Sitting of 30 June 1909

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol University Bill [Lords],
East Sussex County Council Bill [Lords],
Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Mr. CALDWELL(on behalf of The Chairman of Ways and Means) moved, "That, in the case of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time."
  Mr. J. J. MOONEY: Are we to have no explanation of the reasons for this proposal?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Masterman): I agree that the hon. Member has every right to demand an explanation. This no doubt is a not unusual course, but it is one we desire to avoid as far as possible. There are three Provisional Orders concerned in this, and in each there is a case of urgency, and there is an entirely satisfactory explanation for the delays. The first case is that of the Hitchin Order dealing with the breaking up of the hospital district, and with the transfer and disposal of the hospital site purchased by the Joint Board. There is no objection to it; it is at the desire of the district and of the Hertfordshire County Council. It is urgent because should infectious disease break out the situation, without an isolation hospital, might be serious. The reason for the delay which occurred is almost absurd; it has been due to a mistake in the printer's office of one of the local papers by which there was a failure to insert the statutory advertisement. The second case is that of the Maryport Order which deals with the water supply. That is urgent because the water supply, as it at present exists, has been condemned by the Local Government Board Inspector, and there would be very considerable responsibility in the event of disease
  366
  breaking out. The inspector reports that the imperfections and shortage of the supply are due to the inefficiency of certain apparatus, and that it is therefore necessary to proceed at once with the changes. The reason for the delay in this case is that the Local Government Board found it necessary to consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to their powers in regard to Provisional Orders of this description and after the legal opinion had been obtained and the local inquiry had been held there was not time to bring the Order forward in the ordinary way. The third case is a joint Sewerage Order for Whaley Bridge District. In this case a local inquiry was held, it was found that there were imperfections in the sewerage, as originally it was only proposed to include certain parts of the district in the sewerage scheme. Since then, as a result of the local inquiry, there has been a readjustment of the district which necessitated a further advertisement.
  Motion put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the first time.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL, 1909.
Copy ordered" of statement of particulars of loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off, in whole or in part, from the assets of the Local Loans Funds."[Mr. Hobhovse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Battleship Armament Marks.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what mark of 12-inch gun is carried on board the "Lord Nelson," "Dreadnought," "Invincible," and" Bellerophon"?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): It is not desirable to make public details of the armament of His Majesty's ships.
  Mr. C. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information is stamped on the breach end of all guns, and can be read by every man on board ship, and seen by every sightseer who may visit the vessels at Southend? Why, then, is the information refused?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: It is the case.

  British Evacuation of Crete.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the class or name of His Majesty's ship which will be stationed off the Cretan coast on the evacuation of that island by British troops in July?
  Mr. McKENNA: No ship has yet actually been selected.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the class of ship?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it will probably be a cruiser.

  Naval Chaplains in Scottish Waters.
  Mr. GULLANDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, under Vote 11, Subsection U, of the Navy Estimates, Scotland is the only part of the Empire where allowances are not given to ministers of religion for services to seamen and marines of His Majesty's ships and for accommodation in churches; and whether, in view of the increasing visits of the Fleet to Scottish waters, the work done amongst the sailors by ministers in Scotland, the accommodation in churches in Scotland made use of by the sailors, and the fact that there are no Presbyterian chaplains in the Navy, he will consider whether Scotland can be treated as favourably as other parts of the Empire?
  Mr. McKENNA: Fixed allowances, as detailed in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Londonderry on 24th June, are granted only when the ministrations required are practically continuous. No such conditions at present apply to any parts of Scotland. The regulations governing the payment of allowances for casual religious ministrations to seamen and marines of His Majesty's ships apply equally to all parts of the British Isles. In the case of ministrations to Coastguard men in Scotland, no payment is made to clergymen of the Established Church; but this condition also obtains with regard to services rendered to Coastguard men in England by clergymen of the Church of England.
  Mr. WATT: How has this injustice to Scotland arisen?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have just said that Scotland is suffering under no injustice.

  Abattoirs in Alderney.
  Mr. ESSEXasked if the consent of the Admiralty is a necessary condition prece-
  368
  dent to the setting up of abattoirs for the slaughter of foreign cattle in the island of Alderney; and, if so, has such consent been granted, or will it be?
  Mr. McKENNA: The consent of the Admiralty would be necessary to any scheme which involved the acquisition or use of Admiralty property, or which might tend to imperil its sanitary condition. No consent has been given by the Admiralty to any such scheme, and any application would have to be considered on its merits.
  Mr. ESSEX: Is it not impossible to erect an abattoir in the island without affecting Admiralty property?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would depend on the position. If it affected Admiralty property the consent of the Admiralty would have to be obtained.

  Navy Charts (Fishing Fleets).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the maps which were to have been issued to His Majesty's ships indicating the position of fishing fleets around the coast of Scotland have yet been issued; and whether a copy of the said map is obtainable?
  Mr. McKENNA: These charts are for the use of His Majesty's ships only, and will shortly be issued to them. They will not be obtainable by the general public, the information contained in them being confidential.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I be allowed to see one of these charts?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there would be any objection to the hon. Gentleman seeing one of them.

  British and German Torpedo Destroyers (Guns).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many completed British and German destroyers are armed with a more powerful gun than the 12-pounder?
  Mr. McKENNA: Great Britain, 2; Germany, 27.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with those figures of relative strengths?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; the hon. Gentleman must not assume that the existence of a single more powerful gun on a

  369
  destroyer renders that destroyer necessarily more potent as an enemy against a destroyer which has a larger number of smaller guns.

  Torpedo Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLE MOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the speed of the 16 destroyers provided for under the programme for 1908–9 is to be 27 knots; and if he will state what foreign Powers are building destroyers with a lower speed than 30 knots?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The following vessels building for foreign Powers and not yet completed have a designed speed of less than 30 knots:—

  France

  8 of 28

  knots.

  United States

  5 of 28

  knots.

  10 of 29.5

  knots.

  Japan

  1 of 29

  knots.

  Austria

  4 of 28

  knots.

  Brazil

  5 of 27

  knots.

  Comparisons of speed cannot be made unless the conditions of trial are identical.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a Return of the destroyers of the French, British, German and United States navy with a trial speed of 30 knots and over?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it would be most misleading if the hon. Gentleman got the Return for which he asks. Trial speed indicates nothing unless the conditions are the same. One destroyer under some conditions may only give 27 knots, but under other conditions it would give 33.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The right hon. Gentleman does not think that that will give us some information?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I do not think the information would be of the least value unless the conditions were the same.

  Protected Cruisers (Four-inch Guns).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what is the weight of the shell fired by the four-inch guns carried by the "Boadicea" class of protected cruiser?
  Mr. McKENNA: 31 pounds.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I am aware——
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure the House is always very glad to hear the hon. Gentle-man's speeches, but not at question time.

  British Navy (New Floating Docks).
  Mr. NAPIERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state whether any decision has been come to with regard to the provision of additional docking accommodation for warships of the largest size on the East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: It has been decided to construct two floating docks capable of taking ships of war of the largest size. The port to which they will be sent will depend upon the strategical requirements of the time.
  Mr. NAPIER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now say to what two ports these decks will be sent in the first instance?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend is greatly concerned on behalf of the Med-way, and I have no doubt that one of them will go to the Medway.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these two docks are those for which a small instalment is taken in this year's Estimates?
  Mr. MCKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. NAPIER: Will the dock which goes to the Medway be operated and worked from Sheerness?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would seem probable, from the point of view of facilities for carrying on repairs.
  Mr. J. JENKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to establish or build a dry dock?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that arises out of the question.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state where the new floating docks are to be placed; and how many on the East Coast will be capable of floating a "Dreadnought"?
  Mr. McKENNA: This question is answered by the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is it intended that Grimsby shall have one of these docks?
  Mr. McKENNA: We are considering various facilities offered at different ports, and it would be impossible for me to say at the present moment where the docks will be situated.

  Transvaal (Chinese Labour).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Chinese labourers remaining in the Transvaal on the 30th April last; and whether a date has yet been fixed for the departure of all such labourers as now remain?
  Colonel SEELY: The number of Chinese remaining on the 30th of April was 7,734, and the last is due to return in January, 1910.

  Defence of Dinizulu.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state (1) the cost of the prosecution in the defence, respectively, of Dinizulu and the other Zulu chiefs recently tried at the instance of the Natal Government; (2) what financial provision the Government made for the defence of Dinizulu; and what proportion that bore to the whole cost; (3) if any report has been asked for or received from Dinizulu's solicitors or counsel showing what was necessary to be done in order to secure a proper defence for the accused; and whether the Government has paid these necessities or has left them to be provided for by Miss Colenso?
  Colonel SEELY: The Governor of Natal will be asked to furnish such information as may be available as to the cost of the trials of Dinizulu and the other chiefs. Till that information is received it is impossible to say what proportion the contribution of His Majesty's Government, which, as my hon. Friend is aware, was two thousand guineas, bore to the whole cost. As regards Miss Colenso, I regret that I can add nothing to my statement of the day before yesterday.
  Mr. FLYNN: Did not the Colonial Secretary a year ago by his implied censure of the action of the Natal Government in withholding this unfortunate chief's salary make himself responsible for the cost of the defence, and ought not to have relied upon a private person?
  Colonel SEELY: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Natal Government
  372
  itself furnished a sum of £500 for the purpose of the trial and other expenditure as well.
  Mr. REES: Is it not a new precedent for the Colonial Office to identify itself with the defence of a person placed on his trial by a Colonial Government for what it believes to be good reasons?
  Colonel SEELY: I have said before that the circumstances in this case were themselves unprecedented. The £500 was for the purpose of the defence, and other sums were contributed by the Natal Government, for setting up this special court, amounting to a large amount.
  Mr. BYLES: Is the House to understand that the Government is going to leave him to defend himself against accusations, all of which have been disproved—accusations of a most grave character—and to leave him to depend upon private persons?
  Colonel SEELY: He was a Government officer, but the Government did not leave him to defend himself or to face the charges. A very large sum was paid by the Government under circumstances which are unprecedented, because the circumstances were themselves unprecedented—a sum of 2,000 guineas.
  Mr. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman allow that all the charges were disproved? Will he give us some assurance that public funds will not be used to recoup Miss Colenso?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman try him by an Indian coercion trial?

  Leeward Islands (Export Duties).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the export duties in the Leeward Islands were originally imposed on the assurance that so soon as a surplus could be shown the duties should be in whole or in part remitted; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that such a surplus has now been established, he can now give effect to such assurances?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no export duties imposed in the Leeward Islands as a whole. As I explained in my answer to the hon. Gentleman's previous question on the subject, each Presidency has its own system of taxation enacted by its own Legislature, and in some of the Presidencies export duties on different articles

  373
  have been in force for a considerable period. Any such assurance as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers must have been given, if at all, in respect of a particular Presidency. If he will inform me in which Presidency or Presidencies he believes the assurance to have been given, I will look into the matter, and, if necessary, ask the Secretary of State to obtain a report from the Governor on the subject.

  Ocean Island (Pacific Phosphate Company).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state under what agreement the Pacific Islands Company (now Pacific Phosphate Company) became bound to pay the Imperial Exchequer 6d. per ton royalty on all the guano phosphates exported from Ocean Island in and after the year 1906; also the date on which this agreement was signed, and who were the signatories thereto?
  Colonel SEELY: A licence to occupy Ocean Island generally on the terms mentioned by my hon. Friend was granted to the Pacific Islands Company on 13th August, 1901. The licence was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, on behalf of the Crown, and by Lord Stanmore and the late Mr. Ebenezer Cayford, directors, and Mr. E. Benbigh, acting secretary, on behalf of the company. This licence was, however, surrendered, and the one at present in force issued to the Pacific Phosphate Company on 31st December, 1902. The signatories to the latter were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent (in the absence in South Africa of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham) on behalf of the Crown; Lord Stanmore and Mr. E. A. Levy, directors; and Mr. A. J. Reeves, secretary, on behalf of the company. I may explain that this second licence, the one now in force, made no alteration in the pecuniary conditions of the earlier licence.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: Is the Company possessed of personalty? Is it registered in London?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know. I think it would be easy to find out who they are.
  Mr. ALEXANDER CROSS: Is he aware that great injury to public interests was done under this licence, and the monetary consideration was ludicrously insufficient.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know about that; it all happened a very long time ago.

  Small Holdings (Harris, Inverness-shire).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he was aware that the cottars of Harris, Inverness-shire, have recently decided to take forcible possession of a farm in that island unless the estate managers accede to their request for a division of the farm into small holdings; and will he state whether the Congested Districts Board are making any efforts to bring about a pacific arrangement?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Arthur Dewar): I am informed that a resolution in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend was recently communicated to the estate managers, who took what in the circumstances was the proper course of applying for interim interdict, which was granted; and I trust that the action taken may be effectual in checking the threatened-proceedings.

  Treasury Prosecution (County Contribution)
  Mr. BOTTOM LEYasked what was the amount of the county contribution towards the costs of the prosecution numbered 421, in which the persons charged are described as——, and three others, referred to on page 43 of the Return recently issued by order of the House, under the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 , 1884, and 1908; and whether, in arriving at the cost to the Treasury, any item has been included to cover the services of the Treasury solicitor, his clerks, and officials?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I beg to answer this question on behalf of my hon. Friend. Nothing has been received by the Director of Public Prosecutions by way of contribution from any local funds, but the allowances for witnesses for attending the magisterial inquiry in the case referred to amounted to £227 17s. 3d., and were paid out of the City funds. This figure is not included in the Return, as it was not a payment made by the director. Neither in this nor-in any other case in the Return is any item of cost charged for the services of the Director of Public Prosecutions or his staff, who are paid by salary.

  Small Holdings (Gloucestershire).
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether anything is being done in the neighbourhood of Upper

  375
  or Lower Quinton, in Gloucestershire, to provide small holdings and allotments; and, if so, what?
  Mr. J. H. WHITLEY (on behalf of Sir E. Strachey): Three applications have been received from this district, and one of them has been satisfied. The county council have endeavoured to acquire by voluntary arrangement land to satisfy the other two applicants. They have, however, failed to do so and have decided to make an Order for compulsory hiring.
  Mr. ESSEXasked how many applications for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act have been made in the parish of Welford-on-Avon, Gloucestershire, for what amounts these several applications were, and at what dates were they made; has anything been done to satisfy those applicants, and, if so, what, and when; were they offered an out-of-the-way field on Lord Sackville's estate, which field was practically derelict, being largely grown over with gorse, brambles, thorns, etc.; and, if so, has any official seen and reported on this field?
  Mr. WHITLEY: Thirteen applications have been received by the County Council. Seven of them were for two acres, three for one and a-quarter acres, and the other three for six, five, and three acres respectively. Ten of them were received in May and two in March of last year, the other one in May last. The applicant for six acres has been satisfied and the County Council have submitted to the Board an Order for the compulsory acquisition of sufficient land to satisfy the ether applicants. The field which Lord Sackville offered to the county council was conveniently situated for small holdings, but the character of the soil and the condition of the field rendered it unsuitable. The offer of it was, therefore, declined by the council. It was not seen by any of our inspectors.
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether the Board of Agriculture have any reports upon the small holdings established under the last Act at Clifford Chambers, Gloucestershire; and, if so, what is the nature of those reports?
  Mr. WHITLEY: The reply is in the negative, but we shall be glad to make inquiries.

  Imported Cattle (Abattoirs, Alderney).
  Mr. ESSEXasked if it is proposed to permit the establishment of abattoirs for
  376
  the killing of Argentine and other foreign cattle in the island of Alderney?
  Mr. WHITLEY: The reply is in the negative.

  Bee Disease.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he can furnish any information with regard to the bee disease that has broken out in Buckinghamshire and the Isle of Wight; whether the disease is spreading; and if any means of combating the disease has been discovered or any reward offered for the discovery of a cure?
  Mr. WHITLEY: We have published in our Journal reports as to the investigations made as to the nature and cause of the bee disease in the Isle of Wight, and I shall be glad to send the gallant and hon. Member a copy. A suspected case has occurred in Buckinghamshire, but there is no evidence to show that the disease is spreading. No remedial measures have yet been discovered, but an expert scientist is still engaged in making investigations in the hope of doing so. We do not think that any useful purpose would be served by offering the reward suggested.

  Post Office (Wyck Rissington).
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether the post office promised for Wyck Rissington has yet been opened; and what departments of postal and other services are being granted?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I hope it may be possible to open this post office in the course of a few days for ordinary postal business, including postal order work. Money order and Savings Bank business will not, however, be transacted for the present.

  Telephone Service (Upper Slaughter, Stow-on-the-Wold).
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether the telephone service promised to the village of Upper Slaughter, Stow-on-the-Wold, is yet completed and in use; and, if not, when it will be?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is hoped that the service will be in working order in about a week.

  Dewsbury Board of Guardians.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a member of the Dewsbury board of

  377
  guardians has not attended a meeting for more than twelve months, and that the guardians refuse to take steps to fill up the vacancy; and will he take action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I understand that the facts are as stated, and that the guardians have not taken steps to declare the seat vacant in view of the fact that there will be a triennial election in April next, when the whole of the guardians go out of office. Unless the absence of the guardian in question from the meetings of the board has been caused by illness, or by some other reason approved by the guardians, they should declare the office to be vacant, and thereupon, if notice in writing of the vacancy is given by two guardians to the chairman or clerk, an election must be held to fill it up. I am pointing this out to the guardians; but I have no control over them in the matter.

  Old Age Pension (John Thompson, Blackburn).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has had the case of John Thompson, of Blackburn, a claimant for an old age pension, under consideration on an appeal by the pension officer; is he aware that the pension committee granted his pension, and that the grounds of the pension officer's appeal are that the claimant, who is an Army pensioner, has received advances from the guardians which are repaid in full out of his Army pension every quarter; and if this is disqualifying poor law relief?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received an appeal from the pension officer against the decision of the pension committee allowing a pension in this case, and I am in communication with the guardians on the subject. Until all the facts are before me I cannot express an opinion on the particular case, but I may say generally that I am advised that where poor relief has been given the repayment of the cost does not remove the disqualification caused by its receipt.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does it apply to a case where the guardians simply make an advance to an army pensioner and the advance is deducted from the pension?
  Mr. BURNS: That would depend upon the individual circumstances of each case.
  Mr. BYLES: Is a pensioner disqualified if his pension is paid through the guardians?
  Mr. BURNS: That depends on whether the guardians act simply as a medium of communication from the pension officer to the pensioner. There are circumstances when advances assume the form of outdoor relief.

  Old Age Pensions—Husband and Wife (Outdoor Relief).
  Captain CLIVEasked if it has been finally decided that the grant of outdoor relief, however small, to a husband disqualifies the wife also for a pension; and, if not, why the decision of the Dore Sub-Committee of the Hereford Pension Committee to grant a pension to No. 317,: Hannah Lewis, Shipton Croft, was reversed, though her husband has only had 2s. 6d. a week, the lowest sum that the local board of guardians ever grant to one person.
  Mr. BURNS: It would not necessarily follow that a wife was disqualified for an old age pension because her husband received relief. All the circumstances must be considered. In the case referred to the claimant had no independent means of her own, and hence it appeared to the Local Government Board that she must participate in the relief given to her husband,, and that consequently she was disqualified.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Has it not been repeatedly laid down in regulations issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and in reply to questions in this House, that Poor Law relief given to a husband does not disqualify the wife for a pension unless the amount is so large that it is obviously intended for the support of both.
  Mr. BURNS: Yes; but where, as in this particular case, the amount of outdoor relief given to the husband is only 2s. 6d. a week, obviously an amount incapable of sustaining both, we construe it the other way.
  Mr. FLYNN: I understand the poorer the person is the greater the chance of being struck off the pension list?
  Mr. BURNS: No, not always.
  Mr. FLAVIN: When, as is the universal practice in Ireland, a man gets a shilling a week, what proportion of that will go to the support of the wife?
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: In this particular case is the House to understand that if this woman had had independent means she would not have been disqualified?
  Mr. BURNS: That would depend upon her means and their relationship to her husband's means.
  Captain CLIVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular case the woman was occasionally in receipt of relief from her children?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Have the Board of Guardians indicated that this relief was entirely for the husband or partly for him And partly for the wife?
  Mr. BURNS: If the husband had only had 2s.6d.—the lowest sum that a board of guardians can grant to one person—it was granted to the husband.
  Lord R. CECIL: Are we to understand that the ground why the woman was disqualified was that since she had no means of her own she must be assumed to have had part of the 2s. 6d.?
  Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord has correctly assumed the facts. The guardians and the Local Government Board say it is impossible if a man receives half-a-crown a week, and his wife has no means, that he is going to allow his wife to go without any portion of that 2s. 6d. She must share it.

