I cannot bring myself to regard it as appropriate to describe as a mere detail a step which simply means the summary "knocking on the head" of the Military Member as constituted on the recommendation of the Committee of 1905. That was not a point of detail, but the essence of the arrangement of 1905.
I have never regarded the settlement of 1905 as an ideal settlement, certainly it was not an economical settlement; but after all it worked well, and it is beyond dispute that if the noble Viscount had left the Government of India to themselves they would have allowed that settlement to remain in operation for the present at any rate. Does the noble Viscount question that? It appears to me from the reading of the documents that have been laid on the Table that the Government of India, if the noble Viscount had left them to themselves,
86
would have preferred to keep in operation the compromise arrangement of 1905.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN):That, no doubt, is quite true, but only on the ground that they wished to avoid the recrudescence of an acrimonious discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I altogether challenge that. I know the noble Viscount holds that view, but I do not think it is a view which is borne out by the documents. I will make my words good. In the Despatch of March, 1907, this is what the Government of India said—
"We are, however, glad to report that the various measures which have been undertaken to ensure the smooth working of the new system have been completely successful, and that the business of Army administration, in all Departments, is now conducted with a singleness of purpose and a freedom from delay which is greatly to the advantage of the public service."
That was in March, 1907. Later on, in September, 1907, they said—
"After giving this question our fullest consideration, we are agreed in respectfully but strongly deprecating the re-opening of the question of military administration in India at the present time, and only some eighteen months after the introduction of the new system";
and then comes the passage on which the noble Viscount relies—the passage in which they point out that the reopening of the question might lead to a recrudescence of the discussion. But then follows the pronouncement of the year 1908. This is what they then said—
"The experience gained since we wrote our Despatch of September, 1907, has not altered the views we then placed before your Lordship."
"Experience gained" of what? There is nothing there about recrudescence of the discussion. It is experience gained of the smooth working of the new system, the complete success in the administration of the Department concerned. Therefore, I think I am within the mark when I say that on the merits the Government of India, if the noble Viscount had not pressed them, would have allowed the arrangement of 1905 to remain in operation, at any rate for some time longer. Now the noble Viscount urges that owing to considerations of economy an end should be put to the 1905 arrangement—
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Of organisation as well as economy.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not want to make light of the saving even of a lakh of rupees, but I do say without the slightest doubt that the new departure we are discussing this evening is a triumph, not of economy, but of centralisation. Upon the whole of these arrangements centralisation is writ large. My noble friend held in his hand yesterday the diagram showing the new distribution of duties under the Commander-in-Chief. Never in the history of Army administration has concentration so ruthless been put into execution as in this new system. Here you have a single man put in charge of the executive command of the Army, of the administration of a whole group of departments which used to be under the control of the Military Member, and you have this same man expected to act as the sole adviser of the Government of India on military questions, and also to take his part in the daily work of the Viceroy's Cabinet, aiding his colleagues in other questions unconnected with military matters.
The noble Viscount last evening gave us an interesting digression on the subject of the burdens and responsibilities thrown on public men. He told us that everybody—Ministers, the Governors of the Bank of England, and I think he mentioned one or two others—all are overburdened, and so they are, no doubt. And he argued that the proper and obvious remedy was delegation, delegation of work to subordinates. Delegation is a very admirable thing, but delegation of routine work to subordinates is quite a different thing from decentralisation of responsibility as between great officials. The object of all military reforms in later years has been to bring about decentralisation, not only of work but of responsibility. The whole chain of military reforms, dating from the Hartington Commission and coming down to the more recent changes which resulted from the inquiries conducted under the presidency of Lord Esher—all those changes have been in the direction of decentralisation, and, above all, of maintaining a clear distinction between the duties of those who are entrusted with executive command in the Army and those entrusted with the duty of Army administration.