  Steamship "Woodburn"(Russian Territorial Waters).
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the facts of the firing upon the British vessel "Woodburn" by Russian warships; and what action he proposes to take?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of the reply returned to the questions which were asked on this subject on 21st June. Neither of the documents there mentioned has yet reached me, but I hope to receive both shortly. I may state, however, that it has been ascertained that the "Woodburn" was in Russian territorial waters, and no question of the high seas is involved.

  Wreck of Steamship "Republic" (Inquiry).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the reason why there has been no public inquiry into the wreck of the s.s. "Republic" early this year?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The "Republic" sank after collision with the Italian steamer "Florida" in American waters on 23rd January last. Formal investigation was not ordered in this country, as the Board of Trade had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses from the Italian vessel, and any public inquiry that might have been held in their absence would necessarily have been of an ex parte character and possibly prejudicial to the interests of the English vessel. Actions were entered in the United States District Court, and are, I am informed, still pending. It was reported in the newspapers that the "Florida" had been arrested by a United States marshal and subsequently sold by auction.

  Finance Bill Proposals. Income Tax (Payments by Life Assurance Companies).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the Finance Bill he will, in order to encourage thrift, provide as to the levy of ordinary and super-income taxes from life assurance companies that these taxes shall henceforth be levied only on the amount of ascertained business profit, and not on the income derived from investments made In order to gain business profit?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Liability to supertax is, under the proposals of the Finance Bill, limited to individuals. My right hon. Friend regrets that he does not see his way to modify the existing law as regards ordinary Income Tax in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend.

  Increment and Development Taxes.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Finance Bill makes any specific provision for taxing the increment of amount or casualty on transfer by a vassal which the owner of a superiority in North Britain may presently levy from the new vassal over and above what the superior received on the occasion of any former transfer; and whether he proposes to make any exemption or reduction in favour of a vassal who may be called upon by the superior to pay

  381
  by way of casualty or fine upon a transfer to a new vassal of the subject a year's rent thereon incremented by the buildings erected by and goodwill created by the vassal?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The Increment Tax in the Bill is leviable only on a transfer on sale of land, the grant of a lease, or on a death. My right hon. Friend does not propose, therefore, to make any exemption or reduction such as is suggested in the question.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the incidence of Increment Tax and halfpenny Development Taxes under the Finance Bill on properties held by vassals in superiorities in North Britain, such as the Duke of Roxburgh's superiority over Kelso, whether the superior or the vassals will be held liable to the payment of the Development Tax; whether the superior will be entitled to any exemption or allowance if his vassal refuses to develop; and whether, when the vassal has developed his property by making a garden or building a shop or factory or establishing a good will, the superior will be entitled, on any occasion of casualty or relief, to levy from the vassal any increase of payment based on such improved value, and in what time and manner the superior receiving any such increase will be required to pay the Increment Tax?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The taxes mentioned by my hon. Friend are, under the Finance Bill, payable by the vassal and not by the superior. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. Although the superior may be entitled to levy an increased amount of casualty in consequence of development of his land made by the vassal, the superior will not be required to pay the Increment Tax.
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask whether in that case the tax will not be paid twice over?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not think so.

  Income Tax (Germany and Prussia).
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether in the German Empire there is any Income Tax; and whether in Prussia the maximum rate of Income Tax on the largest incomes is no more than 4 per cent.?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no Imperial Income Tax, but, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Aston Manor, on the 28th inst., a system of Income Taxation prevails in practically every German State. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but by a law which passed the Prussian legislature on 26th May, 1909, the rate of the Income Tax on the highest class of income (those over £1,800 per annum) has been raised by 25 per cent., making the rate 5 per cent. instead of 4 per cent. The Erganzungssteuer or property tax (a tax on capital complementary to the Income Tax) has also been raised by 25 per cent. of the tax due. This tax worked out on the old scale in terms of Income Tax amounted to l¼ per cent., which would now be 19–16ths, or something over 1½ per cent.

  Income Tax in France.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether in France there is any Income Tax payable on French Rentes or any French or foreign Government securities; and whether Income Tax in France is payable by the individual on profits on trade or on professional earnings?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I believe that the French dividend tax does not apply to French Rentes or to any French or foreign Government securities, but falls on the dividends and interest of all companies or enterprises, financial, industrial, commercial or civil, and also on the interest of loans of departments, communes, etc. There is no Income Tax at present in France in the strict British sense of the term, but as I explained to the hon. Member for Aston Manor on the 28th instant, there are several direct taxes which correspond generally with our income tax. The existing taxes fall upon the trader and professional man either through the ImpÔt Foncier if he owns land; through the dividend tax; or through the patentes tax, which is an annual duty on the exercise of a profession or trade graduated according to size of town, rent of premises, number of employés, etc. It has been calculated that this latter tax represents an average rate of about 3 per cent. on the revenue derived from the exercise of the profession in question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a millionaire in France, the whole of whose money is invested in French Rentes, pays no Income Tax of any sort whatever?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, according to the answer I have given I think that is so.

  Excise Licences (Duties Payable after Renewal).
  Mr. GRETTONasked whether the existing Excise licences held by rectifiers of spirits, dealers in spirits (including the additional licences to retail), manufacturers of sweets, retailers of sweets, and dealers in beer (including, in England, the additional licences to retail), will expire on 5th July next; and, if so, whether, on the renewal of any and which of them, the duties specified in the Budget Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means will be then payable?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The licences referred to in this question except the licence to a dealer in beer in Ireland (which expires on]0th October) will expire as stated in the question. Upon the renewal of the licences on 6th July next, the duties will be charged for the year at the existing rates, but it is provided by clause 39 of the Finance Bill that these renewed licences shall cease to be in force on the 30th September next, and that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall repay, or allow to the holder of any such licence, an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished.
  Mr. GRETTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the duty payable on the new licences will be wholly proportionate to the charge due before 30th September?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the whole of the Licence Duty will be payable on the scale of the existing duties, and that the proper proportion will be payable on 30th September.
  Mr. GRETTON: Do I understand that that refers to all the new licences?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The duties will be charged on the existing scale.
  Mr. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new Licence Duties apply to Ireland or not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, as far as I know, they do.
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask whether, in the event of the Bill not becoming law by that date there will be a further postponement and a smaller proportion payable?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, if a smaller proportion was due a smaller proportion-would be payable.

  Taxation of Ungotten Minerals.
  Mr. GUESTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty of accurately estimating the value of ungotten minerals, he would be prepared to consider an alternative tax on mineral-royalties?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider any such alternative proposals as may be laid before him which produce the same results.
  Mr. GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the desirability of introducing a fresh Resolution, as the Amendments which hon. Members desire to-move will be out of order, because they do not fall within the scope of the existing Resolution?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not for me to say whether the Amendments will be out of order or not.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. In the first place, does he consider the mineral clauses of the Finance Bill are unworkable; and, secondly, will the Government make a statement on the subject before the House is asked to pass Clause 1?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot answer the second question put to me. I think it had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposed change would penalise the man who does work his mine, and would continue to exempt the man who shuts his mine up?
  Mr. J. D. REES: Does this apply to the halfpenny tax on undeveloped land?
  Lord BALCARRES: In view of the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman-that he is prepared to abandon this tax, will he be so good as to request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement this afternoon as to that part of the mineral tax affected by Clause I?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord has attributed to me something which I have not said. All I have said is that my right hon. Friend would be very glad to consider any alternative proposal.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to consider any alternative proposal having the same financial effect?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the great importance of letting the House know whether there is to be a tax on mining royalties or not in view of the discussion to-day?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am sure that the hon. Member is quite as capable of pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer as I am.

  Frankfort Increment Duty.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether in Frankfort Increment Duty is paid solely upon transfers on sale of land, and not upon leases?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The tax in Frankfort is payable on change of ownership and is reckoned on a basis of sale price. No mention of leaseholds occurs in the law, possibly because transactions in real property in Frankfort are practically confined to sales and purchases of freehold tenures. I may, however, mention that the latest Hamburg law, which came into force on 12th October last, provides that the same principles of the taxation of increment value shall be applied to leaseholds as to 'freeholds. This provision has been introduced by way of precaution as leaseholds are at present very uncommon in Hamburg.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: May I ask whether this tax does not apply to houses as well as land?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposes to lay upon the Table a Blue Book containing all the information about this Frankfort administration, and the other Papers which were promised to the House. It is already in the hands of the printer, and I hope it will be in the hands of Members in the course of a day or two.

  Fetherstonhaugh Estate (Westmeath).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to say when the distribution of the Killulagh ranch,
  386
  Fetherstonhaugh estate, Westmeath, will be carried out?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners expect to be in a postion to take over possession of these lands at an early date for the purposes of distribution.

  Meetings in Irish Schoolhouses.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether school-houses in rural districts in Ireland are available, outside school hours, for residents in those districts to meet for lawful purposes, such as the discussion of land purchase in their district, with the consent of the manager and subject to the security of property; and will no ill consequence result to a teacher who allows such use, whether he is present at the meeting or not?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the use of National schoolhouses outside school hours is under the control of the managers, subject to the Commissioners' rules, which provide, amongst other things, that vested schoolhouses are not to be used for any purpose other than education without the special approval of the Commissioners, and that no political meetings are to be held in any schoolhouse. National school teachers have no power to sanction the use of schoolhouses for any purpose outside school hours.
  Mr. FLYNN: Does not this rule as to obtaining the approval of the Commissioners of National Education practically abrogate all the responsibility of the manager with regard to the use of the school?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. As the hon. Member knows, certain schoolhouses in Ireland are vested, and others are different in character. The vested schoolhouses may not be used without the special leave of the Commissioners. There is a general rule that no political meetings should be held in any school.

  Agricultural Rates Act (Renewal).
  Mr. GRETTON (for Captain Faber)asked the Prime Minister if he will state on what date the Agricultural Rates Relief Act expires; and whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Act expires on 31st March, 1910. The

  387
  Government will in due time propose a temporary renewal of the Act, in view of their intention to deal with the whole relations between Imperial and local taxation.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON: Is it the intention of the Government to propose that renewal during the present Session of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Was not the effect of this legislation to make the urban ratepayer pay half the rates of the agricultural ratepayer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  Incense in London Diocese.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lord Bishop of London has issued regulations sanctioning the ceremonial use of incense in his diocese, although this practice has been condemned by the Court of Arches and declared by the Lambeth tribunal to be non-permissible in the ritual of the Church of England, the same bishop having also permitted the introduction of illegal vestments and other irregularities; and whether he proposes to take any action, legislative or otherwise, to prevent the law being overridden, and to ensure to clergy and laity their right to a legal performance of divine worship in the diocese of London?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have been in communication with the Bishop of London on this subject. He informs me that no change has been made in any of the matters referred to in the hon. Member's question during the last eight years, and no fresh regulations have been issued with regard to them. The only change in the situation which has occurred is that in a sermon preached a few weeks ago at All Saints, Margaret-street, by the Bishop, he announced that he would not hesitate now to be present at the use of incense, where the regulations made by his predecessor and continued by himself were loyally observed. The use of incense on this occasion was not what is called ceremonial use. I do not propose to take any action.

  Land Purchase Delays.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether delay in completing purchase transactions under the Land Purchase Acts is caused by lack
  388
  of money or by official slowness due to the knowledge possessed by a large staff that their occupation is essentially temporary; and is there in operation in the Estates Commissioners' offices any system of measuring output by the number of titles investigated, the number of documents examined, the number of estates or agreements dealt with, and recognition of abundant and correct work as distinguished from small and defective work?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no ground for the suggestion that the officials of the Land Commission work slowly because the appointments of many of them are temporary. Any delays which may occur are due not to want of money, which has hitherto been advanced as required, or to the lack of official zeal, but to the magnitude of the work of land purchase. The Land Commission are in a position at any time to ascertain the number of titles, estates, and agreements dealt with by their examiners and other officers.

  Seizures by Irish Land Commission.
  Mr. GINNELLasked when the Irish Land Commission, collecting interest in lieu of rent for a landlord under a decree, have to resort to seizure, do they seize necessaries of life; and do they propose in the case of Widow Early, on the Chapman-estate, Westmeath, to seize the cow that supplies herself and her children with milk, there being no other property worth seizing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The decrees of the Court are not executed by the Land Commission,, but by the Sheriff of the county.

  Land Purchase Arrears (Proceedings for Recovery).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the legal proceedings taken by the Irish Land Commission last winter against 4,964 quasi-purchasers, and against 9.476 payers of interest in lieu of rent, in all cases added some costs to the original amount claimed: and whether he will state the number of these cases settled, with the minimum addition of costs and the aggregate amount of these costs; the number defended or resisted with an increase of costs, with the aggregate amount of these costs: the total addition to the original claims by the proceedings taken; the number of cases and total amount not recovered, and for which the

  389
  Development Grant and the grants otherwise payable to local bodies are liable; the number of farms occupied by defendants and not paid for; and the number sold in satisfaction of the claim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The information asked for by the hon. Member could not be procured without imposing on the staff of the Land Commission, who are already fully occupied, an amount of labour out of all proportion to the value of the Return when made out. I cannot, therefore, ask them to supply these particulars. A good deal of the information which the hon. Member requires will be found in the last Annual Report of the Land Commission.

  Old Age Pensions (Stranorlar Case).
  Mr. CHARLES MacVEIGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what ground the Local Government Board disallowed the pension granted to Widow Madge Doherty, of Woodlands, by the Stranorlar (county Donegal) Pension Committee, she having been shown by the Census to be 73 years of age; and whether he will cause her case to be inquired into in every detail with a view to having her pension restored to her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The statutory condition as to age was fulfilled in this case, but the Local Government Board disallowed the pension on the ground that the claimant's means, as calculated under the Act, exceed the prescribed limit. The case was carefully considered by the Board, and it is not open to them to review their decision on the claim.

  Affray with Police (County Limerick).
  Mr. LUNDONasked what has been the result of the inquiry made by the police authorities into the bayonet charge made by the police on parties cutting turf in the Portriad bog, at Cappamore, county Limerick, on 4th May last; will the name of the policeman who stabbed John Mulcahy be made known, and will any prosecution be initiated against him, considering that Mulcahy's life was in danger for more than a week; and will the Government compensate those who were wounded on the occasion, particularly John Mulcahy, who was detained in the Union Hospital, Limerick, for four weeks, and who it is feared has been permanently injured as a result of the stab received on the occasion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The inquiry into this matter will not be completed for some little time, and, in the meantime, I am not in a position to answer the remainder of the question.
  Mr. LUNDON: Is there any foundation for the report that the inspector who ordered the charge has been transferred to another district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think not.

  Removal of Timber from Irish Estates.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether, on the sale of judicial tenancies under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, the Estates Commissioners have any regard for the fact that in many cases the landlords have removed the timber and hedgerows, or shelters, which were growing on the lands at the time when the rents were fixed; is he aware that injustices are being perpetrated upon tenants in this respect; and does he propose to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not aware of any case such as is mentioned in the question.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Estates Com-misioners have been furnished with several cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have communicated with them, and they tell me they are not aware of any cases in which the landlord removed the timber.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not proposed in the Irish Land Bill to prevent the cutting of timber in cases of this kind, and have not the Irish Agricultural Department got powers in the matter at the present time?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is not the least doubt that this removal of timber— whether by landlords or tenant purchasers—is a very intolerable injury to Ireland, and the land legislation to which the hon. Member refers proposes to deal with it in a very drastic manner. I do not know whether it will prove to be successful. The Agricultural Department are aware of the evil complained of.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have not the Agricultural Department had powers given them to acquire timber for the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes; and I think that in one or two instances they have exercised that power.

  Land Purchase (Delays in Vesting).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that on the Charles Waring estate the tenants of the townlands of Corodoagh, Drumeva, Pottle-brack, and Drumanespie signed purchase agreements in April, 1905, which were duly filed, undertaking to pay 3¾ per cent. interest in lieu of rent pending the vesting of their holdings; is he aware that the agent assured them that this vesting operation would take place in six months or so from the date of signing their purchase agreements; and, in view of the delay by the owners of this estate in making title, will he direct steps to be taken so as to secure to these tenants the undertaking entered into on the owners' behalf when the tenants were induced to sign their purchase agreements and have them compensated for the heavy extra payments they have had to make owing to the landlord's default.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase money of this estate cannot be advanced or the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants until the vendor's title to sell has been proved. The interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants is in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreements signed by them. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the assurance alleged to have been given by the agent.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the fact that the delay is caused entirely by the landlord, they will refuse to collect the moneys until the landlord makes good his promise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The delay is occasioned, as I understand, by the unfortunate position of the vendor. That is not his fault, but his misfortune.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is not the delay caused in many cases by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That question was discussed at great length the other day, and I cannot go into it now.

  Yeomanry Training, Lanarkshire.
  Sir W. MENZIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been re-
  392
  ported to him that yeomanry training in Lanarkshire had been debarred from entering on non-agricultural land during their recent manoeuvres; whether this has had an adverse effect upon their training; and, if so, whether he can take any steps to prevent a recurrence of such incidents?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No such Report has, as yet, reached the War Office.
  Sir W. MENZIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. HALDANE: Certainly.

  Finance Bill (Land Clauses).
  Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATE: I wish to ask a question, of which I have given private notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and about which there seems to be a great difference of opinion, whether minerals are included in the word "land" in Clause 1 for the purpose of the payment of lucre ment Duty?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I understand the hon. Gentleman asks whether minerals are included in Clause I?
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: For payment of Increment Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly they are.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: With regard to the alternative tax on royalties, may I ask whether it would be possible for these to be included in the word "land" without recommitting the clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a statement made by my hon. Friend in answer to a question. With regard to ungotten minerals that comes later, and has nothing to do with Clause?

  Suffragist Disturbances at Westminster.

    MOTION FOR ADJORNMENT.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask a question of which I have given private notice. May I ask the Home Secretary by whose orders certain members of the Women's Social and Political Union were prevented not only from entering St. Stephen's Hall last night, but the precincts of the House?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I take entire responsibility for the action

    393
    of the police outside the House in giving effect to the Sessional Order of the House of Commons. As regards the action inside the House, the case is different.
    Mr. KEIRHARDIE: What were the circumstances under which these ladies, who were not creating a disturbance, were prevented from entering St. Stephen's Hall?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman address his question to me?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I meant it for the Home Secretary, but I should be glad to know from you, Sir, whether it is in the power of the police to prevent, without your authority, anyone from entering the precincts of these buildings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the answer to that must depend upon the character of the person seeking admission. I must remind the hon. Member of what the Sessional Order is on this matter under which the police act. The Order of the House is:—
    "Metropolitan Police. —Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid."
    I may say, in answer to the Hon. Member, that this has been done, and that the police have to exercise their discretion as to the manner in which they carry out the Rule. The police acted yesterday under that Rule, and they did not permit the entrance of certain ladies who on a previous occasion had entered and created a disturbance.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I just say, Sir, that these ladies were escorted to the entrance of the House, and that there was no disturbance of any kind up to that point. They sought to be allowed to enter to interview a Member of the House, and the police had no knowledge of any intention, nor had the ladies ally intention, to commit any disturbance. Arising out of these circumstances, the question
    394
    I want to ask is whether it is within the power of the police to prevent anyone whom they select from entering the precincts of this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: My answer to that is the same as I gave at first—that it must depend on the character and antecedents of the persons seeking admission. If on previous occasions they have come in and created disturbance, I think the police are perfectly justified in refusing them admission again. Prevention is better than cure.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Under the circumstances, I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the members of the Metropolitan Police force in forcibly preventing seven ladies who, in an orderly manner, sought to interview a Member of Parliament, from entering St. Stephen's.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must take responsibility for what occurred. The police were acting under my authority, given under the direction of the House. If the hon. Member takes exception to that his proper course is to put down a Motion censuring me for the course I have taken. I do not think it would be fair to censure the police.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I was under the impression that the Home Secretary was responsible for the action of the police, and it is against his Department the Motion is directed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is mistaken there. I am responsible for the conduct of the police within the building. Outside the building the Home Secretary is responsible.

  Frankfort and Colonial Papers.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with reference to a Paper which the Secretary to the Treasury was good enough to promise should be presented to-day? It is not now in the Vote Office. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon we are likely to have it, as it has a very important bearing on our present discussions?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is in the printer's hands, and I understand that it is almost ready for circulation. The idea was to have all these Papers in one volume; not merely the Frankfort, but also

  395
  the Colonial Papers. If it had not been for that I could have circulated the Frankfort Papers some days ago. I will do my very best to get the Papers circulated, for undoubtedly it would be a great convenience to the Committee to have them as soon as possible.

BANKS (UNCLAIMED BALANCES AND SECURITIES).
Mr. H. BOTTOMLEYasked leave to introduce a Bill" to provide for the disclosure and handing over by bankers to the Department of the Public Trustee of the amount of the dormant balances and securities in their possession, and of un-presented old bank-notes issued by them."
I have an apology to offer to the House for intruding in this way, but the intention is twofold—first, because the Government has need of money; and, secondly, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on many occasions thrown out invitations to Members of this House to indicate sources of revenue alternative to some of those contained in the Budget. This Bill proposes that after a certain date, and every year thereafter, every banker in the United Kingdom shall furnish a return showing what dormant balances and what securities have remained in his possession for a period of six years, and have not been operated upon in any way by the customers in whose names they stand. Further, what bank-notes have been issued for a period exceeding six years shall also be returned. A year ago I had a similar Bill, and since then I have inquired very deeply into the subject, and accumulated an immense amount of information. After one or two illustrations which I will give I venture to say that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be grateful to me for the information. The proposition of the Bill is this: Through deaths, removals abroad, the extinction of families, the carelessness of testators, and in various other ways, an enormous amount of wealth, which I do not hesitate deliberately to place at many, many millions of pounds, has accumulated in the hands of bankers of the United Kingdom. It consists partly of liquid assets in the shape of unclaimed bank balances, and it consists partly of securities and valuables now in the offices of the bankers, to which no claimants can be found. So far as the first class is concerned I can establish beyond
396
dispute that the amount runs into millions. As regards the second, it is no exaggeration to say that the strongholds of the bankers are to-day groaning with wealth which is at the service of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A year ago I put before the House one or two instances within my own knowledge of this mine of wealth. I mentioned the case of an old lady who had upwards of £20,000 in one bank, the name of which I offered to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not so far honoured me by an invitation to do so. This old lady had been in the habit of going periodically and examining her money, having it counted, and then putting it back again. She had not been heard of for many years, but as a result of that revelation last year the old-lady has been traced, and found in a lunatic asylum. I heard of a case of an officer, a friend of mine, who lost his life in South Africa. He was known to have large sums in the banks to which there can be no clue obtained. I will give one or two other illustrations, which I think will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a proposal of great substance and of great urgency. The principal culprits in the matter are the private banks. Until we had strong rooms and modern institutions, it was the custom for most families to hoard their wealth in the cellars of the private banks. Since I introduced this Bill a year ago, I have been inundated with cases, mainly from private French families, who, during the Revolution, sent their valuables and their securities over here, and millions of which remain here to-day unclaimed. Let me give the House one or two cases showing the vitality of this proposal. Here I have a case which, I am sure, will receive the sympathetic consideration of every Member of the House when I mention that it comes from a lady who is the mother of a gallant officer who lost his life by the disaster to His Majesty's Submarine A 8, which went down, with all hands, in Plymouth about a year ago. This is a concrete modern case, and I respectfully ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his attention to this letter. This lady writes:—
"My son, George Beedham, was chief engineer of H.M. submarine A8 which went down at Plymouth in June, 1905, when he lost his life. For some years previously he had given me accounts of his savings and on August 3rd, 1904, he told me he had got together £380 During a period of about six months after his death every bank in the United Kingdom was circularised, but without result."
I say that is a scandalous shame. There is no obligation on any bank to disclose

397
the whereabouts of that money. I observe with pleasure that both Members of the City of London are present, and I respectfully call the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague (Sir F. Banbury) to a case which I am also prepared to verify, showing that enormous balances of old Mansion House Funds— this is a matter which deeply touches the honour of the City—have accumulated in the hands of private banks, which have been absorbed by joint stock banks, and not a penny of which has yet been accounted for. I hope the junior Member (Sir F. Banbury), in view of that deliberate statement, will think there is a case for further inquiry. I have here a letter from a gentleman who states—and I know it to be the case—that he was for some years the manager of a private bank—a well-known private bank. In describing the respectable methods of that bank, he states how it would never allow gas, much less electric light, in its premises, only candles with old candlesticks, every member of the staff being a venerable grey-haired man with a frock-coat. He goes on to say:—
"One day it was discovered that damp had penetrated into the strong room and had rusted many of the security boxes to such an extent that the lids of some of them were loosened through the rust having eaten away the hinges. One of them fell to pieces whilst being handled in my presence, and displayed an enormous assortment of Indian jewellery, bangles and many packets of priceless precious stones. It was decided that a correct list of the contents of the box was to be made This was done and they were replaced in a new box A short time afterwards the private bank to which I have referred was amalgamated with a new joint stock bank and all the partners retired. But they did not hand over either the unclaimed balances in their hands or the security boxes which were in their charge, and the former alone of which amounted to my knowledge of upwards of one million sterling."
I have a letter from a solicitor stating:—
"Some clients of mine have proved that a relative left Brazil some years ago having first deposited securities of considerable value in a chest, and placed it aboard the ship in which he intended himself to sail, and consigned to himself, care of a certain bank in London. He however could not sail by that boat but boarded the one following, but was lost with all hands. The chest reached its destination and is now in the hands of the consignee bank, but no efforts up to the present have succeeded in revealing the name of the bank."
I have a letter from a well-known auditor, who states that in the course of auditing he discovered various accounts which had been overlooked by other clients of his, and put them on the road to get their money. I have particulars of the case of a Scotch earl who, having deposited a box of securities with a well-known private bank, went one day to check them, as a result of the agitation arising from the Bill of last year, and to his great surprise
398
was shown three boxes. It turned out that his grandfather, who was of a similar name, had a box there for 150 years containing valuable securities I have a veritable library of cases of this kind. May I submit to the House that it is time this matter was looked into? There can be no question that the amount of the wealth is enormous. A member of the Bankers' Institute stated within the last few months that to his knowledge in certain banks, he mentioned twelve, over five millions of unclaimed securities were resting. What is the objection to this matter being investigated? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me he had not personally inquired into it, but that he had been advised a year or two ago, as the result of some inquiry, that the amount was five or six hundred thousand pounds. Even if that were so, it is not to be despised in these times. In view of the facts I have mentioned the figure is ludicrous. Last year I referred to a well-known bank, which admittedly has two millions (sterling) of unclaimed securities. It is common knowledge, I read it in the newspapers, that the Messrs. Coutts' in changing their premises took a whole month to remove the boxes of securities from their vaults. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not—the answer is that that bank dates back to the days of the French Revolution, and the majority of the boxes are sealed up, and there is no legal power to open them except by order of this House. That is one of the many aspects of this case.
But this is no novel proposal. In many foreign countries, in many of our own Colonies, in Canada, and in the United States this practice exists. In the comparatively small colony of South Australia, before that Colony was fifty or sixty years old, and when its population was not more than a quarter of a million, an Act to this effect was passed, and in the very first year nearly a hundred thousand pounds was recovered for the State. If that is possible in a young Colony like South Australia, what must be the circumstances here? The case is unanswerable. Banks have no right to object to a proposal of this kind. The other argument used is that it would dislocate the banking industry of the nation. I have too much respect for that industry to believe that it wishes to rest on a foundation of the wrongful possession of other people's property. I submit that this Bill is one well worthy of consideration if only as a first step towards obtaining a full inquiry into the

399
whole matter. It does not propose to take one penny of the result of any man's industry, enterprise, or judgment. It does not propose to take one penny of any man's property which is really his. It proposes to remedy the anomaly of having a Public Trustee on the one hand and enormous public funds in the hands of private persons on the other. It proposes to bring relief to many a family who to-day are struggling in penury because they are kept out of that property which is their own. In addition to all that, it is calculated to bring to the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a really mighty hoard of which he is greatly in need. For all these reasons—and again apologising for trespassing on the time of the House—I beg to move.
Mr. J. D. REES: I rise to oppose the Motion. The case put by the hon. Member is by no means unanswerable; and, unworthy as I am, as nobody else has risen to answer it, I will endeavour to do so. I submit that a possession which in its origin was rightful cannot by mere flux of time become wrongful. The hon. Member in describing these possessions as wrongful brings a charge which is unsustainable against men who are just as honourable in the conduct of their business as the hon. Member himself or anybody else. The instances quoted by the hon. Member to prove the necessity for this Bill I think prove that it is unnecessary. He gave the case of an old lady—there is always an old lady in cases of this sort—and he said that when inquiry was set on foot the lady was found somewhere in a lunatic asylum. That shows that when inquiry is made heirs to property like this are found. Why is the State to come in just because heirs are not forthcoming at the moment, and make a "scoop," as I think the hon. Member called it, of property belonging to other people? It is not alleged that the property belongs to the State; and it is somewhat astonishing that the hon. Member, who on other occasions has lifted up his voice—and I heartily agreed with him—against propositions of a Socialistic character, should now propose that the State should take a large sum of money merely because it is a large sum, and because nobody at the moment comes for-
ward to claim it. The other case he gave was the extremely well-known case of a certain Noble Lord who went to a certain bank and found three boxes where he had placed only two. The hon. Member thinks it very wrong that there should be that unearned increment, and he would punish the bank that had been so honest as to keep that third box for a hundred years until the grandson of the depositor came forward. Where is there any cause to find fault with the bankers who have been so honest and so careful of property? The law as it at present stands is sufficient to enable any person to recover his own property; and if that person does not come forward I fail to see any reason why the property should be made over to the State.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The law as it at present stands is that after six years all unclaimed balances become the property of the bank.
Mr. REES: The hon. Member carries his feelings so far as to object to a private bank, when it moved to fresh premises, having a great many boxes of property to transfer. If that bank had not been honest, and had made away with the property, there would not have been those boxes to transfer. How it can possibly be regarded as a fault on the part of the bank, as the custodian of other people's property, that after a long time it should have this property to transfer, passes my comprehension. Nor can I understand why the hon. Member made a particular attack on private banks. I know that private banks have now gone out of fashion, and that joint stock banks have taken their place; but I do not think that anybody with any experience of banking would for a moment allege that private banks were in any way inferior to joint stock and public banks. It seems to me that this proposal savours of a spirit of seizing for the State that which can by any hook or crook be got for the State. For my part, I can see no earthly reason, to whomsoever this property may belong, why it should go to the State; and if anybody will tell with me I will divide against the Motion with all my heart.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 55.

Division No. 214.]

AYES.

[4.10 p.m.

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

Ambrose, Robert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Armitage, R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Barnes, G. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barrie, H. T (Londonderry, N.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Higham, John Sharp

Paulton, James Mellor

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Branch, James

Hogan, Michael

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Brigg, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Bright, J. A.

Hope, John Deans (File, West)

Pointer, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, Walter

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Idris, T H. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Jardine, Sir J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cameron, Robert

Jenkins, J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester).

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, M.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Cleland, J. W.

Joyce, Michael

Renwick, George

Clive, Percy Archer

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robinson, S.

Cox, Harold

Lamont, Norman

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Crosfield, A. H.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rutherford, W W. (Liverpool)

Crossley, William J.

Lundon, T.

Sears, J. E.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seely, Colonel

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P,

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Du Cros, Arthur

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Snowden, P

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Callum, John M

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Scares, Ernest J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Maddison, Frederick

Sutherland, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fell, Arthur

Massie, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fenwick, Charles

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Toulmin, George

Flynn, James Christopher

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Walters, John Tudor

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gill, A. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Ginnell, L.

Morrell, Philip

Watt, Henry A

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

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glover, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Weir, James Galloway

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Whitehead, Rowland

Gulland, John W.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nuttall, Harry

Wiles, Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bottomley and Sir H. Cotton.

Hart Davies, T.

O'Doherty, Philip

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

NOES.

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Oddy, John James

Astbury, John Meir

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baldwin, Stanley

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Kerry, Earl of

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lambton, Hon Frederick William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Lane-Fox, G. R

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lehmann, R C.

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

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

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Chance, Frederick William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

M'Arthur Charles

Waring, Walter

Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Gardner, Ernest

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rees and Mr. G. A. Hardy.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Newdegate, F. A.

Leave given; Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read second time upon Monday, 5th July.

COTTAGE HOMES FOR AGED PERSONS.
Mr. E. G. PRETYMANmoved for leave to bring in a Bill" to enable local authorities and private individuals to co-operate in the provision of dwellings suitable for occupation by aged persons where no suitable houses are available."
I ask indulgence of the House for a very few minutes on a very different subject from the last. May I preface my observations by saying that I bring in the Bill on my own responsibility, and that it is in no sense on behalf of the Opposition. The Bill is one to enable local authorities and private individuals to cooperate, particularly in rural districts, to provide dwellings for aged persons who are unable otherwise to obtain them. It is, I think, generally recognised that the housing question in rural districts is one of special difficulty, and that it is so from the very obvious reason that the cost of providing houses is greater in most cases than the agricultural labourer who lives in rural parishes can afford to recoup by the payment of rent. The thing comes with particular hardness upon the aged poor, because a large proportion of the houses which exist in rural parishes are houses which are provided by the owners of the land in order to provide for the working of the farms which form part of their property. These houses are occupied by able-bodied labourers, and when the labourers, who have worked for many years upon the same farm and who are in the closest personal touch both with the owner of the land and the occupier of the land who has employed them, get old and past work, all three parties concerned find themselves in a very serious difficulty. The owner of the land cannot afford to build extra cottages for old people. In some cases it is done with excellent results. But there are many cases where it cannot be done. The occupier of the land cannot work his farm unless he has the cottages, and, on the other hand, it is an extreme hardship on all the parties concerned that the old people should be obliged to end their days away from the people and the parish where they have spent the whole of their lives. This problem has come under my personal notice for many years, and I have in this Bill suggested a method
404
whereby in many cases it may be practically solved.
What I propose is to make every parish responsible for its own aged poor. I wish for a moment to emphasise that, because the present authority for dealing with housing is a local authority which covers the larger area, and the whole point which affects the lives of these old people is that they should not be removed from the parishes to which they belong.
The present powers which exist for providing houses are two in number. The guardians have the power to provide cottage homes, but these are only for paupers; and, therefore, not applicable to these cases, because the people intended to be provided for in this case are not paupers, and far less than before since the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act. This Act greatly facilitates this particular measure. It is in some sense a supplement to the Old Age Pensions Act. The second method, by which houses can be provided, is by the local authorities constructing houses and charging an economic rent for them. Neither method is suitable or available for these aged people, because they cannot pay the full economic rent of a house constructed on that principle, nor would the houses be regarded as houses for the working classes, because these people are past work. The way in which I think this difficulty can be met, and the way suggested in this Bill, is that any parish council, or urban or borough council for the matter of that, may constitute itself—it is an optional measure— a cottage homes authority. Having constituted itself a cottages homes authority, it will have power to erect, out of money borrowed on the rates, small houses, which in no case are to cost more than £120 each —for which, I believe, a good two-roomed house can be erected—and they will be entitled to charge a rental for those houses not exceeding 2s. per week, and not less than 1s. a week. That rent will practically cover the cost of the borrowed money, and leave only trivial expenses to fall upon the rates. With regard to the site, the authorities are not entitled under this Bill to purchase sites, nor to spend money upon sites. I consider that in practice either the owner of the land, the joint owners of the land, the owners of land adjoining, or the occupiers, or all together would be capable, either individually or collectively—and would be glad to do so—of providing, free of cost, the necessary site in any

405
parish where it was required. In that way you would have co-operation between the owners and occupiers of the land, and the local authorities in providing what would amount to a small farmhouse, so that when the old people can no longer satisfactorily remain in the houses required by the able-bodied people who are working the land, they will be able to remove into this smaller house, and to remain in their parishes. There are other minor provisions, but I will not trouble the House by going into them, because it is provided that the Bill should be printed, and we have other important business before us. I believe this is a practical proposal. It is a proposal which has been ventilated in Lincolnshire, Suffolk, and Essex amongst all the classes concerned, both owners and occupiers of land, the tenant farmers and the labourers, and I have not hitherto found one individual of any class who, having had the principle of the Bill laid before him, has not strongly approved of it. They think it to the interest of all parties that this Bill should become an Act, so that each parish should have the power to provide for its own aged poor, especially those to whom pensions have been granted. I bring in this Bill believing it will enable many people of a most deserving class, who are now in their old age, to live amongst those with whom they have spent their lives, and to finish their lives in greater happiness and under greater conditions of comfort and better supervision in every respect.
Leave given; Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time 19th July.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Sixth day.]
[ME. 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
  406
  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 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.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. ABEL SMITH Mr. ABEL SMITH moved to leave out the Clause.
  In moving the rejection of this clause I am perfectly prepared to admit that a very large amount of time has been taken up with the discussion of it during the last few days. I venture to say that the time devoted to that discussion has not been out of proportion to the importance of the provisions contained in the clause. By Clause 1, on various occasions enumerated in the three sub-sections, Increment Value Duty is to be imposed upon all land. I should like in the first place to say that I recognise, if we are to have a tax of this kind at all, that the transfer by sale is the only occasion on which this tax can fairly be levied. For this reason, because it is the only occasion when the real value of land is realised. The value is then converted into cash, and the cash is in hand in order to meet the demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to listen to some of the arguments put forward against the other two occasions, namely, the transfer of the lease, or the transfer on the occasion of death. With regard to the words "or any interest in the land," I think these words need a far better definition than at present given in the Bill. I think it is most unfair and most unsatisfactory that on the occasion of the transfer, or of any small interest, or on the