88
Look at what happened in this country. We had at one time an omnipotent or nearly omnipotent Commander-in-Chief. We began by clipping his wings and by transferring part of his powers and functions to those who had been his subordinates; and, finally, we got rid of the Commander-in-Chief altogether and broke up the work concentrated in his office amongst a number of separate Army departments; and while we are doing that at home and taking credit—as the Secretary for War now and again takes credit—for having carried out this work of decentralisation here at home, you are in India moving in an opposite direction and setting up a Commander-in-Chief who will unite in his own person the powers wielded by the Commander-in-Chief in the days of the Duke of Cambridge with the powers of the present Army Council and those of the Secretary of State for War. And, my Lords, is it not an instance of the irony of events that, at the very moment when you are piling up this colossal mountain of work on a single official, the man at whose instance all this is being done and who, if anybody could have been equal to the task would have been equal to it, leaves the scene, and you have to look among the less-known soldiers for an officer who shall himself do work which was enough, and more than enough, for such men as Lord Roberts, aided by such a man as Sir George Chesney, one of the most distinguished and laborious officials whom I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, and later by such a man as Sir Henry Brackenbury, a brilliant administrator, whose record at the War Office and in the Government of India stands second to none for its conspicuous ability.
I know the noble Viscount desires to comfort us by telling us that, after all, this centralisation will not be so serious as we suppose. He says we have still got the Secretary to the Government of India in the Army Department and that we may rely upon him for independent advice. I think. I am right in saying that Lord Kitchener, in one of the papers with which we are familiar, describes the Secretary to the Government of India as the absolutely independent adviser of the Government of India. I am well aware of the peculiar position in which the Secretaries of the Government of India in the different departments stand. It is a position which has no analogue in our official arrangements in this country. It is a position of great indepen-

89
dence. The Secretary has access privately to the Viceroy and also the Governor-General in Council. But do not let the noble Viscount suppose that the Secretary to the Army Department under his new dispensation will be in that position of complete independence—nothing of the kind. He will be a military officer. He will be a subordinate of the Commander-in-Chief. He will probably owe his appointment to the Commander-in-Chief or to a previous Commander-in-Chief.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN dissented.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:The noble Viscount shakes his head. Does he think the Commander-in-Chief would not be consulted as to the appointment?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I do not say that. But he will not be appointed by him.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:He will be a junior in rank, and will look to the Commander-in-Chief for promotion and he will be indistinguishable from the rest of the Headquarters Staff. You cannot expect that you will get independence in these circumstances. It is contrary to all our experience. Nor will you get independence in the other members of the new Army Department. There is something almost grotesque in the way in which the members of the Army Department and the members of the Army Headquarters Staff are hotchpotched together in this arrangement. For some purposes they are subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief; for other purposes they are members of the Army Department.
The noble Viscount claimed for his arrangement that it resulted in the practical amalgamation—I think the noble Viscount will recognise the expression—in the practical amalgamation of the Army Headquarters Staff and the Army Department. Well, my Lords, when a boa constrictor swallows a guinea-pig there is practical amalgamation of the snake and the victim, and I am afraid that the amalgamation in this case means the complete absorption of the Army Department in the purely military hierarchy of which the Commander-in-Chief will be the head; and, my Lords, when I express, as I do, my grave doubt as to the prospect of obtaining a really independent military opinion from any of these officials who will be under
90
the Commander-in-Chief, I am not expressing the view merely of a jaundiced and suspicious civilian. I will quote an authority whom no one is likely to gainsay on this question. In 1905 Lord Roberts, in this House, was meeting the suggestion that the Government of India would be able to get alternative military opinions and independent advice from military officers other than the Commander-in-Chief, and his comment was that these officers would be strictly subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief and could not express opinions to the Viceroy in opposition to those held by their immediate chief. Lord Roberts added—
"To do so would be subversive of military discipline."
My noble friend Lord Midleton and I, who have been behind the scenes at the War Office, know how true those words are; but coming, as they do, from the lips of a man like Lord Roberts, I say they are irrefutable. This new arrangement will be what is vulgarly called a "one man show," and with the introduction of the new system there will disappear the last fragment of the arrangement based on what I conceive to be the only sound principle—I mean the separation of the executive from the administrative work of the Army.
I know we are told that so long as there are two members of Council connected with Army affairs, so long as what is often spoken of as the dual system prevails, you will have friction and over-lapping, and that there will be usurpation by the Military Department of the right to deal with purely military questions. That difficulties of that kind do arise, have arisen, and are likely to arise again, I do not deny; but I do believe they can be got over. Just as it was found possible, I think in the year 1889, to meet the views of my noble friend Lord Roberts when he asked for a reconsideration of the arrangements between the two offices, I believe the same kind of readjustment can with advantage take place from time to time and should produce the desired result. I confess, however, that I am very much inclined to discount these complaints of friction and usurpation. After all, are we quite sure when we talk about friction that we do not mean really this, that there are two sides to the question and that both sides have succeeded in getting a hearing? Of course, if you can so arrange matters that one side shall be snuffed out early in the

91
controversy there will be no friction and everything will go pleasantly and agreeably.