  407
  parting with an interest for which no real value or consideration is received, that this tax should be levied. I am quite aware that the question of valuation does not directly arise on this clause, and I have no intention of discussing the merits of the system proposed by the Bill, or, rather, of the want of system suggested in this measure. But I do not think that we can altogether leave out of account that this tax is to be levied upon an entirely new principle. The Government propose to depart from the system which is well established and well understood in this country of valuation on annual value and to go to a new principle of theoretic capital value. I object most strongly to this departure from the good old principle well understood in this country of valuation on the gross rental, either the rental actually received or that which it is estimated might be received from the land if let. I do contend that it is not right that this duty should be levied except when the capital value is clearly ascertained on the occasion of sale; and I also contend that directly you leave the present system of valuation you are entering on a system of nebulous theory and uncertainty in connection with which injustice and inequality are bound to arise on a great many occasions.
  One of the most important points that arose in the discussion on the Amendments of this clause was as to what class of land was to be included in this new-fangled tax. As we understand the clauses as regards land, this Increment Value Duty is to be charged upon all land. One of the most interesting discussions we had was on the question whether agricultural land was to be included in the machinery necessary to bring this tax into law. As far as I understand, and notwithstanding some statements I have heard to the contrary, unless the Bill is amended agricultural land will be included in the machinery necessary to bring this tax into force. I am sure we all agree that the owners of agricultural land are perfectly prepared to pay their fair share for the national services for which this money is required. All parties have also agreed for many years that agricultural land as such, used for purely agricultural purposes, is greatly overtaxed at the present time. That view has been confirmed by one of the most exhaustive inquiries by Royal Commission that has ever taken place. That Royal Commission recommended that many services which were really national in their character ought to be lifted off the local authorities, who have
  408
  to raise the funds from local taxation, and transferred to the National Exchequer. Since that Report was issued the expenditure upon many of these services has greatly increased. I only need mention the expenditure on roads, which have greatly increased, partly owing to the excellent condition in which they are maintained, and more especially, in the past few years, owing to the great increase in motor traffic. The cost of education has thrown a very much larger expenditure on local taxation; the cost of lunatics, the relief of the poor, and many other services have greatly increased.
  It is quite true that at the eleventh hour the Chancellor has agreed that part of that money, at any rate, should go to the relief of local taxation, but I think I am justified in saying that there is no real relief given to local taxation under this Bill, even if the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is carried out, because there will be no relief given to those who pay the rates upon land, at the expense of those whose property is of a personal character. That is the relief which has always been asked for, and it is a claim the justice of which has been admitted by men of all parties. Therefore I say it is a very bad time indeed, and it is quite an unjustifiable thing, in the present circumstances, to put a new burden upon the agricultural land of this country. As we all know, the agricultural interest has been suffering from a long and severe depression there has been an immense fall, amounting to many millions, in the capital value of agricultural land in the past 30 years, and this is the worst time possible, in my opinion, for imposing what will be a crushing burden upon an industry which is just beginning to get upon its legs again. I am perfectly certain that it is a fact that nobody can contradict that many owners of large and small estates have no margin whatever out of which this duty can be met. I am glad to have the principle acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech on the Budget with regard to the attitude of the owners of agricultural land in this country. He paid them a very handsome compliment, and he said he quite realised that the financial position of owners of agricultural land was very different indeed from the position of the owners of urban land in this country, and he said he knew—and his knowledge was confirmed by figures which had been laid before him—that a very large portion of the income received as rent from agri-

  409
  cultural land in this country is spent by the land-owners upon the upkeep of their estates.
  I can assure the Committee of this, which I know of my own knowledge, that there are many owners of agricultural land in this country who have long desired to spend money upon their estates, but have been unable to do so owing to the great reduction of their incomes in the past few years. They are now, some of them, able to spend a little more money upon their estates owing to the slightly increased income they are deriving, and they are most desirous, as a class, of putting their estates in proper order and making up for lost time, and for what could not be done in time of severe depression through which they have passed. There is another point, and that is that new and heavy burdens are continually being laid by the legislation passed by Parliament upon the owners of land. We hear a great deal now in connection with the milk supply of the country. That is the point which perhaps may not be thought to be closely connected with this question, but the sanitary conditions insisted upon, and rightly insisted upon, by the sanitary authorities of this country, in connection with places where milk for public consumption is dealt with, have imposed a very heavy burden upon those who have to provide the necessary buildings. I do not complain of that at all. I think it is perfectly right, and I have taken some part myself in enforcing these regulations, but the point now is that these regulations—made in the interest of the public for the purpose of securing a proper milk supply—impose a heavy additional charge upon the owners of agricultural land.
  In my opinion the only satisfactory way to deal with this matter is in some future Amendment to the Bill clearly exempting all agricultural land from this Increment Value Duty, and not imposing upon the owners the additional burden of making a new valuation, unless the land which is to be the subject of valuation has a real value not due to its ordinary agricultural value. It would be most unfair that the owner of land should be put to the great expense and trouble of valuing land which it is absolutely impossible could have any increment value not due to some change in the agricultural position of the country. It would be ridiculous to insist upon the valuation of poor heavy mountain land in the eastern counties which is only let at very low rents for agricultural
  410
  purposes. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give most careful attention to these points. If agricultural land is exempted from Increment Duty and from the necessity of a long and expensive system of valuation, I think the right hon. Gentleman would do a good deal to modify the attitude of many Members of the House towards this part of the Bill. But, as I have already said, I object to the principle upon which this tax is to be levied. If we are to have it, it should only be levied upon occasions when increment could be clearly ascertained and upon land that has real value for building or for some other purpose after its primary use, namely, the production of food and raw material had fallen away. I beg to move the rejection of the clause.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I desire to support the Motion of my hon. Friend, not because I have much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to accept it, but because it affords us an opportunity of marshalling our objections to this tax, and the methods and occasions upon which it is to be levied. My main objection to this clause is that we are having introduced an entirely new principle in the taxation of this country. We are having a single class of property chosen which is already very heavily taxed, which bears the whole burden of local rates, and it is extremely unfair to choose that class of property under the circumstances in which it is now placed. We are dealing with proposals which entirely revolutionise the system upon which our present taxation is based, and which violate the cardinal principles which we have always understood regulate taxation. The proposals of this clause fail because they do not clearly define the liability of the taxpayer, and the clause does not set out the places in which the tax is to be levied. It is proposed to charge on something not realised, and which may never be realised, and it also denies that free access to the courts which has been the privilege and inalienable right of every taxpayer in this country. But, beyond all that, the House is asked to agree to a clause which proposes to levy a tax upon a most hypothetical and speculative basis, and it is proposed to tax what we have heard called nothing less than an abstraction.
  The valuation should have preceded the imposition of this tax. I know I cannot go into that question now, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think the

  411
  Attorney-General, in the course of the Debate, twitted those who took part in opposition to the Scotch Land Values Bill with having changed their attitude. We were charged with objecting to the Scotch Bill because it suggested a valuation before the tax was imposed, and now we are accused of objecting to this tax being imposed without the valuation. I deny that there was the slightest inconsistency in our attitude. We were asked to impose upon Scotland an enormously heavy burden in the way of valuing every site of every sort and kind in the country; and we were not told, and were refused any information, as to what the Government intended to do with that valuation when they got it. We had staring us in the face all the time the propaganda of the Lord Advocate and his Site Values Taxation Committee, and the country had been told that this valuation was going to be used for putting the whole of our local taxation upon that basis. We asked for some information as to the use the Government were going to make of that valuation. We had not at that time had the declaration of the Lord Chancellor that the Lord Advocate's policy was both dishonest and nonsensical. We had not then the comfort of knowing that even the present Government were not willing to follow the Lord Advocate into the mazes of difficulties which he has been endeavouring to deal with. I do not think anything discredits the policy of the right hon. Gentleman more than the present Bill. That policy has been pretty well discredited for a long time, but a coping-stone has been put on by this Bill, which is so totally different that it may be taken to be the final quietus of that extreme and nonsensical proposal.
  When we have discussed this abstraction which we are asked to tax, the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General have referred us over and over again to New Zealand and Frankfort, but there is no parallel between the two. In New Zealand undeveloped land is a common marketable commodity which is bought and sold every week of the year. There is no difficulty there in ascertaining its value, nor is there any difficulty in divorcing from the value of the land improvements such as fences and so forth, because the original price is known, and therefore it is easy to estimate what has been put upon it in the way of permanent improvements. In Frankfort we have been told that the valuation system
  412
  is wholly different to the system which is now being imposed; that the total values are different, and that transfer and sale is a very different matter from this abstraction, which we are asked to value both originally and when the tax is charged on the transfer or on sale. In Frankfort, where this tax is in operation, the valuations are made in zones, and there is no very great difficulty in regard to valuations made in that way. We may have a large proprietor who owns the whole of the land outside some suburban or urban area, and we could value that by zones fairly easily. In such a case the owner would not experience that difficulty which presents itself in this Bill, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes here not that the owner shall value the land in zones, but that every unfortunate individual who owns a mere fraction of a part of a zone will have to make his own valuation. How is it possible for him to do that? It is perfectly impossible, and the only way in which it can be ascertained is by having the valuation carried out by some competent authority.
  Another point which strikes me forcibly in conection with the danger of this proposal is that it affords a very dangerous facility for increasing the tax. I think the tax is too heavy already, but it will be very easy to increase it. In the future some needy Chancellor of the Exchequer may say," I want more money, and instead of 20 per cent. I will make this tax 50 per cent." I shall be sorry to trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he holds his office next year—he may occupy a higher position—after our experience with the present Budget. I object to that facility, because it appears to me that it will certainly interfere very seriously with schemes of development such as building society operations and so forth, and more particularly because there are no provisions whatever for aggregating property in land. While it is quite possible there may be a decrement on the whole of the property of an owner, he win be liable to be charged increment in instances where there may be an appreciation. I see no difficulty whatever in aggregating the property of an individual owner or society which is developing a particular piece of land comprising 10, 20, 30, 40, or 100 acres. It seems very hard that they should have to pay an increment on sites, where valuable, and get no allowance whatever for the decrement which must necessarily arise in regard to sites

  413
  which have to be sold under the average price. I believe these proposals will seriously interfere with and injure all these transactions affecting land, and they will throw the property market into the most desperate confusion. It must not be forgotten that this tax, even if it is put upon every acre of land, and every building in the country, will only yield a minimum of revenue and entail a maximum of expense. Our land system will be completely gerrymandered. The staff at Somerset House will be perfectly incapable of dealing with the enormous burdens which will be thrown upon them by this Bill, and there must inevitably be an entire stoppage and hanging up of thousands of transactions all over the country in such a manner as will destroy and paralyse the land system. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have endeavoured to restrict the application of this principle to urban land.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Abel Smith) that agricultural land ought to be exempted altogether from this tax. This is not a proper time to start a principle of this kind either with regard to urban or agricultural land. It is perfectly well known that in urban districts houses and sites have largely depreciated in value, and I could give many instances where the sites have no value. In Edinburgh we have two or three extreme cases of that kind, and the same thing applies to Glasgow and other places, and yet this is the time when an original valuation is to be made upon the basis of a value which in many cases in Scotland has wholly disappeared. Even in the case of urban land I think the principle ought to be limited to some area at a maximum distance from the town, and proper machinery should be provided for determining the zone. As for agricultural land, it is most unfair and unjust, and likely to be injurious, to include it in this particular clause. In the case of agricultural land there should be a complete exemption. The great fall in value which has taken place in agricultural land in recent years renders this demand reasonable, and proves that the present year is an unfair time for ascertaining the basis on which the increment should be charged. There can be no Increment whatever in the cases taken for periods under 19 years. I am very glad indeed to acknowledge the concession which the right hon. Gentleman made last night by inserting leases up to 14 years, because that was a very valuable concession. But even that conces-
  414
  sion will entirely destroy the existing agricultural system in Scotland, where they have nineteen-year leases. I d) think that it is very unfortunate to do anything in this Bill or in any other Bill to penalise a system which has worked so well and in which no Scotsman who knows anything about agricultural land will encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have tried, but without success, to get from the Government a statement in answer to a question of what the position is of the Scottish feuar. The answer given to me has been very courteous but very inclusive. I beg to protest against this burden being placed on the feuar. I said the night before last that in nearly every case the feuar is the man who makes the permanent improvement, and who ought not, according to all the principles enunciated by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, to pay as it is proposed that he should pay. I have asked whether we are to consider the Feu Duty as rent, but as yet I have not got a satisfactory answer. It is true that it has been said that it is nonsense to say that the feuar increases the site value. It is said that the people who do so are the community and not the feuars at all. The community may in certain places increase the value, but it is the individuals who really do the improvement. They are the permanent owners of the improvements, which are the result of their labour, energy and capital. I do not want to say anything further. It would be extremely hard to impose an additional burden on the top of the Death Duties. That would be a very harsh thing to do. I believe that the whole tendency of this clause and this legislation will be to make land dearer rather than cheaper. It is only the present owners that will suffer. Syndicates will be formed, with the result that there will be an enormous increase in the value of the sites, with the consequence of covering the whole country with skyscrapers and buildings of that sort. I do not want to go more into the question, but I say seriously that the House ought to think twice and thrice before it accepts a proposal of this kind. We are revolutionising taxation. The proposed tax will in many cases be found to be of a very impracticable character, and will certainly entail the maximum of expense with the minimum of advantage.
  Mr. IVOR GUEST: With regard to land on which Increment Duty is to be paid, I think that the hon. Gentlemen opposite have not done the Chan-

  415
  cellor of the Exchequer justice for the way in which he deals with the problem of agricultural land. I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman is in some sense responsible, because the method by which he has dealt with agricultural land is unnecessarily obscure. I, personally, could not have understood it if I had not had the assistance of a paid draftsman to explain the matter to me. I now understand—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong— that as far as agricultural land is concerned under Clause 14 you are fixing the original value, and no deductions are allowed for buildings and other permanent improvements, but under Clause 2 you make some deductions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In fixing the original site value you do deduct the buildings, but not the permanent improvements. When, however, you come to the increment you deduct the permanent improvements, and that represents certainly more than 40 per cent.
  Mr. IVOR GUEST: Personally, I am satisfied that the margin which the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows for what he calls agricultural recovery, amounting as it does to 45 per cent., is satisfactory. So far, I am satisfied with the way in which he has treated agricultural land. I think — under all the circumstances—that the £50 limit is rather hard, and that it ought to be increased so as to make allowance for permanent improvements. When we come to the amount of the taxation, which hon. Members opposite criticise, and which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said was very heavy and very hard, I think it is forgotten that the duty is not on the value of the land but on the difference between the value of the land at present and the value which might be added to it at a future time.
  When we come to the cases on which Increment Duty is to be levied, I regret to say that I must part company with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been wise to have confined himself to taking the Increment Duty merely on the occasion when the property is realised. I think I derive some support for this point of view from the favourable answer I received to-day from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a question as to un-gotten minerals. The one main objection to that is the difficulty of estimating the value, and that same objection applies to
  416
  the question of the increment on land. I hope that, having gone so far as to return a sympathetic answer on that point, the Government will be prepared to consider whether it is wise in the interests of the Treasury to make estimates, the basis on which to exact any contribution. In listening to this Debate I cannot help feeling that the clause we are discussing is an attempt to reconcile very divergent views as to the taxation of ground and land values. On the one hand we have the view that the capital value of all land should be the basis not only of Imperial, but of local taxation, and I have no doubt that that is in the minds of many hon. Gentlemen who stand for land taxation. Last night I heard the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) denounce in strong language almost all the proposals contained in this clause. He said he regarded the collection of the Increment Duties on the sale or transfer of land as an interference with business and with dealings in land. I suppose that is the view of the society which the hon. Member so ably represents in this House. On the other hand, we have the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) supporting the Government far more materially than the very organisation to which the Government are supposed to have humbly bowed the knee. I think the common sense of the proposal lies not with the Association for the Taxation of Land Values, but with the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to collect the Increment Duty only where the property has been realised. We have been regarded as opposed to this land taxation. I am not hostile to any proposal which would have the practical effect of filling the Treasury, but it is a question of estimating the capital value of land in this country. It may be a very desirable proposal, but for present purposes it would not have that practical effect, although it might form part of future legislation. But as we stand now with the single object of raising 13 millions of money to meet the expenditure on the services, I really think we should be wise to confine our efforts to obtaining the money in the simplest way. I suggest that if the Government are prepared to meet us on this point it would very much shorten the discussion and get rid of a great deal of the objection which is felt on this side of the House to many of their proposals. I do not gather that

  417
  the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would very much regret their doing so, seeing that he has already practically denounced this clause.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Government are exactly to be congratulated on the measure of support which their friends are able to give to their proposals. We have discussed this clause for some days in Committee, and we have not had a single speech inside the House of unmixed approval of the Government proposals. I observe that Members of the Government who are sent as emissaries to defend the Budget elsewhere are precisely those Members of the Government who are never present during the discussions on this measure The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the President of the Board of Trade are eloquent on platforms about the justice and facility of these proposals, the criticisms to which they do not think it worth their while to listen when they are made in this House. This clause establishes an Increment Value Tax for the first time, and lays down the occasions upon which it is to be collected. I wish to take the opportunity of the Motion, "that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," to restate some of the general objections, without entering into details, which I feel to the whole proposal of the Government. I am not, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Mr. Ivor Guest), to be pacified by small changes in the clause. I object to the whole tax in principle, and I think that our Debates have shown, even to those who approve it in principle, that it is a matter of such complication and difficulty and involves so much hardship, inference with business, and injustice that, even if it be just in principle, it still is not wise to carry it through. Apart from these objections to machinery and of detail, I object to the tax upon principle. What is the principle expounded again and again in the Debates by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on which he seeks to base this proposal? He has singled out a particular form of property for taxation, which is not levied on all property equally. He has singled out not property in the hands of rich men, but particular forms of property, whether hold by rich men or by quite poor men, and he is imposing a special duty on that because, he says, they are in possession of something to which they have no moral right.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is something regarded as property by law, practice, and the custom of this country from time immemorial. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to distinguish between this form of property and other forms of property. He states that the form of property represented by the increment aimed at by this tax is a form of property which has not the sanction or moral authority that any other form of property has, but that it is a windfall derived without the exercise of ability, merit, or any other claim by the happy possessor to which he is really not entitled, and that the Government are right in claiming whatever share of it they may think fit.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is either quoting or summarising something I am supposed to have said. I do not recognise it in the slightest degree. To say that I have ever laid down the proposition that there is no moral claim to property of this kind, or that the property is not based on any moral principle, is not correct. I have said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I think there is every moral right to it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then I have failed to understand the process of reasoning which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted and repeated on many occasions. If he now repudiates what I thought was a perfectly correct summary of the view so often expressed, then I will ask him on what ground he does justify the distinction he draws between this particular form of property and every other form of property? He selects this form of property and treats it differently from every other form of property. He would not contend it would be right to single out any other form of property in a special degree, and to take chunks out of it from a particular section of the community without laying a corresponding burden on other people. The distinction which the right hon. Gentleman draws between this and other kinds of property is the fact alleged by him that this increment on the property comes to the possessor without any exertion on his part, and that is urged by the Government as their title to take whatever part they think fit. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said over and over again. It is cheered by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who sees at

  419
  once it is the only possible explanation of the proposition contained in this clause. But where does it lead to? You are pleased to leave a man,hitherto considered the possessor of the property, four-fifths. At the present time you only require him to yield up one-fifth. But if you have the right to take one-fifth you have a right to take the whole. We know that on both sides of the House below the Gangway there are to be found hon. Members who desire to take the whole, and who are not afraid to say so, and we have every reason to anticipate that if you put the tax on on this occasion, and establish the machinery for its collection, it will not be long before another Chancellor of the Exchequer, with even more predatory instincts, will correct the moderation on which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer prides himself, and, on the very same grounds, will take the four-fifths which the right hon. Gentleman has left. It seems to me there 13 neither justice nor reason in a proposal of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and his Friends are accustomed to speak of this as if it were a tax which concerned only a few very rich people, fortunate in that their property has risen in value subject to no risks, and as if they are men who ought not to grudge the contribution asked from them towards the revenues of the country. The suggestion that the rise in this property is normal, progressive, and continuous has been disproved in regard to every class of property in the course of the discussions we have had upon this clause. It is not only admitted not to be true; not only do the Government themselves admit it is not true as regards agricultural property, but it has been conclusively shown by example after example, by typical examples taken from all parts of the country, that it is not true of urban land, or of what is ordinarily called building land, any more than it is true of agricultural land. My first objection, then, is that the attempt to distinguish between this one particular form of property and any other breaks down, and even if you concede the principle upon which the Chancellor proceeds it is a mere matter of time before you go further and proceed to take over for the State the whole interest in a portion of the property of the individual. How can the Chancellor, even on his own principle, confine this for long to property in land, wherein lies the dis-
  420
  tinction between property in land and other things? I have heard only one distinction attempted to be made, and it is that land is a monopoly. That appears to me to be for all practical purposes a most misleading statement to make. It is quite true that you cannot substantially increase the land of the country, although in particular cases very large areas of land have been added by the ability and enterprise of great landlords. But it is substantially true that you cannot increase the amount of land.
  It is not, however, true to say, for any practical purpose, that there is a monopoly of land in this country, or that there is not always plenty of land to be obtained at a reasonable price in different parts of the country. If, however, you do rest your case upon the statement that land is a monopoly, are railways less a monopoly, and why do you not apply the same principles to them? Are canals, gasworks, electric light works, any of those corporations which require statutory authority for carrying on their proceedings, and are protected by this House from anything unfair or ruinous or general competition— are they not monopolies? It is perfectly well recognised by Members below the Gangway that the principles upon which the Chancellor defends his tax upon land not only will justify them in carrying that tax to the point at which it reaches 20s. in the pound, but in applying the same tax to one thing after another until you have, as they desire, seized for the community every portion of increment which an individual cannot prove to be due to direct exertions and expenditure of his own. The adoption of principles like that, by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Finance Bill, must, and do, strike at the security of every form of property in this country, must do injury to trade, industry, and development of every kind, and to every transaction as between man and man, and, I think, could hardly be paralleled in any legislative project, even the wildest that we have had before us. May I turn a little more closely from the general principles embodied in the tax, to some of the changes made, and to points raised in the Committee on the discussion of this particular clause. In the first place, I must observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very brief speech added to this Bill, already extraordinarily complex and confusing, and containing matters far beyond the scope of an ordinary Finance Bill, another entirely new Bill. It is now not merely to be a taxing Bill, a valua-

  421
  tion Bill and a licensing Bill, but it is in addition to be a local taxation Bill. The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself in an unfortunate position. Certain municipalities in this country have cast longing looks at a tax of this kind, with a view to meeting their local expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very ready to accept the support which their propaganda would give to his proposals, and he hoped that he would escape with the whole of the plunder. No, Sir, they have been too sharp for him, and lest he should lose the whole he has been obliged to share the booty. I believe that even in private life that is not an uncommon experience to gentlemen engaged in similar transactions.
  What is the basis for this change? Hitherto, the Chancellor has defended the tax on the ground that the increment of wealth was due to the exertions of the community. He never would define exactly what he meant by the community, but he is now forced to split the community into two, for the purpose of giving a portion of this tax to the local community, who, so far as a community has anything to do with the growth of the increment, are probably the people who make it, whilst he reserves an equal portion for the State. But, as I understand it, even that portion, which he gives to the local community, is not to go to the community which makes it, for that would leave out his poorest inhabitant on the wild hills of Wales, and in order that that deserving gentleman may get his share— God knows what fraction of a penny it will be—the local contribution is to be spread over the whole of the country by some process not explained, and is not to go to that particular local community, which, according to the Chancellor's principles, have earned and deserved it. The Chancellor's proposals on that point have, naturally, not altered our position towards the tax, but I think have rendered his position even more inconsequential than it was under the Bill as he originally introduced it. What is going to be the effect? It has been brought out in these discussions in a way which, I think, has impressed everybody who has listened to them, on whichever side of the House he be and whatever views he takes of the tax—it has been brought out that this tax will necessitate a costly and difficult operation on the occasion of every transaction of any kind, in any portion of land, or buildings, great or small. That in-
  422
  volves a series of valuations, not merely of the kind ordinarily made and habitually required for the purposes of sale or transfer, or even for the Death Duties, but a series of valuations on a basis on which no transaction ever takes place and which is useless for any purpose, except for the purpose of the tax, and those valuations are to be made not at the expense of the taxing authority, but at the expense of the individual who is trying to sell a little bit of land. Could you have anything which would cast greater difficulties and greater hardships upon the vendor, or would be a more serious hindrance to the free, easy, cheap, and rapid transfer of land from one person to another? What effect has a tax of this kind levied upon the occasion specified? What are these occasions? They are the occasion of every possible transaction in land or in building.
  What effect is such a tax going to have, for instance, upon the building industry of this country? Does the Chancellor really believe, after listening to the de-tailed discussion of the tax, that he is going to increase the supply of houses, that he is going to induce more men to put their money into developing suburban districts, and that he is going to improve the character of the accommodation and lessen the rents which are paid? In order to meet these new taxes, in order to meet the cost of the valuation, in order to insure themselves against the new risk, everybody concerned in the business will require a higher profit, will be slower to enter upon it, will wait for some certain demand, and instead of the supply of houses keeping, as it has been, rather in advance than in arrear of the demand, you will cause builders to wait, for a clearly unsatisfied demand, you will cause them to wait for a famine before they take up land and pay the new tax you impose upon them Then, as to agricultural land, is that going so escape scot free? We have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very general statement that he meant to exclude agricultural land, but when we got to close quarters with him it did not appear that he was going to do anything of the kind. If he meant it. he has not done it. In the first place he qualified his general statement that he did not mean to tax the value of agricultural land, by saying, that he did not mean to tax the value upon the recovery of the price of agricultural land. That is only a limited part of the profit, but he went on further to qualify it

  423
  by saying that when you turned agricultural land from a less profitable to a more profitable use, but still an agricultural use, it was to be subject to the Increment Duty. He proposed to encourage the provision of allotments, by taxing the land when it gets a higher value through being turned into allotments. He think that will facilitate the creation of small holdings, to put a tax upon a landlord if the landlord derives any benefit from their creation.
  It is not, therefore, true to say that this tax does not fall upon agricultural land. It falls, or may fall, whenever there is any increment of value, due to using the land for a higher agricultural purpose. That is the way the Government encourage agriculture. Then, for the occasions, on which the tax is to be collected. The tax is to be collected, not merely when the value is realised, but on many occasions, notably on death, and possibly not the death of the owner, as we found out last night, but on the death of somebody else. It is to be collected on other occasions, not only when the value is realised, but when, very probably, it cannot be realised. There is a real value which anyone would put upon land and which the owner would admit to be fair, but it may not be possible for him to realise, at any given moment, and you cumulate the hardship which is involved in the tax itself, you cumulate it and increase it by the occasions on which you levy it. What is the answer we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General on the working of the tax, as apart from the principle? Their answer is that there is such a tax in the City of Frankfort, and there none of these difficulties are found. We are still waiting for the paper from which those right hon. Gentlemen quoted, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has under- taken to circulate as rapidly as he can, but we have ascertained by question and answer, and by admission here and by admission there, something about the Frankfort Tax, which I think entirely destroys its value for the purpose for which these gentlemen have used it. In the first place, we have learned that it does not begin until there is an increment of more than 15 per cent. That was never disclosed until they were directly challenged on the point. They contrasted their tax with the Frankfort Tax in order to show their moderation, and talked of it habitually as 25 per cent. It is only by question and answer dragged from them that we have
  424
  learnt that under 15 per cent. of increment there is no tax, and that from 15 per cent. to £0 per cent. of increment, that is, when £100 has become £115 or £120, there is only 1 per cent., and the 20 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is not reached in Frankfort until £100 has become £210, and the 25 per cent. which he contrasts' with his own moderate 20 per cent. is not reached until your £100 has become £230.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: It applies to houses as well as land.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The whole basis on which the tax is levied is wholly different from the basis on which this tax is to be levied. The ease of valuation is due to the difference in the method in which the tax is levied, coupled with the fact never disclosed by right hon. Gentlemen that they have had in Frankfort a careful registry kept for over a century of all ownerships and transactions in land. As if this was not a sufficient amount of information to have had in your possession and concealed from the House, the Frankfort Tax allows the possessor of the land to add 4 per cent. simple interest to his original value before you count increment at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may think this clause has occupied ample time in discussion. There certainly has been no obstructive discussion at all. In matters which create so much interest, and are of so much complexity, progress must necessarily be slower than the Government would wish to see, but I defy them to say that a speech has been made of an obstructive character the whole time the clause has been under discussion, but it shows the value of these debates when they serve to elicit such material facts, which certainly we ought to have had in our possession from the first moment that the Frankfort tax was quoted, and which ought to have been explained to us by the Minister who quoted it. The effect of these discussions on my mind is not to remove my objections in principle, but to strengthen my objections in practice. I believe it is unsound in principle, and capable of an extension which means the practical abolition of private property in land, that these principles cannot be confined to land, but will affect every kind of property. In your anxiety to hit a few rich men whether justly or unjustly, you are penalising heavily and terribly an enormous number of poor men, and you are rendering almost impossible the carrying on of one of the most necessary industries

  425
  of the country upon which the well-being and the housing of our population depends.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Masterman): I cannot claim to come under the definition of Members of the Government who make eloquent speeches on the land question, but I think I have a right to claim that I come under the definition of those who listen to the arguments which are advanced. I think I have heard almost every word which has been said in the Budget Debates, and I fully accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the value of this five days' Debate and as to the repudiation of the suggestion of obstruction or lack of valid argument. Of course, when a tax of this kind, empowering new principles and destined in the future, in its present form, to provide such a large source of revenue to the State, comes under the consideration of the House, it is necessary, and it is welcomed as much by the Government as by the Opposition, that the effect and justification of the tax should be discussed even in detail. I was under the impression that the result of these Debates was that a good deal of objection to the tax was being removed and a great deal more sympathy was being shown with the principle in all quarters of the House. Until the right hon. Gentleman got up, all the three Gentlemen who have spoken had some objection to the tax—no one spoke except those who accepted in principle the suggestion of a tax on unearned increment.
  Mr. ABEL SMITH: I specially objected to it on principle.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought the hon. Member said it was justified in certain cases in towns, and that his objections would be largely removed if it did not deal with agricultural land. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division has been known for years to be a passionate advocate of the tax on anearned increment.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Nothing of the kind.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has certainly again and again declared that this is a fair subject for rating or for taxation.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Ah, rating.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am using the expression in the sense that the State or the
  426
  municipality has a right to regard this as a proper subject for obtaining revenue. Therefore, the general principle that the tax is unjust as discriminating between two forms of property, and so on, will not be endorsed by the hon. Gentleman. Then in a most interesting speech in the dinner hour, when there were about seven people in the House, such a Conservative of Conservatives as the hon. Member for the Wokingham Division (Mr. Gardner) told us that he had always been in sympathy with the principle of the tax, and his only objection was when we came to the methods by which we were carrying it out. The newspapers which have been attacking us most fiercely have stated that with certain limitations the principle is entirely just and satisfactory. Then, again, some of the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some of the concessions which have been made, have very largely removed objections and fears which formerly existed in the House and in the country. I have been engaged in discussing the subject with Members, and I suppose hundreds of times explanations have been given of what the Bill really does which have removed legitimate fears. But the right hon. Gentleman will have none of it. He has taken us back from the most interesting discussion on the detailed effect of the Increment Tax, so far as it has been revealed in Clause 1, to the general principle whether a future unearned increment in land should be a legitimate subject of taxation, and he asks us to explain why that increment differs from all other property, and why the increment which is in land should be taxed when the increment which exists in other things is not taxed. I should be taxing the patience of the Committee if I delivered a speech which every Member on this side of the House has got prepared, explaining the difference between increment in land and in other forms of property. There is no one Member, as far as I know, who would not follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in repudiating the suggestion that the difference is a moral difference, or that we are bringing any charge of immorality against those who are at present taking the increment given them by the laws of the country.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not mean to suggest that that was the frame of mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I was using immorality in a wider sense of the word,

  427
  which includes that robbery, which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) accused us of, though he said subsequently that he meant nothing offensive. But surely if the right hon. Gentleman is going to repudiate not only the conclusions of Henry George, with which I have no concern, but the whole of the conclusions of any kind of political economy with which I have been acquainted, from Adam Smith through John Stuart Mill with his doctrine of increments, all of which in future should be retaken by the State, with the alternative offered of land nationalisation, down to the greatest exponents of modern political economy, such as Professor Marshall, who calls these public values, and says they are not essentially private values at all—if he is going to repudiate all that, he or his Friends should advance rather more cogent arguments than those advanced at present. The limited competition between land, the quasi monopoly character of land, especially round the big towns, the fact that increment may accrue on land, utterly apart from the exertions, or even the foresight, of the individuals who own it, and the fact that automatically increases are heaped on the value of land when industry develops, and a considerable proportion of the extra profits of industry automatically flows away to the land in the neighbourhood of which the industry is developed— these headings which I have no time to amplify, have persuaded every orthodox political economist with whom I am familiar to draw the very sharpest distinction between the increment of land and of property as a whole as the subject of taxation. There has been an argument advanced in which unearned increments have been found in other forms of property besides land. That is a totally different proposition. I was dealing first with the distinction between unearned increment and ordinary property which has no unearned increment. Now I pass on to the distinction between it and other unearned increments in other forms of property or activity than land. The right hon. Gentleman is a master of economics past and present, but he will agree with me that the crude cases, if I may say so without offence, advanced by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) when dealing with increments where there is free competition, say of a town where more doctors can be brought in, and the cases of competition by servant girls, were not in any sense of the word
  428
  to be identified with the unearned increment in land. There has been a great deal of identification, not in the least agreed to in the same manner, of these cases with the case of the increment in land. There are difficulties in disentangling what is called social value in capital and labour as well as in land. When that disentanglement is clear and accepted, and when some definite, easy, and consistent scheme has been established whereby that increment may be clearly shown as distinct from the ordinary remuneration of industry or the profits from labour, then—and not until then— might come the time when the House might consider it a legitimate subject for taxation.
  I pass from the intellectual principle to the justification of this tax. References have been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and other speakers to our attempts and endeavours to explain to the Committee the various ways in which this principle of appropriation of a certain proportion of unearned increment by the State has been adopted in various countries. In a speech conspicuously fair, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, I think, a little unfair in suggesting that we were keeping back in any shape or form private information which we have received in connection with increment taxation. For example, there is an Increment Tax in Germany. It was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to explain that other civilised countries were engaged in applying the same doctrine which we now propose to apply It is not a tax confined to Frankfort. It is in operation in at least 200 municipalities in Germany. It is being added to every day. At Berlin it has been added to by the passing of the Bill in 24 hours —a most commendable example of celerity in legislation.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is there any case in Germany of the extension of it to a rural area?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is as familiar with the proposals in Germany as I am. That is not the point. The point is whether unearned increment can be separated from the ordinary property which exists in land at the present moment, and whether other countries have decided that it is a legitimate subject for taxation. We have kept nothing back in reference to Frankfort. There is no mystery in the matter. Again and again the

  429
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained fully to the Committee all the points which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has brought forward to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to put the Committee in possession of the information he has on the subject in order that they may be as familiar with the whole system as the Government. We have never said, and we do not say, that the system of dealing with increment in this Bill is exactly similar to the system of dealing with it in Germany. Nor is our system of dealing with valuation of site value or total value the same as that in America. Nor is the general dealing with site values in the Colonies the same as that in operation on the Continent. What my right hon. Friend has done is to draw knowledge and experience from every country engaged in dealing with the subject, and to try to remove the special difficulties which have been exhibited in those countries, and out of them to establish an Increment Tax which will not be subject to the particular criticism which has been advanced in those countries. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that it was monstrous to compare the proposed system with that in operation in Frankfort because our system presses more hardly. Our proposals are not retrospective. The Frankfort scheme went back, and took increments which had been built up and were in the hands of the present owners. We have given minute attention to this matter, and we have been most careful with respect to the present owners. We have decided that the tax should only apply to future nerements in land, and that makes an enormous difference in favour of the people who own land under this scheme in comparison with those who own land under the Frankfort scheme.
  I will give one or two instances to show the complexities which arise in dealing with this question. No one on this side of the House has ever suggested that this was an easy matter in dealing with a land system which has been settled for 1,000 years, but the difficulty will not be lessened by postponement. I have not the slightest doubt that either a Liberal or a Conservative Government would have attempted before now to impose Increment Taxes if it were not that there are complexities and difficulties in the way. It is cowardice, and not political courage, to be deterred from an act of justice in taxation by the fact that there are difficulties in the way.
  430
  There are two classes of difficulties. Let me ask the Committee to disentangle these two classes. There are first the difficulties when dealing with the commencement of the tax. These absorb by far the great majority of the difficulties in connection with the question under discussion. There are always difficulties when imposing a tax and at the same time trying to safeguard from any kind of injustice anyone that will fall under the operation of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised such safeguards as shall insure the removal of the tax from recovery in agricultural lands, and the removal of the Increment Tax from a considerable number of interests or persons, and also its mitigation in the case of certain interests and persons at the commencement of the tax. I should be out of order if I were to refer now to the valuation clause. The difficulties and complexities in connection with valuation are of a kind which will never be repeated They are incidental to the commencement of the tax only, and I believe that afterwards the tax will work as smoothly, despite the difficulties which are prophesied, as the Death Duties have worked, despite the adverse prophecies which were indulged in at the time they were imposed.
  There is a second class of complexities arising out of our endeavours to make —with whatever care is possible—exemptions from the operation of the tax of any increment except that increment which is, in the strictest sense of the word, unearned. There is the exemption of the industry of agriculture; there is the exemption of the industry of estate development; there is the exemption of any kind of improvement put into the land, or any improvement due to building on the land. With a full sense of responsibility, and with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can say if under any circumstances it can be shown in future discussion that trade, industry, building, or work attributable to the individual falls under the operation of the Increment Tax, my right hon. Friend will listen favourably to any Amendment brought forward for its removal. It has been said by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs that this tax would create the maximum of disturbance with the minimum of result. That has been said before. It has been said that all this is worthless considering the few thousands or the few hundred thousand pounds which will be realised by the tax. I have no wish to indulge in the dismal work of going over