Then, again, there is the complaint that the Military Department is inclined to poach on the preserves of the Commander-in-Chief and to attempt to deal with what people usually describe as purely military questions. Let me say at once that I should oppose any arrangement under which the Military Department was given any right of interfering with what I should call purely military questions; but surely it is the case, not only in India but everywhere, that questions arise which are not purely military questions but questions which have a financial and political side; this is particularly the case in India, where, even when a question is supposed to be a purely military question, you will find it has other aspects which require to be taken into consideration. And when you ask one man, and that a man who is entrusted with the whole discipline and training and command of the Army, to advise the Government of India, not only on the military aspects of the case properly so called, but also upon the political and financial aspects, I say you are putting too heavy a burden on the shoulders of a single man.
My main fear is that in these new arrangements you are going to impair the usefulness of the Commander-in-Chief as head of the Indian Army. Your Lordships heard what Lord Cromer said as to the importance of dealing tenderly with that most delicate and important piece of machinery; your Lordships also heard the eloquent passage in which my noble friend behind me described the personal relation in which the Commander-in-Chief ought to stand to the Indian Army. I will not go over that ground again. It is enough to say that the Commander-in-Chief in India ought to stand and ought to appear to stand almost in loco parentis to the Indian Army. He should be known by that Army; he should, if possible, be not only respected but beloved by that Army; and in order that he may be so known and so beloved, it is necessary that he should be in constant personal touch with the Army, that he should travel about the country, that he should not appear to the soldiers under him a kind of remote official personality living high up among desks and despatch boxes at Simla, but that he should be constantly seen by them and able to travel
92
about over all parts of the Indian Empire from one frontier to another.
The Commander-in-Chief in India has duties to perform which correspond to those of the Inspector-General of the British Army, with a great deal besides superadded. How can you expect any soldier, however able, however industrious, to do all these things, to stand in the position in which he ought to stand in the eyes of the people of India and the Army in India, and also to administer a whole group of public offices and to be the adviser of the Government of India on all great questions of military policy? How can he do all these things, and also be in a position, as I conceive he ought to be in a position, to take command in the field? The noble Viscount told us that no such thing had happened since 1857; but is he quite sure that such a thing will never happen again, and would it not be a bad thing if it got into the heads of the Indian Army that their Commander-in-Chief was not the man who would lead them when an emergency arose and they were called upon to take the field?
I am afraid that the step which you are taking is indeed a step in the wrong direction. I believe you will have to move further, but you will have to move in a different direction. You will have to move again in the direction of separating the duties which you are now concentrating in the hands of a single officer. I am convinced that you will in the end have to go back to the arrangement under which there will be two officers—one officer in charge of executive duties and one officer in charge of administration; one officer who will be, so to speak, an indoor officer, and another who will be an outdoor officer.
My noble friend behind me suggested two alternative arrangements which he regarded as possible. While I think both are worthy of discussion, I should greatly regret any arrangement under which the Commander-in-Chief was no longer entitled to take part in the deliberations of the Viceroy's Council. By no longer making him a member of that Council you would greatly diminish his dignity and importance in the eyes of the Indian Army. But with that reservation I do not very much care what the new arrangement may be or what name you give to the two officers. What I care about is not the name, but the principle; and as

93
far as the principle is concerned, I am deeply convinced that the new system which you are introducing is opposed to the views of all Army reformers; you are taking a step which in my view removes the last vestiges—vestiges to which I, for one, cling with a good deal of attachment—of what I conceive to be the only sound system on which you can administer the affairs of the Indian Army or indeed of any other army in the world.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON):My Lords, during the short period that I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House there is no member of it to whom I have listened with greater attention and admiration than the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I think that this evening he has accomplished a most difficult task and accomplished it with an amount of skill and acumen which every Member of the House must have perceived and envied.