  431
  past speeches made by Members in this House, but I was compelled a few days ago to refer to the Debates which took place in 1894 in connection with the imposition of the Death Duties. I can assure hon. Members that they are a very salutary study, not of inconsistencies of men to-day or yesterday, because I am not concerned with them at all, but of the falsity of the political prophecies of the evil results which may be expected to follow from particular forms of taxation. Lord Avebury has made a strong attack on my right hon. Friend's Budget. He desires the excision of this Increment Tax because of the injury it may create. Lord Avebury in 1894, in the Debates on the Death Duties, announced that they would create a maximum of distress with a minimum of result, and that persons coming into property would shut up their houses. In quoting these prophecies, I am only giving a summary of similar prophecies to which I have been listening for the past few weeks. We were told in 1894 that people would leave the country to live cheaply elsewhere, sell their horses, dismiss their grooms and gardeners, diminish expenditure with tradesmen of all kinds, that the result would be the dislocation of village life, and a sudden diminution of employment all round, the ruin of small tradesmen, and that sudden curse would descend first upon one village, and then upon another, which could not be foreseen nor guarded against. [An HON. MEMBER:"Quite true."] Let me quote another statement which the hon. Member opposite will not perhaps regard as so true, though it is almost literally a statement which we have heard in connection with this Increment Tax. It was said that the Death Duties would extinguish the present generation of English landlords, and that it would be absolutely impossible to collect the duties. Finally, it was prophesied that the Death Duties would increase evasion, and the temptation to evasion of the duties, and that they would bring in a result of little or no value at all.
  Captain CRAIG: Where is that quotation from?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is from the opposition by Mr. Gibson Bowles to the Death Duties. The statement made on the bringing in of the Death Duties was first that only a few hundred thousand
  432
  pounds would be collected, and that, therefore, there was really no need for all this dislocation in the rural districts. Secondly, it was said that they would cause ruin, especially in the rural districts. The same statements are being made now with reference to this tax. I think the result of experience will be a similar result if the hitherto increasing growth in the value of land is steady and continuous. If the prosperity of this country is going to decline, and if that growth does not continue, then I agree there is little justification for the creation of the Increment Tax. But if this tax had been created a hundred years ago, what kind of revenue, without any kind of injustice to any particular person, but merely by the unforeseen and speculative increase in the value of land must at the present time be raised? Similarly, without any kind of injustice to private persons, and dealing with the unforeseen and speculative value which must accrue to various portions of the land of England, I believe that in the days to come those who contemplate the opposition to this tax will be astonished that it was not welcomed by all classes in the country.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: In reference to the speech to which we have just listened, the hon. Member (Mr. Masterman) said he would not tax the patience of the House because he was sure that every Member behind him had a speech on land value. I think the state of our benches a moment ago showed it was quite clear that every Member on this side had a speech ready against land tax. I was perfectly amazed that as the result of five days' discussion the hon. Member seems to have acquired the idea that the objection to this tax in principle has been in any way lessened by the discussion that has taken place. He must hardly have any accurate and true idea of rural life in this country if he can say in this House that the Death Duties of 1894 have not in any way brought about the results which were prophesied then. I was a Member of the House at the time, and I listened to those Debates, and anybody familiar with the rural parts of the country must know that it is absolutely true to say that every single one of those prophesies read out now in connection with the speech of Lord Avebury have been amply fulfilled. I desire specially to raise a question, which, I am sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will welcome the opportunity of replying to, because by his own request I was not able to raise it

  433
  at the time when my Amendment was in order in connection with the discussion on this Bill. I do not think, great as has been the attention given to many points, that nearly enough attention has been given to the burden which will be placed on a large number of people in this country in consequence of the fact, which is very little understood through the country, that minerals are included in the definition of land. The whole question how this is going to affect the matter is one of enormous importance and very great complexity. First of all, we know there is no definition in any way of what minerals arc, and that necessarily leads to very considerable difficulty in understanding the other sections of the Bill very closely connected with this clause, such as section 2 of Clause 16, where we find that a site valuation will be made on minerals in every case. That is to say, in every case of separate occupancy down to the smallest allotment the owner has to make a separate return of the value of minerals in order to arrive at the value of the land, and we are unaware of what these minerals are. We have never been allowed the smallest idea of what is in the mind of the Government in connection with this Question when we have been dealing with valuation. They are more or less limited to minerals which are known to exist, such as open mines, and we are led into a condition of conjecture in connection with these things which is far greater than in the case of land, about which we can judge to some extent of the value.
  In all those discussions about agricultural land I think it is assumed that the site value of the land does include these minerals, and while on the one hand we are told that land under £50 value is going to be excluded, and that agricultural land is not going to suffer owing to proximity to towns and other reasons, we can never tell what value the Commissioners will put upon unknown minerals under this land which will increase the value of the agricultural very largely through the country and place it under the burden of this tax. That is more in connection with the genera] question; but when we come actually to minerals as we know them, such as coal and ironstone, which are connected with the great industries of this country, we are involved in far greater difficulties still, and confronted with a far greater burden. At all events, the great reason for placing this increment upon land which has been stated by the hon. Member just now, and was put with great force by the Prime Minister in
  434
  his speech only a few days ago, does not apply to minerals. They are not, at all events, the creation of the community. They are not its property in the sense that they have been made by the energy, skill, or improvement of the community. Some of my hon. Friends opposite will agree with me that the deeds of the community are very often the last thing that the owners of minerals desire, because they impede to a large extent the facility for working those minerals. I have had considerable experience for over thirty years in connection with mining properties and the extension of sewers, water-pipes, and things of that sort and their effect upon the working of minerals, and I can say that all the great communal advantages which do increase the value of land are in some cases actually a decrement of value of minerals. Therefore the argument in connection with the community which is often used, that this increment would encourage the disposal of land, cannot be used in connection with minerals. There has been no holding back of minerals in this country in any way. Many of us would say, perhaps, that it would be far better to reserve this great property in minerals and not flood the market with minerals at a moment when they are not wanted. I am quite sure that the country supports hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in saying that it is not desirable that there should be too great competition in this matter lest it should bring down the wages of those concerned in working minerals. I think there is very great ground for saying that, even if you say the land is a thing upon which you may be allowed to put this Increment Duty, yet, if you come to minerals, they are the raw material of several of the greatest industries in this country; and if you are taking the precaution in connection with this clause to strike out agricultural land, which is the raw material of the agricultural industries, why do not you also take the precaution to strike out the application of this tax to minerals, which are really the raw materials of the great iron and coal industries of this country?
  I should like also to point out with reference to this question that I have already alluded to the great inconvenience that must come through the separate valuation which may be required in connection with minerals, even in cases of sale or transfer, though, no doubt, it might be in some measure mitigated by the fact that you do get the value of the whole property which is passing, and,

  435
  therefore, there cannot be the same objection; but there is a very great objection to applying this increment to minerals in case of passing by death or cases where you take periodical payment from a corporate or incorporate company. You have to estimate the thing which is often proved not to exist when it comes to the actual working, and in many cases this increment may be collected upon valuation which may never be obtained, and which, if they are obtained, are only obtained by a great expenditure of capital and by great risks run by individuals who are willing to take these risks on account of the profit which may come. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a deputation the other day, that this tax would only fall upon royalty owners, and no doubt he is very desirous as regards this present form in which he is going to collect it that some other persons might find a more palatable and workable alternative than he has been able to find. Yet in the end these taxes must really fall upon industry, though in some cases they may avoid this, where the mine-owners take the minerals and work them. In that case you can perhaps to some extent separate the interests, but you must remember that in this country a very large proportion of minerals are got by those who own them, and a great number of large industrial companies are keeping up the industries by working the minerals which they own themselves; and when the hon. Member just now said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to accept an Amendment which would ensure that in this Bill no trade or business or anything of that sort would be in any way burdened. I hope he will carry that out into actual practice, and that he will consider the case of mineral owners who are also working their own property and their own works because in that case there really is a very great hardship.
  I would just like to refer to the company with which I have been associated for thirty years. We have been carrying on our works for nearly 120 years, and we have worked the same beds of minerals around those works. It was absolutely necessary for the purpose of continuity in working those iron works that those who were connected with them should have the foresight to buy mineral beds in order to insure continuity of supply and material; for those works. We have consequently got large areas of ungotten minerals which are being kept for the time required for
  436
  the carrying on of the ironworks concerned. Now we are going to be taxed upon the increment value of those minerals as they get nearer to being worked. We may be taxed on some of them which we have had in our possession for over 120 years, just as we are getting near to working them, and where they are really wanted for the use of the industry they are to be taxed with the tax which will take one-fifth of the value from them and burden the industry to the extent to which we are compelled to pay tax to the State. Surely these cases, which are very numerous, are cases which do require consideration from the Government, and they really cannot get off on the easy statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that his only desire is that when the State is in need of money to get from the royalty owners who receive their rents so easily, their share towards the money that is wanted. It is not only royalty owners who are concerned in this increment matter. We have had no attempt by the Government to deal with this question so far as minerals are concerned, and as the clause reads now, if it is accepted to-day, it is an undoubted fact that the industries connected with both coal, iron, and steel would be very largely affected by the manner in which the tax will be placed upon them. There is also the question of increment when it comes up in the shape where there is no consideration received. There are many persons who will suffer very considerably. The clergy throughout the country in many cases have minerals under their glebes. In some instances they may become valuable because coal has been opened out in the district, and the owner may find, at the end of 15 years' interval, that he is called upon to pay a very large amount of increment upon minerals which, although they are valueless because the extent is too small for them to be worked, and because there may be other influences which may prevent them from being worked by others, yet are proved to be of value by the fact that the minerals have been opened up in the immediate neighbourhood of the glebe. There is an enormous number of small holders throughout the country who are also in the same position, and in all these cases the Increment Duty on ungotten minerals will have to be paid on purely conjectural estimate, without any certainty at all whether the value will be ever received by the persons who owned them. There is apparently no provision in the Bill to insure that these taxes are not going to be paid twice over

  437
  by the unfortunate persons who own these minerals. If we turn further on in the Bill we find that in the case of ungotten minerals it would be the same thing; they are to be taxed every five years, and their value is to be taken from another date, the 30th April, 1914, so that two valuations are going on — the increment valuation first, and then ungotten minerals valuation. There is no provision in the case of undeveloped land that minerals should be treated so that they would not pay twice on the same thing. It may be that the death occurs of an owner who is working his own minerals the very year after he had been paying Increment Duty on ungotten minerals for a number of years, and in that case the tax on the whole value would have to be paid. If the minerals are worked a year after the death of the owner the tax is paid first on the total value and then on the minerals, and nothing is left because the capital is entirely consumed. I do not think that this Question has in any way been adequately dealt with during the discussion of Clause 1, and we shall have to deal with it. There are many most difficult subjects arising from it, and I do hope the Government, before they pass away from this clause, will give some assurance to the House that they more fully realise than they show any appearance of doing up to the present the extreme difficulties in connection with minerals; and I hope we may have some assurance, also, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the lines of answers to deputations and of answers to questions in this House, that he is convinced that the duties on increment and ungotten minerals are unworkable, and that he is already turning to some more satisfactory proposal.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Before voting for this clause I should like to trouble the Committee with a statement of some of the reasons why my colleagues and myself will support it. To begin with, the fact which is before our minds is an exceedingly simple one. Attached to the land there is unearned increment, and the question is who ought to own that increment and who ought to enjoy it. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addressing himself to the Question, made the somewhat extraordinary statement that for the first time in the history of our politics a particular form of property was singled out for special taxation. It may be perfectly true that so far as Bills are concerned the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, but I would venture to
  438
  remind him that there is one whose name is still held in the greatest respect, who is honoured by those of us who have been in politics in this country for the last 15 or 20 years, and whose great contribution to political thought in this country consisted in hammering home the truth of this very clause. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. From 1884 up to 1886 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in a most able, consistent, and impressive way, applied this very old doctrine in English political economy to polities, and said that whenever a Government came into power who really meant to advance, through financial ways, the democratic interests of the country, that Government would apply itself to this very question. It may be right, it may be wrong; it may be moral, it may be immoral; Right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the front Opposition Bench may be perfectly justified in applying to this proposition the terms "theft" and "robbery," and so on, but it is not not accurate to say that for the first time it has now entered political discussion in this country. There has not been a single economist of any standing, or any weight, but has always drawn the line between this kind of property and other kinds of property.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: What about Bastiat?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I can very well understand now why the hon. Member for Preston holds John Stuart Mill in small esteem when he quotes Bastiat as against English economists of pre-eminent authority. One of the titles of Mill's chapters is as follows: "The increased rent of land from natural causes is a fit subject of peculiar taxation." The difficulties in details may be great, so great perhaps that in the opinion of some they may be considered insuperable, but so far as theoretical justification for the Government attempting to deal with this question is concerned, it is absolutely complete and unquestionable. I am not going to say that it is immoral for certain classes of the community to hold property of this kind. Morality in this respect I think is a very difficult and elusive subject to discuss; but the title which certain classes of the community have in this kind of property is not nearly so good a title as they could produce for other kinds of property which they hold. As a matter of fact, the title is shaky. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because they did not create the property.

  439
  It may be perfectly true that they bought it. The South American slave-owners bought, their slaves. [An HON. MEMBER" They were compensated."] It may be perfectly true that they were compensated, but we are not alienating from landowners their property any more than mine is being alienated from me, when I am charged Income Tax. I might propose to the right hon. Gentleman that if I am called upon to pay an Income Tax of 9d. or 1s. in the £, I ought to be paid by the State for the injustice done to me. Taxation does not involve purchase, and is not the subject of purchase. Taxation is imposed upon property which by reason of the source from which it comes, or by reason of the amount of human effort which it represents, is, or is not, specially liable to be taxed. The whole theory of taxation is not a theory of purchase, it is a theory which concerns the kind of profits that may most properly and most scientifically be burdened with the cost of Government, and if there is any kind of property more than another which may properly be burdened with this cost, then a wise Chancellor of the Exchequer would impose that burden upon it. I have already quoted the title of one of Mill's chapters, which shows that this is the very kind of property that has always been particularly regarded by economists as being subject to taxation. It is perfectly true that during this Debate an attempt has been made to extend the kinds of property to be subject to the tax. I welcome that attempt. When this clause has become part and parcel of the taxation of this country, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider whether it is not possible to extend it to other forms of property; and when he makes up his mind to do that he will be able to quote the speeches of Unionist Members in justification of his proposals. The point we have really to consider is this—it is not a question of the small owner, but of the large owner. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs has been good enough to refer to the Scotch feuars. He is their special champion. I happen to be a Scotch feuar, and I am exceedingly obliged to him for looking after my interest. So far as I am concerned I have no objection to the tax whatever it may be, but it works in this way: In the place where I have a feu of a certain piece of land for building purposes, the value of that land has gone up for feuing from 10s. an acre to £20 an acre. That has occurred in my own
  440
  lifetime, and the person who owns that land has not spent a brass farthing on improving it. The increment is simply owing to certain natural advantages which created as years went on not only a monopoly in the land available for building purposes, but an increase in the value. Today there is now a town built where there was no town, and where, I remember, there was nothing but sandbank and sandhills. The town has had to lay the drains at the expense of the feuars, it has had to make the roads largely at the expense of the feuars, and then, when it was found that the drainage had to be conducted into the sea, the landlord actually claimed the unearned increment of the sea, and sued us at the Court of Session, with the result that the feuars had to pay something like £2,000 in order to satisfy the claims of the landlord, who complained that salmon might be poisoned by the drainage whir was being taken to the Moray Firth in order that human beings might not be poisoned by it.
  The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs ventures to get up in this House and to tell us that that typical case, for that is the typical case, must be put aside because a few individuals, like myself, may have to pay a few shillings now and again as an expression of the unearned increment that is being placed on land owned by that particular gentleman. What this clause is going to do is this, it is going to hit the landlords who have been holding up their land, because their land is a natural monopoly, what ever may be said by logic choppers for and against. As a matter of simple fact and as a matter of experience the land of this country is a monopoly and its market value is created by the fact that it is a monopoly. If it were not a monopoly the economic laws which regulate the expression of its value would not operate at all. It is for those reasons we claim, when the community created this unearned increment, as is proposed in the clause, we have a right to take a part of that unearned increment and use it for our own: purposes. We were told, moreover, that this was a mere abstraction, that this unearned increment was merely hypothetical. I would like to know what is the view of the landlords on that. It is very significant that in the earlier parts of this Debate, when the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was talking, in nine cases out of ten he referred to the persons who were going to pay the tax as "us." Ha kept on saying "the tax is imposed upon us, we are going to pay the tax, we

  441
  are being punished." Who are the "we"? The landlord classes of this country. It is all very well for them to come in now and talk about the high morality of possession. What did they show of it in the whole of their history in this country? I have known scores of small owners who are valued now at such a high valuation by some of the hon. Members who spoke above the Gangway, whose lands have been taken from them by the large owners. There was then no question of the maintenance of an independent yeomanry in this country.
  It is all very well for hon. Members to sneer now, but these things are remembered by us who have been victims of the oppression of the class to which they belong. We know perfectly well what the operation of private ownership of land has been. It is nothing but a subject of rather amusing reflection in our own hearts when we hear some of the speeches which have been delivered during the last five days. There is not a single piece of land ever held by the people, ever held by small owners, ever enjoyed by the people, from a footpath to a common, but that they have cast their eyes on, and in too many cases their hands upon, and have appropriated for their own purposes, without compensation, without leaving the people to enjoy80 per cent. of it, as is proposed by this Bill. Therefore, when we hear some of these speeches delivered against this proposal, we do not feel impressed by the logic or morality behind these speeches. The principle of the clause is perfectly clear, whether the machinery is adequate or not. I am not concerned with defending the machinery in all its details. You cannot possibly create a perfect machinery to carry out this principle in one Act of Parliament. Circumstances which nobody can foresee will arise, and there are occasions that will occur which cannot be prevented beforehand by clauses of an Act of Parliament. All that we have got to make up our minds about is this. Is the machinery provided a tolerably fair machinery? So far as I am concerned, I think it is.
  It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Ivor Guest), without giving any detail, that it is a great mistake to levy the rate except where the property is actually realised, but the effect of that is going to be, that every time the property is realised the seller or the buyer is to be punished, so to speak. Every large land-owner who holds up never gets his increments reduced by a tax. Therefore, a man who can hold up his land
  442
  simply accumulates and increases his annual income, and the increment is never touched at all. That is precisely the man who ought to be touched. If this tax is justified it must act with a certain amount of steady regularity. It must add to the Exchequer an income steadily, regularly, and with a tolerable amount of certainty. You have, therefore, got not merely to tax the man who sells or the man who buys, but the man who holds, otherwise a premium is placed upon land being let out for building purposes upon lease rather than sold for building purposes. The hon. Member may have some machinery in his mind, but he did not disclose it in his speech, but, taking the general principle that would be the inevitable effect of the suggestion which he made in the earlier part of this Debate. I have held very firmly and very warmly to the principle of the clause, because I happen to have experienced landowners, but on the other side of the scale from that of hon. Members above the Gangway. I have, as I say, held firmly and warmly to the principle, and I hope, however much hon. Members may disagree, they will believe held very honestly and held very sincerely. From that point of view and on general principles I support the clause. So far as the details are concerned, I think they are tolerable. I think they have been thought out carefully, and that there is a sufficiently good beginning to enable adjustment and readjustment in future years which will enable this tax to be collected equitably. Therefore I am going to support the clause when the Division comes.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because of the very legitimate desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Debate on this clause should be brought to a close early this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I wish especially to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and with the argument used by the Prime Minister, and which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorses. The Prime Minister the other day, speaking elsewhere, said that his reason for this tax was as follows: —
  "In cases where an owner of land, not from his own effort, enterprise, or expenditure, but from social Cannes, for which the community, and the community alone, is responsible. The Government are not, therefore, imposing taxes upon land, they are taxes upon the communal value which has been added to the land by the exertions of the State."

  443
  That is the Prime Minister's defence of this tax. If it is the real defence for the tax why does the Government stop at 20 per cent.? If this communal value has been really earned by it the State is morally entitled to the whole of it. There is no dividing line between taking the whole of the unearned increment and taking part of it. I think, also, I shall carry the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald) with me in asserting that there are other forms of unearned increment which cannot and never have been differentiated by the Front Bench from the unearned increment on land. It has been constantly said, in answer to that argument, that the difference lies in the fact that land is a monopoly, whereas the exertions of the individual are never a monopoly because competition can come in. A particular piece of land may be a monopoly, but there is always the competition of another piece of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Always. I venture to state if any Member of this House wanted a particular piece of land, and could not get that particular piece of land, he would take another piece. With regard to the second point as to competition, to have that answered with any validity, we should be driven to the conclusion which Mr. Henry George accepted, that the effect of competition is to lower the wages of all classes in the community to a bare subsistence. That was Mr. Henry George's main proposition in "Progress and Poverty." He argued that private property in land resulted in the land-owners getting the whole of the wealth of the country beyond a bare subsistence wage for the workers. The natural result of the argument is that competition deprives the worker of his share of unearned increment, leaving the land-owner his share. It is not true in fact.
  As a matter of fact land has not increased so rapidly as other forms of property in this country, including above all that form of property which I may describe as "intellectual property." Nothing has increased so much as the wages of intellectual labour. If there were anything in the argument as to competition, lawyers and doctors should have the same wages as they had fifty years ago but we know they have increased, and that they have shared the unearned increment.
  The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) said he was willing to accept a system of taxation for every form of unearned increment if a reasonable system could be devised. We have that reason-
  444
  able system already in the Income Tax and the Death Duty. They are the methods of taxing the increment. Everybody who has increment has to pay on it, and everybody who has property has to pay on it. By these two methods I maintain you do lay hold of all the unearned increment of the country. Wealth, from whatever source it comes, is taxed by those two methods. I wish especially to deal with the point made by the Prime Minister and by a great many newspapers of the country with regard to unearned increment. I have often argued, and hon. Members opposite, that it is unfair to tax unearned increment unless you compensate for unearned decrement. The Prime Minister attempted to answer that by saying do you then propose not to impose Income Tax on a man unless you—
  The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think we ought to discuss questions which come in on later clauses. That question of decrement can be raised, and will be raised, no doubt, on the next clause.
  Mr. COX: I was not arguing that there ought to be a deduction. I think it is quite relevant to my contention. The point is that if you do not compensate for a decrement you are in fact taking something away from the present value. The Prime Minister and other Members of the Government say you are not to take anything away from the present value, that really that is sacred. They say, "If your property increases we will take something away from it, but if it declines we will not compensate you." Then clearly you are depreciating the present value. I think that point is quite unanswerable. That is why we argue that the two things must go together.
  Let me finally put this point. I think it is now agreed that taxes are paid by persons and not by things. If that is so, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with a question which has been put again and again by opponents of this tax, and tell us why a person who derives his income from land should be taxed at a higher rate than a person who derives his income from other things. That is a question which has never been answered. No contrast between land and other things answers the question. You are dealing with persons, and you propose by this tax to pick out a particular body of persons and penalise them, while you do not penalise other persons who are equally poor or equally rich. You do that in defiance of the principle of taxation laid

  445
  down by Adam Smith, which has hitherto been accepted by everybody, that you should tax people upon their means, so that those who have most pay most. Instead of doing that, you are picking out people because they own a particular form of property, whether they be poor or whether they be rich, to pay an exceptional tax. That I regard as unjust, and I hope, even at this late period of the Debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain why he does it.
  Mr. FREDERICK LAMBTON: The speech of the hon. Member for Leicester {Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) was one not often made in this House; and, speaking for my friends and myself on this side, we shall not pay much attention to it. We do not acknowledge ourselves to be sinners in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, and we regard with indifference the broad phylacteries of other people sitting in other parts of the House. The hon. Member told us that the land-owners of this country had not title to their property, because they did not create the land.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should raise no objection if the hon. Member accurately reproduced what I said; but in the present instance he is very much mistaken.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I certainly do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member, but he did say that their title was bad, because they did not create the land.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: What I said was that the unearned increment upon land, not being created by the individual, is not held by private individuals by the same kind of title as other kinds of property are held by them.
  Mr. LAMBTON: It is rather hard to follow the hon. Member. He told us that the title was bad, and that the property was not created by us. The same argument applies to the sovereign which the hon. Member has in his pocket. Will he maintain that he made that sovereign I do not think that that sort of argument is worth answering. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board challenged us on this side to speak on this clause in regard to the principle of the measure. Because two or three of my hon. Friends have spoken on the clause, and have not referred to the principle, he maintained that they were in favour of it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. LAMBTON: The hon. Member also told us that he would not speak of the immorality of land-owners. I am a landowner; I have never done anything immoral in connection with land; and I maintain that the process of holding land is as honest and honourable as any other. Hon. Members may say what they like; we are not going to stand in white sheets in this House.
  The Parliamentary Secretary also spoke about the value of land increasing in this country. We all know that agricultural land has not increased in value lately. It is claimed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to protect agricultural land. I maintain that the provisions of this Bill, at all events, will not do so. The mere fact that the Bill is so drawn as to put back the date 20 years shows that the Government have not taken much trouble to inquire into the question of the decrement in land. The Report of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression shows that in the year 1875 the average rent for agricultural farm land was 33s. 10½d.; in 1885 it was 20s. 3d.; and in 1894 20s. 0½d.—a drop of 13s. 10d. in those years The Government are only going back to 1889, which is nearly the low-water mark. If they intend to safeguard agricultural land from being charged Increment Duty on low-water mark, they ought to go back at least to the year 1875. The owning of land a hundred years ago, or even two' hundred years ago, gave the possession of that land a much greater position in the country than he holds at present. It is all very well to talk about land-owners being so wealthy, having a monopoly, and so forth; but as far as social position and pecuniary interest go, during the last hundred years they have not increased in the same ratio as other classes in the country. Why, therefore, they should be the only class selected to be penalised by punitive taxation I cannot make out. The hon. Member made light of the prophecies of Lord Avebury with regard to the Act of 1894. Surely he does not know much about the country if he is not aware that a vast number of country houses were shut up. There are large districts in the country where there is hardly an owner living in his house; the houses are all let to gentlemen who have made large fortunes in other pursuits of life. The hon. Member says that the Act of 1894 has not done half the bad things

  447
  that were prophesied in regard to it. But it has been in operation only 15 years, which is not half a generation. Even he will not suggest that all the land-owners have died in that period, and it is only in the cases where they have died and come under the operation of the Bill that the hardship has been felt.
  When at an earlier stage in these Debates I made an interjection about minerals the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated me as a Daniel come to judgment. I have no objection to being called names, and I never felt any uneasiness at all about Daniel. What did concern me was the methods of Shylock. With regard to minerals under Clause 1, we are told that there is an Increment Tax analogous to this in other countries. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me that Frankfort applies in this case. Questions as to Increment Tax on minerals cannot be met by analogies from Frankfort. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was rather hard on the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he found fault with him for hiding some of the facts of actual practice. My right hon. Friend must have forgotten the nationality of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has a Celtic imagination, and I think he must be a direct lineal descendant of that Welshman who drew the famous parallel between Macedon and Monmouth: "There is a river in Macedon; there is also a river in Monmouth; and there are salmon in both. "The right hon. Gentleman goes to Frankfort, or New Zealand, or Australia, or any part of the world you like, brings back examples for us, and says, "Here you are; that will do for your tax in England." These analogies and comparisons are absolutely worthless. What is more, I do not wish to take my taxation from Germany, or any other country. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Those cheers do not disturb me; I have never concealed my opinions on that point. I do not like foreign methods of that sort; and I know not why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always advancing them in this House.
  With regard to minerals we have had no discussion. I, of course, bow to your ruling, Sir; but I do not know why some of the Amendments were not discussed on Clause 1. Most distinctly minerals come under the operation of that clause; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so. I maintain that minerals cannot come under
  448
  this Increment Tax. How are you going to obtain an increment on minerals? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not used the phrase "ungotten minerals" lately. It was a very mysterious phrase, which I have been unable to fathom. During the vacation I spent some time studying the geology of the British Isles. I learnt something about the primary, secondary, and tertiary formations; I remember something of the upper and lower silurian systems; but I have never been able accurately to locate the Georgian strata; and the experts whom I have consulted on the subject informed me that if they are ever found they will probably be too hot to be worked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer received on Thursday last a deputation from the Coal Miners' Association, which must have made some impression upon him. I have several Amendments down to the mineral clauses in the Bill, and I think he will pay some attention to them when he knows the source from which they come. I should like to point out to the Committee a few points with which my Amendments will deal. They are drawn up by one of the most distinguished solicitors in the North of England, who knows all about the coal trade, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that they are worth some consideration. In the first place, increment cannot be charged on undeveloped coal. Nearly all coal is either let or in process of being worked I do not know any district where coal is not worked at present, and if it is not worked it has no potential value. How can you have an increment in a thing which is not worked? In the case of coal which is leased, how, on the death of a man, can there be any increment in that? Coal is leased at a certain price per ton, and unless the price is raised there will be no increment. On the passing or renewal of a lease it is impossible to have an increment of value, because the lease is not fixed like an agricultural lease or any other lease on a certain fixed duty. It is fixed on the amount of coal raised, and therefore it is impossible to say that there will be any increment upon it. There is a lot of dead rent, but the amount of the lease itself depends on the amount of the coal brought to the surface. The amount of coal brought to the surface depends upon a number of circumstances. Therefore if he rents the coal at a higher lease next year than he has done this year you cannot claim the increment because you do not know the increment that will

  449
  be received. Under this Bill you will have to capitalise that increment as if it were real capital. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, too, that under this Bill no proper clause is drawn up and no provision made to deal with the interests of the lessor and the lessee. Under Clause 15 the lessor, the owner of the coal, will not only have to pay Undevelopment Duty on his own interests but also on the interest of the lessee. I should like to ask why that particular form of property is to be treated more harshly than others? I maintain that the owner of the minerals ought to be exempted from Increment Duty, in the first place because it is unworkable, and not to be got at; and in the second place because he will have to pay two or three times over, by way of Reversion Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, etc. Then there is the arithmetical problem as to how this tax will affect a man who owns mineral land in the neighbourhood of a town as against the person who owns Consols. Why should one be dealt with more harshly than the other? For instance, take the man who has an income of £6,000 per year from Consols. He pays a Super-tax on, roughly. £3,000 of 1s. 8d. in the pound. Take the case of a man who gets £6,000 a year from land near a town. The Commissioners come along and say that the land is undeveloped, and that it ought to be used for building purposes, and they fix the value of it at £150,000. The coal underneath is also valued at £150,000. On that total of £300,000 he will pay a halfpenny tax each year, which amounts to 2s. in the pound. This will be in addition to his 1s. 8d., so that, therefore, the man with mineral value and increment value will be charged practically a tax of 3s. 8d. in the pound, whereas the man who derives his income from Consols will be paying 1s. 8d. I am leaving out of consideration altogether all increment of rates and taxes, Death Duties, and other similar matters which press more heavily upon the owner of land than upon the owner of Consols. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify these provisions?
  I am not going into the merits of Clause 15 at present, but it says: "The total value of minerals means the amount which the fee simple of the minerals, if sold in the open market by a willing seller in their then condition, might be expected to realise, and the capital value of minerals means the total value, after allowing such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners may allow," etc. I maintain there is no
  450
  site value in minerals. The "total value of minerals sold in the open market" means that the fee simple of the minerals will not be in the interests of the lessors, but in the interests of the lessee. The owner will have to pay increment on a capital value calculated against him on a basis that is quite wrong. I do not suppose for a moment the right hon. Gentleman meant that, but that is the effect of the Bill according to the learned solicitor I have mentioned, whose opinion has been fortified by learned counsel, and which opinion I believe to be absolutely correct. Of course, these mineral clauses have altogether been drawn too carelessly. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that all the minerals are owned by the landowners——
  The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing whether or not the mineral clauses are badly drawn. The point is that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I beg your pardon, but I desire to maintain my position on Clause 1, and to point out that the Bill has been drawn up so badly that I think that Increment Duty on minerals is absolutely unworkable. I most earnestly hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay some attention to these complaints, which I know are generally put forward by owners and lessors of minerals, and I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will point out during the discussion on this first clause the injustice and penalising character of the legislation proposed in Clause 1 upon the owners of land generally.
  Mr. F. B. MILDMAY: The hon. Member who has just spoken alluded to the fact that some of the hon. Members on this side of the House were in favour of the principle of increment value. It has been apparent in this Debate that that is not so, because we are strongly opposed to the Increment Duty, as embodying a principle of the taxation of capital value, and capital value arbitrarily chosen, in place of the fairer principle of the taxation of the net income. I should think that this would have been made plain by the many reasons which have been given from these Benches against the increment provisions in the first clause, and not only given from this side of the House, but from the other side of the House. As was remarked some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me, more speeches have been made from the other side of the House in criticism of these clauses than has been made

  451
  in support of it. I am not concerned in the first instance to discuss the merits or demerits of the scheme of taxation which it embodies. I base my opposition in the first instance on the impossibility that the provisions of this clause can be operative by the date upon which this Bill is to come into force as an Act. I also base my opposition upon the impossibility that the prior work of valuation can be affected within the time suggested. My point is that the valuation for the purposes of carrying this first clause into effect must of necessity be a long and laborious process. The owner is to make his own valuation. In a very few instances will he be able to do so. Difficulties have been dwelt upon at length in this Debate. It is pretty certain that in almost every case the owner will have to have recourse to the services of the surveyor, and it will be found that there are very few surveyors competent to fulfil the duty. That will become clear when we consider the intricacies which will arise. In the valuation of urban property the surveyor will have to take into consideration not only the use to which the land is being put up to the present time, but also the use to which it may be put in the future. In considering this problem of value, all kinds of other considerations will arise, such as, for instance—to take one of the many—the rights of the adjoining properties. The Surveyor will have no real existing basis to work upon. Hitherto he has based his valuation upon market values. We all know that land and houses are let and sold together. No such basis exists for the separate valua-tion of the two things. It is, therefore, I think, quite obvious that the process of valuation in the case of urban property cannot be expeditious, and must, of necessity, delay the coming into force of this first clause.
  Still greater will be the difficulties of site valuation in connection with agricultural land. In towns the bare site may perhaps at rare intervals come into the market and give some sort of basis for valuation, but it will not be so in the case of agricultural land, in connection with which the valuation of the site value will be extraordinarily difficult. In the case of large agricultural estates which have been for a long time in ownership and in connection with which there has been a strict method of book-keeping, the valuer will have the assistance of the records of the estate; but it seems to me that the chief difficulty will arise in con-
  452
  nection with the smaller owners of the agricultural land, a class which is rapidly increasing, I am glad to think, at any rate in my part of the country—Devonshire. It is forgotten by those who are in charge of the Bill the extent to which this first clause will add to the burden of the small owners of agricultural land by the expenses attending the valuation. Such men will only know the price which they gave in the market for their holdings in the first instance. They will not be able to separate the site and the gross values. They will not even be able to make a comparative idea of the two values, and, of necessity, they will have to have recourse to the services of a surveyor, although they can ill afford to do so. Hon. Members can picture to themselves what immense labour will be thrown upon the shoulders of these surveyors, who are competent to make these valuations. The Lord Advocate said the other day that a careful valuer must go round every field, and take every estate most carefully. How can this work be performed expeditiously? The provisions of this Bill will force many land-owners to make a hurried valuation for themselves, although they are not competent to do so, and if they make any mistake, or incorrectly value their estate, I understand they are likely to be heavily fined. As to agricultural land, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he does not wish to add to the burdens upon it. He recognises that it would not be fair to make agricultural land subject to the increment duty, as at this moment the value of agricultural land after many years decrease is so very low. We know he speaks most sincerely, but he tells us that we must rely upon his word, and that he cannot put it plainly in the Bill that no agricultural land is to be subject to this Increment Duty.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never asked the Committee to rely entirely upon my words. I said that there were provisions in the Bill that would safeguard the agriculturist. These provisions may perhaps be a proper subject of Amendment if it seems necessary to make the matter clearer.
  Mr. MILDMAY: I quite understand the position the right hon. Gentleman takes up, but I think he will admit, I think most Members of the House will admit, that the matter is not clear at present. We know that the right hon. Gentleman will not always be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  453
  We can rely upon his word so long as he is Chancellor of the Exchequer. But we who represent those who get their living from agricultural land are strongly of opinion that in this Bill there ought to be some words which will protect agricultural land in the future, and will not leave it at the mercy and rapacity of Somerset House. We are strongly of opinion that agriculture in this first clause is not sufficiently safeguarded as the Bill is now worded. We all know there are certain Members on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway who welcome the fact that agricultural land is not safeguarded from this Increment Duty, because they look to putting some duty upon agricultural land in the future, the same as put upon urban land by this clause. We who are convinced that at present agricultural land is bearing an unjust burden are bound to oppose the wording of the Bill as it now stands. It opens up a possibility, and something more than a possibility, of having an increased charge put upon agricultural land in the future. It is a curious thing that so many hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are as zealous as possible not to tax the foreign importer of agricultural produce, are ready to put the whole burden of taxation upon the home producer. They do not mind taxing him. Again we say that such unjust taxation put upon the English agricultural producer amounts to giving a preference to the foreigner, and is to this extent protecting the foreign producer in our home market and hampering the home producer in Ins competition with the foreigner. In connection with these Debates the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Soares) professed to speak on behalf of the tenant farmers of Devonshire. It seems to me that the hon. Member must have been suffering from a most extraordinary hallucination when he stated that the farmers of Devonshire were prepared to welcome these provisions of the Bill. If he imagined the opinion he gave utterance to were the opinions of the tenant farmers of South Devonshire he was labouring under an extraordinary hallucination. I have a somewhat longer acquaintance with the farmers of Devon than the hon. Member. During last Whitsuntide I made it my business to go down and to endeavour to ascertain what might be the views of the farmers in Devon in connection with this Budget and these clauses, and I may say without fear of contradiction that almost all the men there are convinced that many provisions in this Budget, and also the provisions of
  454
  this clause, will deal a very serious blow to agricultural interests in Devonshire. They have held a meeting since that, and they have conveyed this opinion to the hon. Member for Barnstaple. I am concerned that if this Committee and this House should know that the hon. Member for Barnstaple, in professing to talk on behalf of the tenant farmers of Devonshire, is speaking absolutely without authority. I only repeat that in our opinion on this side agriculture is not sufficiently safeguarded by the words at present in the Bill. We welcome the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will be ready to consider any further words which may carry out what we have in view, but the wording being such as it is now, I feel myself constrained to vote against the provisions of this clause.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have now reached the end of the first stage in the long journey before us, and it is the duty of the Committee to devote themselves to the consideration whether the clause with which we have been dealing during the last five days, and which in some small particulars has been amended, really embodies any principle which ought to find a permanent place in our Statute Book when we are dealing with the taxation of the subject. We have had only two speeches tonight, so far as I remember, in favour of the clause—one by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Treasury Bench on behalf of the Government, and the other from one of the leading Members of the Labour and Socialist party. They represent the combined forces which are trying to compel us to adopt this absolutely novel departure in our fiscal system, and though the tone and the temper of the two speeches was utterly dissimilar, I cannot make out that the doctrines underlying them are profoundly different. It is quite true that when the Under-Secretary spoke on behalf of the Government he repudiated altogether the idea that the owners of land, and those who obtain increment upon their property in land, hold either property or increment by different moral or legal tenure from any other persons who hold property which increases or may increase in the future.
  He was charged, and the Government were charged, by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester with holding the opposite doctrine, but they repudiated that. They acknowledge apparently now, they do acknowledge, that the owner of