There were three compartments in the noble Marquess's speech. They did not agree with each other, and now that he has finished his able speech I do not really gather what the noble Marquess would have done if he had been Secretary of State for India during the whole of the crisis. The first part of the speech was, in my opinion, a complete justification of the attitude of the Conservative Secretary of State. Having defended the policy of Lord Midleton as opposed to the policy of Lord Curzon, the noble Marquess censured the present Government for having really done the same thing as Lord Midleton. The policy that we have carried out from first to last has been the policy of Lord Midleton. The whole of these difficulties, indeed, originated with noble Lords opposite. No proof has been given that the principle which my noble friend Lord Morley has carried out has failed; all the evidence is the other way. From the Viceroy, the Viceroy's Council, and every part of the public service in India which is concerned comes testimony to the success of the new policy.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Which new policy?
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The policy of my noble friend behind me.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If the new policy was so extraordinarily successful, why abolish the Department responsible for that success?
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The policy which my noble friend the Secretary of State has adopted, and to which we adhere, is the policy of getting rid of dual control in the administration of the Indian Army. The great evil Lord Lansdowne found in the system now in force in India is centralisation. I venture to submit to the House that this is a great scheme of decentralisation. The noble Lord spoke of the enormous work which will devolve on the Commander-in-Chief; but he omitted to refer to the complete change which has taken place in the organisation of the Indian Army. There are now ten separate Divisions. That is a great scheme of decentralisation. Large powers are entrusted to the ten Generals of Divisions. Such a fact cannot be left out of account in considering this subject.
In 1906, when my noble friend took office, he was confronted by a scheme agreed upon in principle by the then Secretary of State and the Viceroy. He had to deal not with a new policy of his own, but with a policy of which the last Government had approved. He gave the scheme a fair trial, and without in any way interfering with its progress he watched it with the deepest interest. I believe his first intervention was in his Despatch of February 9, 1906, when he indicated several points which he thought open to criticism, and subject to conditions which were of some importance, but not of vital importance, he gave his approval to the scheme which had been prepared by the Government of India. I think they themselves suggested that a period of twelve or eighteen months should be allowed to see how the scheme worked. That was in 1906.
In 1907 a Despatch was received from the Government of India, dated March 19, and signed by every Member of the Council. There are one or two paragraphs in that Despatch which have not been read to the House, and which I should like to quote. They wrote—
"Our opinions with regard to Army administration in its relation to Military Finance have been so fully stated in our Despatch No. 10-M.F., dated February 7, 1907, that it is unnecessary

95
to refer to them here. We are, however, glad to report that the various measures which have been undertaken to ensure the smooth working of the new system have been completely successful and that the business of Army administration, in all Departments, is now conducted with a singleness of purpose and a freedom from delay which is greatly to the advantage of the public service. Under the present constitution of Army administration, all important measures are discussed either in the Advisory Council, or in the Mobilisation or Defence Committee, and all proposals emanating from Army Headquarters requiring Government sanction—except those of a routine or trifling nature—have first to receive the Commander-in-Chief's executive approval, and have then to obtain the administrative concurrence of the Army Member, through the Army Secretary—
the official who, the noble Marquess thought, would have too much power and too much influence—
"The Secretary is consequently in complete touch with the work of the Department and acquainted with the progress of all its cases, and the Viceroy is kept fully informed of all measures undertaken in the administration of the Army, by the Secretary of the Department concerned, who is able to bring any important matter to His Excellency's immediate notice at any stage from initiation to completion.
"We recognise that finality in military administration is difficult of attainment and that it may be necessary to make some modifications in the details of the system now in force, in order to simplify its organisation and reduce its cost; but we have much satisfaction in being able to report that the important changes ordered in your Despatch, No. 18 (Military), dated February 9, 1906, have been productive of excellent results, and that, thanks to the harmonious co-operation of all concerned, they have fulfilled the intentions of His Majesty's Government, and justified the anticipations expressed in the concluding paragraphs of your Despatch."
My noble friend's next step was to ask for further information as to how the system was working out, both in regard to efficiency and cost. I will not trouble your Lordships with the various points bearing on this question on which he asked for full information; but in their reply to the Secretary of State the Government of India wrote on September, 26, 1907—
"We have received and considered in Council, your Despatch. Military, No. 105, dated June 28, 1907, in which you propose, for our consideration, the abolition of the Military Supply Department, its work being taken over by the Army Department, and the consequent reduction of the representation of the Army in the Council of the Governor-General of India. After giving this question our fullest consideration we are agreed in respectfully but strongly deprecating the reopening of the question of Military Administration in India at the present time, and only some eighteen months after the introduction of the new system, when, if the proposed change should be accepted,
96
we cannot but apprehend a recrudescence of heated and acrimonious public discussion which in the interests of the Army and the Government of India generally it is most desirable to avoid."
They then dealt with my noble friend's specific questions, which they answered in detail; and they added—
"So far as our experience goes—
this is, the eighteen months experience—
"So far as our experience goes of the working of the Army Department, it tends to show it has been fully able to grapple with all the work with which it has had to deal. There is no congestion in either the office of the Secretary of the Army Department, or that of the Chief of the Staff. This compares most favourably with the condition of affairs that existed in the offices of the Commander-in-Chief, and in the Secretariat of the late Military Department of the Government of India before the abolition of the latter. All arrears have been disposed of, while the current work both in the Army Department Secretariat and in Army Headquarters is well up to date, and is dealt with as it arises. After giving the matter our fullest consideration, although we are, as stated in paragraph 2, unanimous in deprecating the raising now of the question of carrying out the suggested reform, we are agreed that the proposal is administratively and economically based on sound arguments and will have to be dealt with sooner or later."
That is the verdict of the whole of the Council of the Viceroy. My noble friend behind me was prepared to face what might have been a heated controversy, but I have noticed no sign of heat throughout this debate.
The question of centralisation in the Military Department is not a new question. Lord Lytton, writing as Governor-General in 1880, with a greater experience of war on a large scale than any of the Governors-General who have followed him, fully supported the Commission in their desire for change, but stated very forcibly his reasons for thinking that change should take the shape of excluding the officer in charge of the Military Department from Council, and not the Commander-in-Chief. He said—
"I cannot too emphatically record my conviction that the dual military Government organised in this country 'on a system of want of trust' should be abolished as speedily and completely as possible … My conclusion is that the Commander-in-Chief should be himself the Military Member, and the only Military Member of the Viceroy's Council. In him alone, as in the War Minister of every country not governed by Parliamentary institutions, should be united and concentrated the executive command and the administrative control of the Army."

97
The same views were expressed by Lord Dalhousie and by Lord Dufferin.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Lord Dufferin's view was quite the opposite.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: I am quite content to leave it at Lord Dalhousie and Lord Lytton. I do not quite understand what the noble Marquess opposite proposes that the Government should do. He has not told us that. Lord Curzon made a very adroit and successful conclusion to his speech last night in which he pointed out two courses that might be taken, but I did not understand him to favour either of them; and the one that seemed to be more in accord with the views he expressed in his speech he stated was not really his own. He did not give it the sanction of his own authority to any extent. My noble friend behind me, Lord MacDonnell, gave us an interesting account of the history of the position of the Commander-in-Chief in the Indian Council, but I do not agree with him as to the date at which he began. He should have commenced at the year 1858. Any attempt to raise an argument as to what was done when India was under the Government of the East India Company does not seem to me to be relevant. I venture to submit to the House that the great principles of reform in the administration of our Imperial Army at home, which are being carried out by the Secretary of State for War, Lord Morley is to a very great extent carrying out in India. It is the policy of decentralisation, of entrusting the people who have the administration with the necessary power to carry it out, subject always to the Commander-in-Chief. Government cannot be carried on without devolution, and the Commander-in-Chief in India will do as Ministers in this country do in devolving duties upon competent deputies.
Under the new system in India financial control, which did not exist before, has been secured, and is working most satisfactorily. Lord Lansdowne has not made any recommendation that the Government should do anything. The best course that can be taken is to let the scheme work on, and we shall find, no doubt, in the course of events that there will be improvements in matters of detail which will commend themselves to successive Secretaries of State and also to successive military authorities.
I have the greatest respect for Lord Curzon and the greatest admiration for his
98
Viceroyalty; but the noble Lord has never recognised, and I fear will not recognise tonight, what really is meant by Parliamentary control of the Government of India. The official whom the noble Lord regards as supreme in India is not the Secretary of State, but the Viceroy. That fundamental difficulty runs through all the noble Lord's Correspondence and Despatches. He is not satisfied with the position of the Viceroy in relation to the Secretary of State. Parliamentary control is the safeguard for the real difficulties which may arise; and if they do arise the Secretary of State is the proper and legitimate authority to deal with them. There is no issue before the House—
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh!
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The noble Lord will say what the issue is, and what he is going to take a Division on. Of course there will be no objection to submit Papers to your Lordships. If by a change in the political world noble Lords opposite found themselves responsible for the government of India I would be very much surprised if they made any change in the policy of my noble friend the Secretary of State.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, it is quite true in one sense that there is no issue before the House. The Motion was placed on the Paper for the very practical purpose of obtaining information as to whether the Government are deliberately going to pursue the policy of conducting the military administration of India with one officer, who is to be both Commander-in-Chief and Minister for War. To that policy we now understand that His Majesty's Ministers have pinned their adhesion. When the noble Viscount asks, "What is your alternative policy? What is the particular scheme which you recommend?" he is putting a question which ought at no time to be put to any politician in Opposition, and ought least of all to be addressed to me. It is true that I indicated in my speech views which I had considered, but it will not be for me to carry them out, and I can imagine nothing more likely to expose me to the rebuke of the noble Viscount opposite than that I, in a position of irresponsibility,, should venture on the course which he has suggested.
In his concluding remarks, the noble Viscount attributed to me a scheme of political

99
philosophy which I entirely repudiate—namely, that my view of the Government of India was that it should be conducted in independence and repudiation of the proper supremacy of Parliament and of the Secretary of State. The subject is irrelevant to this debate, but I can truthfully say that I do not think any utterance of mine bears out that impression. What I contended for in 1905, and what I contend now, is that the supremacy conceded by statute—namely, the Charter Act of 1833—to the Government of India over all military affairs in India should be kept intact, and it is because I fear that the supremacy of the Governor-General in Council over military affairs in India must be impaired under the new system that I have steadily protested, and will continue to protest, against it.
Mention has been made of Lord Lytton, who is the solitary Viceroy whose words can be quoted in support of the new system. Everybody knows why Lord Lytton made his proposal. It was at the time of the Afghan war, and Lord Lytton wished that the Commander-in-Chief in India should be detained at headquarters in order that the illustrious Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, should conduct the campaign, and he also desired, in my view most mistakenly, to constitute his own private secretary, Sir George Colley, military adviser to himself. It was for these reasons that he proposed the abolition of the Military Member, though he realised the necessity of putting a civilian in his place. But when the authority of Lord Lytton is quoted, may I remind the noble Viscount that a succession of Viceroys—Lord Northbrook, Lord Ripon, Lord Dufferin, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Elgin, and Lord Ampthill —have taken a contrary view. During the last fifty years there has been only one Governor-General in India who has taken anything approaching the view which I understand is now adopted by His Majesty's Ministers. When the noble Viscount quoted an account of the new administration in India, of its wonderful success, and of the satisfaction of the Government of India, I could not help asking myself why any change had been introduced. As I read the Despatches, the confidence and satisfaction expressed by the Government of India were in the administration set up by Lord Midleton, but that is the system which the noble Viscount has now destroyed. There have, in fact, been three systems. There was the old system of what is sometimes called dual
100
control. That was abolished by the late Government. Then there was the system introduced by Lord Midleton. With that the Government of India were entirely satisfied.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Not entirely.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is how I read the Papers.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The Government of India informed me that the system might need modification.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The words used in March, 1907, were "modifications in detail." Anyhow, my impression of their writings is that the last thing they contemplated was that the noble Viscount should abolish it altogether. They were content that the experiment should go on.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: They admitted, in answer to a question from me, that a change was politically and economically desirable.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The utterances of the Government of India have not always been quite consistent in the matter, and under the pressure so skilfully applied by the noble Viscount they took up a position at the end not quite the same as at the beginning. When I said they used the words "modifications in detail" I was speaking by the book. The words of the Despatch of the Government of India dated March, 1907, are—
"We recognise that finality in military administration is difficult of attainment, and that it may be necessary to make some modifications in the details of the system now in force."
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: In their Despatch of September, 1907, the Government of India say—
"Although we are unanimous in deprecating the raising now of the question of carrying out the suggested reform, we are agreed that the proposal is administratively and economically based on sound arguments and will have to be dealt with sooner or later."
That is my charter.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, but I am not certain that when the Government of India said the matter would have to be dealt with sooner or later they were at all prepared to have the Department

101
abolished at once. However, I do not wish to pursue that. As I have said, there have been three systems in India—the old system which existed in my day, the new system introduced by Lord Midleton, and the third system which is now going to be set up. It is the last system which is regarded with so much suspicion on this side of the House, and against which the whole weight of authority is cast. The noble Viscount says that there has been great decentralisation, and that the General officers of the nine Divisions have been given all sorts of powers they never enjoyed before. I wonder if the noble Viscount is aware of the full extent, or rather of the very limited extent, of the powers conferred on them. And when he talks about the wonderful smoothness with which everything goes on at headquarters, and of the total lack of congestion, all I can say is that the whole of the information from India at my disposal absolutely contradicts that. I believe there is already, and that there must be still more in the future, a great congestion of business at headquarters, and that before this new scheme has been long in operation the centralisation caused by it will be of so overwhelming a character that even by itself it must demand some change.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: That is all contradicted by Lord Minto in his speech to Council the other day.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I concur with the noble Viscount behind me (Lord Midleton) that it was a great misfortune that the resources of personal intercourse which he suggested were not available to us when this matter came on in 1905, but still more do I regret that it was not open to me to have that personal intercourse and conversation with himself. His speech last night made it evident to me, what I have often suspected before, that in reality he was not thoroughly acquainted with the manner and method of our military administration in India. There were several things he then said so widely divorced from the position as I knew it that I now realise how unfortunate it was we could not talk over matters together. For instance, when the noble Viscount says that the Commander-in-Chief was in the habit of being overruled by decisions in India which, in nine cases out of ten, were not the decisions of the Viceroy and his Council but of the Military Member himself, he represented a condition of affairs which I can well understand might
102
be regarded as a great grievance, but which I can assure him is totally divorced from the facts.
When I left India, I had the figures collected, and these showed that from December, 1902, to June, 1905, 1,560 proposals emanating from the Commander-in-Chief had reached the Government of India, in the old Military Department. Of these, 1,260 had been accepted—a proportion, I venture to think, unprecedented in the history of any previous Commander-in-Chief. Of the remainder, 178 were then under consideration, and 122 only had been refused. Of these 122, eleven were refused after discussion by the Viceroy and his colleagues in Council, fifteen were refused on financial grounds by the Financial and Military Departments in combination, and ninety-six only were refused by the Military Department, and they were cases of the most trivial description. It was impossible for the Military Department to overrule the Commander-in-Chief in any serious cases, because the moment the Papers containing the refusal came, all the Commander-in-Chief had to do was to ask that they should go to the Viceroy or should be taken before the Council. The Commander-in-Chief had the remedy in his own hands, and yet I can assure the noble Viscount that not once during the two or three years I had the honour of serving with Lord Kitchener did he ask that a single matter that had been decided against him should be brought before the Council.
There was one other point in Viscount Midleton's speech to which I must refer because it is a point on which I feel rather sore. He told us last night that he had not been in a position to give to the public the Memoranda of Lord Elgin, Lord Cromer, Sir Henry Brackenbury, Sir David Barbour, and Sir E. Collen, whom he consulted for the assistance of his Committee, because they were private documents. If that were so—and I do not desire to dispute it—then the noble Viscount had no right to quote them in the Report which he laid before Parliament. That evidence was referred to, and what we felt so badly in India was that, while every shred of evidence that could tell against our case appeared to be scraped together by the noble Viscount in his Despatch, the evidence of all those statesmen to whom I have referred, which I happen to know was in favour of the

103
view of the Government of India, was withheld.
One other observation on a quasi-personal point. The noble Viscount opposite yesterday rebuked me, not, I think, for the first time, in rather lofty tones, for what he described, and I think rightly described, as the unedifying controversy of 1905. I should like, in a sentence, to state the facts. I do not think the noble Viscount, or any noble Lord, could find anything to complain of in the Minutes and the Despatches that were laid before Parliament. I do not think they will find in them the slightest deviation from the becomingly high level of propriety and restraint that should characterise public communications of that description. As regards the controversy which was published in the newspapers in India and in this country, not as a Parliamentary Paper, I desire to say now, what I have never had an opportunity of saying before, that those papers were published against my wish and in spite of my protest, and only because they were pressed for by Lord Kitchener himself.
The Secretary of State last night quoted a passage in my Minute and then asked me whether I did hold that the constitutional authority of the Government of India was impaired, and whether I did still believe that a military autocracy had been set up. My answer to that question is unhesitatingly in the affirmative. I know the Statute has not been repealed, and that theoretically the control of military matters by the Governor-General in Council stands exactly where it was. But, when you have all opposition eliminated at the earlier stages by processes which render military criticism in the military hierarchy of India absolutely impossible, and in the last resort, when matters come before Council, there is no one to advise the Viceroy and his colleagues except the Commander-in-Chief, who is himself the author of the proposals under discussion, then I say that a military autocracy does exist. I do not see how any one can dispute it, and, if it be disputed, let me ask is it a system which you would dare to set up in this country? I venture to say that the Ministry that introduced such a change would not have a six months existence.
I am always reluctant to quote from
104
others, but there is one quotation to which I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me if I attach great importance, because it is from a speech which was made by the Right Hon. John Morley in October, 1905, at Arbroath. That was shortly after I had resigned, and the noble Viscount took a view of my position and the action of the late Government then very different from that which, I imagine, lie entertains now. He said—
"Lord Curzon has been chased out of power by the military, and the Secretary of State—
that was Viscount Midleton—
"has sanctioned that operation. If there is one principle more than another which has been accepted in this country since the day when Charles I lost his head, it is this—that the civil power shall be supreme over the military power. That is what you will find in the India Office—they have been guilty—
that was Viscount Midleton—
"of this great dereliction, this great departure from these standard maxims of public administration which have been practically sacred in this island ever since the days of the Civil War."
Last night the Secretary of State accused me of having somewhere used rather sonorous language. Surely, if my language was sonorous, his was flamboyant. Yet that is the great departure, the great dereliction, which the Secretary of State has now ratified and condoned.
The Secretary of State seems to have felt some surprise as to the object of this debate. I think we may legitimately feel some surprise as to the character and progress of the debate. In the two speeches delivered from the Benches opposite has there been the slightest attempt made to meet the main current of the argument directed against them from this side of the House? Has any attempt whatever been made to take the point on which Lord Cromer laid so much stress—namely, what may be described as the political argument as distinguished from the argument in relation to efficiency? Has any attempt been made to consider the effect that this change must have on the Native Army? Has any attempt been made to show how the Commander-in-Chief is going, under the new conditions, to fulfil his task? All we are told is that we need not be alarmed because in this country all the Departments are very much overworked, but no answer has been made to the question: How can

105
one man discharge the double burden of Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief?
If I were asked what was the practical object of this debate I would answer in these words: It is to call attention to the fact that a system of military administration which was universally condemned by the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman in 1905, which would not be tolerated in this country, and which finds no parallel in any other country, is now being set up in India. Is it possible that the long list of Viceroys whom I have named—Lords Northbrook, Ripon, Dufferin, Lansdowne, Elgin, and Ampthill—the only two living ex-Commanders-in-Chief—Lord Roberts and Sir George White—statesmen like Lord Cromer, and great Indian soldiers like Sir Henry Brackenbury and Sir Edwin Collen, distinguished Indian civilians like Sir John Strachey, Sir Alfred Lyall, and Lord MacDonnell—is it possible for them all to be absolutely wrong? Are all these men who have illumined Indian history by their services during the past fifty years entirely wrong, and is the only person who is right the present Commander-in-Chief?
The noble Viscount said yesterday that I was flogging a dead horse. I can assure him that nothing would be more pleasing to me than never to say one word more about this question. It has soured and beclouded some of the best years of my
106
life. I wish I could put it away from me for ever. But I do not believe that the horse is dead. I am perfectly certain that in a few years time you will find that it is alive again. The fear I have is that if you leave things as they are now, at some date which we cannot anticipate, and which may be a date most inconvenient and most dangerous for us, the horse which is now supposed to be dead may rise and may unseat its rider. I have no desire to persist in my Motion for Papers, but I am grateful to the House for the opportunity it has given me of making these observations.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (No. 91).
  SEA FISHERIES (TEES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (No. 92).
  Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read la; to be printed: and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (the Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee. (No. 93.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.