  455
  land has precisely the same title to the land and the same title to the increment, both by fundamental principles of morality, so far as they apply to these questions at all, by tradition, by law, by customs, by the habits of civilised people, as any other citizens of the Crown have to the property they own, and which may have an increment just as land may have. I welcome that admittance from the Treasury Bench. It is not quite in accord with the admission made by the hon. Member for Leicester, who represents the Labour party, but I am bound to say while I agree with the principle laid down from the Treasury Bench I think that Bill carries out not these principles, but the principles of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the owners of land ought to pay an increment on land standing in precisely the same relation to their property as any other holder of property, why should you treat them differently? The Member for Leicester says they do not stand in the same position, or if they did he would like to treat everybody who has an increment with the same scant consideration as this Bill proposes to treat those who are fortunate enough to obtain some increment in land. That is not the Government doctrine, and I am bound to say that the Under-Secretary in that part of his speech which he devoted to his rather interesting argumentative defence of the Bill never once really touched that question. There were parts of his speech which I confess did not illuminate us much; parts in which he told us that he thought the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the passage of the clause through Committee softened our objections to it, and the latter part of his speech in which he endeavoured to show that the taxation of increment value was common policy with politicians and thinkers of all shades of opinion. I do not think that that is very true or very illuminating. The middle part of his speech, in which he tried to argue the question, was, I think, more interesting. His argument came to very little, and when he came to analyse, he was driven down to appeals to economic authorities based upon a somewhat imperfect recollection of some of the economists to whose opinions weight has been given in many quarters of the House.
  I will trouble the House only with reference to two able and orthodox political economists, both strong Radicals, Professor Fawcett and Professor Thorold Rogers, and, so far as I remember—I have not
  456
  taxed my memory very closely upon the matter—they were the only two professional economists who had seats in this House, or had taken much part in our Debates during the 24 years that I have been a Member of this Assembly. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about John Stuart Mill'?"] The hon. Member is wrong in his dates. I do not think that John Stuart Mill sat again after the General Election of 1868. In any case, John Stuart Mill certainly was not in the House in my time. I never had the honour of sitting in the House with him. With the other two economists I have personal and friendly relationship. Both of them declared specifically and strongly against this proposal, which, under cover of economic authority, the Government now choose to bring forward. Nobody could have spoken or written more strongly than the late Professor Fawcett against the honesty of the proposals which the Government are now making. Nobody could have expressed in clearer or more emphatic terms the folly of trying to draw distinction in this matter between different kinds of property where no real distinction exists. And while I do not, I admit, take much interest in these appeals to economic authority or to the various writers who dealt with this subject, if we are to have these appeals to authority let them, at all events, take count of the difference of opinion, if difference of opinion there be, between economists. It is quite certain economists of high authority agree with me. I am by no means sure that any economist of authority agrees with the Government. We have had John Stuart Mill thrown at our heads in these Debates, but I do not believe that John Stuart Mill would approve of this proposal. John Stuart Mill's view has been, as far as I remember—I frankly admit I have not refreshed my memory by any late study of the particular work—but my recollection of John Stuart Mill was that he thought you ought either to appropriate the unearned increment of the land, to take all of it or buy out the landlords. His view was the view of the Prime Minister, that the value of land was increasing, that the increase in its value was regular, normal, continuous, and he suggested that the landlord should be bought out, and that the regular, normal, and continuous increase should be appropriated by the community. That is not the proposal of the Government, nor is it anything like their proposal. The Government proposal is a very different one, and they have defended

  457
  it, I think, as was pointed out just now by the hon. Member for Preston, without apparently understanding what it is. They think, apparently judging from the speech of the Under-Secretary and other speeches from the Government Benches, that they are not touching the present value of any owner. They seem to think that the owner of building land and site values, wherever they may be, is not going to surfer in the present immediate value of his property on account of the tax they are going to impose. Why, that is grotesque. Of course, he is going to suffer in his property. What you are doing, and really without disguise—you may wrap it round with ambiguous phrases, no practical man will doubt I am saying the exact truth— what you are doing is, you are putting on a tax which will take away the prospective value of land, the prospective value of which is a present worth in the market. Every single man, be he a large or a small owner, from one end of the country to the other, will have a smaller bulk of property in his possession after this Bill passes than he had before. That is undeniable. If you admit that these men hold their property by the same title, legal and moral, as anybody who owns Consols lying at their bankers; if the Government acknowledge that, how can they justify taking a chunk out of the property of these people under the name of taxing the future increment of land? It is perfectly true that the word "future"appears in their arguments, but the loss is immediate. The loss comes now and here on the date of the passing of this Act. It is then the loss will be inflicted. I am afraid I may go further, and say that even the introduction of this Bill, putting out of account all prospect whether it passes or not, the mere fact that a Government of supposed respectable men think it consistent with their views of public morality to make this special attack upon a special class will undoubtedly inflict, has inflicted, and is inflicting a great injury upon the particular owners of a particular class of property. I believe that at the back of the mind of the Government, and at the back of the mind of many supporters of this tax, there is this strange idea that the growth in the value of all land, not merely building land, but of all land, is, in the words of the Prime Minister, "regular, normal, and continuous." But it is not regular, it is not normal, and it is not continuous.
  We have had this appeal to economists. There was an eminent economist in this House, Mr. Cobden, who applied this
  458
  theory of regular, normal, and continuous growth in the value of land to the conduct of his own private affairs. He was so convinced, not merely that building land would rise, and that it would immediately rise in consequence of the Corn Laws, that he invested large sums in the purchase of land in the hope that the labours of the community would add to its value. But the labours of the community did not add to its value, and the result was, not once, but twice, Mr. Cobden's friends had to come to his assistance, and very large sums had to be subscribed by his admirers to extricate him from the financial embarassment due in no small measure to the fact not only that as a matter of abstract speculation, but as a matter of real practical business the growth of urban building land was not" regular, normal, and continuous. "Mr. Cobden's experience extended over many years. He bought the land in the forties, and 20 years or more after that there had to be a second subscription on the part of his friends, and a second time they had to extract him from difficulties due to his belief that the growth of all the land was" regular, normal, and continuous. "I am quoting a practical economist against some of the speculative political economy we have been favoured with by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When any private property has not this continuous rise, when it goes up and down as other property goes up and down, when the purchase has an element of known speculation, when a man backs his opinion against other people's opinion, and says," I think this land will rise, and I am ready to risk my money in it," for the Government to come forward, and, with regard to that kind of transaction, and that alone, to step in and claim all the unearned increment, or a fraction of it, seems absolutely unjustifiable by any authority, economic, moral, political, or fiscal.
  I will say this for the Government, that while they make this special attack" upon the pockets of a particular class, they have not imitated the hon. Member for Leicester, who made a violent speech against the class generally. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member's speech, because I happen to have an admiration for the Parliamentary style of that hon. Gentleman, and, when he chooses to argue, no one argues with more lucidity and earnestness appropriate to the occasion. I do not always agree with him, but I admit that no man puts his case, as a rule, with more moderation, compression, or more force; but he could not resist, I regret to say,

  459
  lapsing into what I consider the worst form of platform attack upon a particular class. I do not know out of what fount of bitterness came his attack upon those who own land, or why he should have made this violent assault upon them. I do not know upon what historical basis it is founded. Does he really think that less public spirit or less liberality has been shown by owners of land than, for instance, by manufacturers, or labour leaders, or any other class of men? I am sorry that he could not deal with a subject, which is, after all, a matter for argument, without making this violent, unnecessary, and wholly unfounded attack upon a particular class, against whom he appears to cherish some strange aversion. So ardent is the flame of hatred which burns in the breast of the hon. Gentleman that he put on one side all the arguments we have ventured to adduce, showing how this clause will affect the small owners, and he was entirely consoled by the satisfactory thought of the happy and consoling reflection that the big owners will be hurt almost as much. I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I think big owners will be hurt, but when you come to the practical working of this Bill you will find that in inconvenience, as well as in pure cash, it is the small holder who will be hurt more than the big owner.
  I will take the example given by the hon. Member for Leicester. He told us he was a feuar in some town in Scotland. I take it that he is not a feuar of the class which is so common in all the big towns in Scotland, in which a flat, or part of a flat, is actually owned in a way practically amounting to a freehold, by an artisan, or by some small owner. Consider the position of that man under this Bill. He owns half a fourth storey in some large house in Edinburgh or Glasgow, and this is a most common case. He will not be hurt in pocket by the unearned increment of that half flat, because in most cases there will be no unearned increment. But will he escape from the oppressive action of this Bill? Not a bit. Whenever anybody dies who has an interest in that land, except the man who owns it, who, being a superior, and has let it out on feu, is not concerned in this Bill at all—when anybody dies with an interest, except the owner, the whole thing will have to be revalued, although there is not the least prospect of the country getting a shilling out of the unearned increment. I have argued this on the lines of justice, but
  460
  apparently they have no weight with the great mass of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is there worse finance conceivable than establishing a method which gives very little to the Exchequer in an enormous number of cases, but, in order to get that little, inflicts a material inconvenience amounting to hardship on a large number of people who are not going to pay the tax at all? That is not finance at all. How are you going to justify this perpetual annoyance of small people? They will feel the annoyance more than those who have better means of dealing with it. By what canon is this justifiable? Search through all the catena of economists, and you will not find any man who would not condemn a tax which put enormous inconvenience upon the taxpayer in proportion to what was realised, and, in addition, put an enormous inconvenience upon a number of taxpayers who will not be asked to pay anything. I call that a ludicrous system. It is perfectly unjustifiable, and while I have confined my illustration to a single Scotch artisan holding a flat or a portion of a flat in a large house, everybody knows that in different shapes and forms the same grievance and difficulty arises in every one of the big towns south of the Tweed.
  But there is really a more serious aspect of this question than that to which I have referred. The hon. Member for Leicester stated with unanswerable consistency that he liked this tax because it taxed unearned increment, and wherever unearned increment was shown he would like equally to tax it. I call that consistency—in fact, it is the logic of consistency —but is that the doctrine of the Government or is it not? Observe the insecurity in which you put all kinds of property. Take the first kind of property which you are specially taxing. You put on this tax with approval. You advance doctrines which justify you in taking not merely one-fifth of the unearned increment but in taking the other four-fifths. How does that throw insecurity into that form of property. You have a body of people who deliberately say that every analogous case ought to be treated in a similar manner. Is the case of land special or not special? I am not sure that is the view of the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Leicester does not seem to draw any distinction between property in land and property in other things, and he is quite ready to tax unearned increment in every kind of property when he can get hold of it The

  461
  Prime Minister is sitting there, and he will be able to contradict me if I am wrong in stating that he sympathised with that idea in a speech that he delivered.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What speech?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The speech that he made at the Holborn Restaurant. From that speech I gathered that he regards only as a question of time whether the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his successor, will not appropriate other forms of property in the name of increment as well as land. In the first place, the supporters of this Budget take one kind of property, and one kind of property alone. They accompany their proceedings by obscure hints. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) says this is only a beginning, and when it is found practicable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to start on another buccaneering expedition this principle will justify other taxes. That, I say, is giving insecurity to the whole tenure of realised property. Are we sincerely to believe that you can advance these principles in a country like ours, backing them up by action such as is embodied in this Bill, without sooner or later, and, I am afraid, sooner than later, instilling the poison of insecurity into our general system, which must react into every sphere of industry and of human activity, and which will on all possible
  occasions do more harm than even inexpedient taxation does, to prevent the growth of industry, that application of capital and the improvements of the condition of mankind which are more necessary in these crowded islands of ours than in any country that the world has ever seen.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: On a point of Order. When I moved the first Amendment to postpone Clause 1, you ruled that I was out of order in discussing Clause 1 on the proposal to postpone the clause, as we should have ample opportunity to discuss it on the Amendment now before the House. I have not had the opportunity of addressing the House on the present Amendment. Shall I now be in order in discussing Clause 1?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The actual question put to me has no connection with the present Amendment. All that I have to consider in accepting the Closure is what are the rights of the minority.
  Question put: "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 215]

  AYES.

  [8.6 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Agnew, George William

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Aiden, Percy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Armitage, R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney Charles

  Elibank, Master of

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Byles, William Pollard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Astbury, Thomas Meir

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Falconer, J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Fenwick, Charles

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clough, William

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnes, G. N-

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Bell, Richard

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford)

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crossley, William J

  Greenwood, G (Peterborough)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Boulton, A C. F.

  Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Branch, James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brigg, John

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Soares, Ernest J,

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Summerbell, T

  Hodge, John

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Tillett, Louis John

  Jenkins, J

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tomkinson, James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pointer, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  King, Alfred Jones (Knutsford)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walton, Joseph

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lambert, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J

  Lamont, Norman

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Waterlow, D. S

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, A.

  Watt, Henry A

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, S.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sears, J. E

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Warkham, Arthur Basil

  Seely, Colonel

  Winfrey, R.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Mason, A E. W. (Coventry)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Massie, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coates, Major E F. (Lewisham)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cross, Alexander

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Keswick, William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Kimber, Sir Herry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W,

  Forster, Henry William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Foster, P. S.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

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

  Cave, George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  M'Arthur, Charles

  464

  465

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Remnant, James Farquharton

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Renwick, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Moore, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Oddy, John James

  Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Younger, George

  Peel, Hon. W. R W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, F. E. (Liverool, Walton)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Stanier, Beville

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Starkey, John R.

  Valentia.

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Question put, accordingly, "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 112.

  Division No. 216.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

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

  Crooks, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cross, Alexander

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hudson, Walter

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Jradine, Sir J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Astbury, Thomas Meir

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Joyce, Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George D.

  Barnard, E.

  Etibank, Master of

  Kilbride, Dennis

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Falconer, J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

  Bell, Richard

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lamont, Norman

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lehmann, R C.

  Bennett, E. N

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lundon, T.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Branch, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brigg, John

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glever, Thomas

  Lynch, H. B.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah {Down, S.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Massie, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough. William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Meagher, Michael

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Middlebrook William

  Cornwall,, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Mond, A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, A.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Robinson, S.

  Toulmin, George

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Myer, Horatio

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Verney, F. W,

  Napier, T. B.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Vivian, Henry

  Nicholls, George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Walters, John Tudor

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowlands, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wardle, George J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scars, J. E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Seely Colonel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Sir George.(Norfolk)

  O'Kelley, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Snowden, P.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Partington, Oswald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Pointer, J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sutherland, J E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lewis.

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Oddy, John James

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Percy, Earl

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

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pretyman, E G.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renwick, George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cox, Harold

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

  Valentia.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of Increment Value.)
  (1) For the purposes of this part of this Act the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due, exceeds the original site value of the land.
  (2) The site value of the land on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due shall be taken to be:—

  (a) Where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land, the value of the consideration for the transfer; and

  (b) where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest; and

  (c) where the occasion is the death of any person and the fee simple of the land is property passing on that death, the principal value of the land as ascertained for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1894, and where any interest in the land is property passing on that death the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained; and

  (d) where the occasion is a periodical occasion on which the duty is due in respect of land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, the value of the fee simple of the land is ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act;

  subject to such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners allow in each case in respect of any part of the value which is proved to their satisfaction to be attributable to the value of buildings or structures of which the land is deemed to be divested under this Act for the purpose of ascertaining the site value, or to any matter in respect of which a deduction may be allowed under this Act in estimating that site value, or to goodwill, or any-other matter which is personal to the occupier or other person interested for the time being in the land, and, in the case of agricultural land the value of which is due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes, also in respect of any part of that value which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be attributable to
  470
  works of a permanent character, executed by or on behalf of any person interested in the land.
  (3) Where, on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any land, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land on which the duty is to be assessed, to apportion any original site value as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, that value shall be apportioned between that part of the land on which duty is to be assessed and the remaining part of the land in such proportions as the Commissioners think just, and the value attributed on any such apportionment to each part of the land shall, for the purposes of this part of this Act, be treated as the original site value of that part of the land.
  (4) Where the owner of any land proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has purchased the land within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and that the amount then paid by him for the purchase of the land exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, such sum shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty for the original site value of the land as the Commissioners consider, having regard to the amount so paid for the purchase of the land, was at the time of the purchase the site value of the land.
  Mr. JAMES MASON Mr. JAMES MASON moved to postpone Clause 2.
  The Amendment, of which I have given notice in manuscript, is not, as it might appear to be, a dilatory Motion, but, on the contrary, it is one of substance. The Increment Duty is to be levied upon the difference between a valuation made under the conditions of Clause 2 and a valuation made under the conditions of Clause 14, and the reason that I think it is necessary to move this Amendment is that the valuation under Clause 14 chronologically must come before the valuation under Clause 2, and consequently the latter clause refers directly to the condition of things on page 3, line 6, set up under Clause 14, but of which no indication is given in Clause 2. Furthermore. Clause 14 contains expressions the exact meaning of which it is absolutely necessary to take into consideration in considering Clause 2, but they are expressions which are not themselves mentioned there, and consequently cannot be

  471
  raised on the discussion of this clause. Clause 14, for instance, makes imperative certain things which are to be divested or disregarded, whereas Clause 2 leaves this divesting or disregarding at the option of the Commissioners. For instance, in Clause 14 provision is made for divesting the land for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of all buildings, structures, timber, and so forth, but it is quite evident that when you come to Clause 14 these things of which the land is to be divested will probably be very materially altered and added to, and that other things will be included in them. But my point is that the action which we take on Clause 2 is absolutely dependent upon what is or is not done on Clause 14. Then we have another difficulty, and that is, that in Clause 14 certain things are disregarded. That is to say, the land is considered without regard to encumbrances. In Clause 2 there is no mention of encumbrances, and therefore the clause, as it stands, means that the land will be subject to those encumbrances. Of course, I know that this arrangement, so far as Increment Duty is concerned, is in favour of the landowner, but I venture to say that the question of these encumbrances is one which must necessarily be cleared up now,. because it may have the most curious effect unless we thoroughly understand what encumbrances are included. For instance, such things as Land Tax and tithe, where there has been commutation of tithes, or a redemption of the Land Tax, will be very serious matters to consider. I have had very great difficulty in getting an expression of legal opinion, and I have consulted many people as to whether or not they are encumbrances on land. I am aware of the definition of encumbrance in section 7 of the Act referred to in the definition clause, but there seems to be a difference of opinion, and it seems to me that the definition of this question of encumbrance is one which is essential to the discussion of Clause 2. Of course, if the Land Tax is an encumbrance, the redemption of the Land Tax is a thing which can never be done in the future without increasing the Increment Duty, because the redemption of the duty and the removal of the tax will increase the in-crement by the amount of the capital value of the tax which is redeemed.
  Then there is another difficulty, and that is the difficulty of deductions. Under Clause 14 provision is made to deduct im-
  472
  provements of a permanent character—of course, most reasonable and proper—but it also goes on to provide for deducting the cost, by reducing the site to an imaginary condition. I venture to think that this provision will necessarily give rise to very considerable differences of opinion in debate. It is extremely difficult to find what is the cost of the removal of various things to reduce the site to a natural condition, and unless we have some clear idea of what is likely to be done by Clause 14 in that respect, it will be extremely difficult to discuss Clause 2 in an intelligent manner. Then, again, I know, as far as deduction goes, Clause 2 and Clause 14 make both of these deductions, but in one case they are optional, whereas in the other they are obligatory. In the former case they are levied at the discretion of the Commissioners. For these reasons, it seems to me, that it is necessary to discuss this clause with those which are connected with it—that is to say, with the valuation clauses—or else on the discussion of Clause 2 it will be necessary to ask you, Sir, to allow very considerable latitude in debating this clause and Clause 14 very considerably together. Otherwise if we are confined to the discussion of Clause 2 alone, it seems to me impossible to carry on the Debate in an intelligent or useful manner.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is a very familiar Motion which is made by every Opposition upon every Bill and upon every clause of that Bill, and I do not think it really very much matters what the arguments may be for or against it, because its only use is delay, and the argument is only a secondary consideration. The Motion is a Motion for delay. The hon. Member has moved this Amendment on grounds which are identical with those which were used in order to support the postponement of Clause 1—namely, that valuation ought to come first. That is substantially what it means. The Motion to postpone Clause 1 was supported by that argument, and the Motion to support Clause 2 is also supported by it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is quite evident that this is not really intended to be a dilatory Motion. In regard to Clause 1 the argument was, the right hon. Gentleman has said, that valuation should precede the tax, but in this case the argument is very different, and it is founded upon an argument used by the right hon. Gentleman himself three or four hours ago, when he said that Clauses 2 and 14 must be

  473
  considered very much together. That is the foundation of the whole argument of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is really very much excited over a very little difference. I said the reason we were invited to postpone Clause 2 was because valuation ought, it was said, to come before the tax, but that is the same thing as saying that Clause 14 ought to come before Clause 2, because valuation ought to come first. Let us see what this means. There may have been something to be said in favour of valuation before you impose any tax, but I think the balance of argument is in favour of putting on the tax first and the valuation afterwards. But there is nothing to be said for interpolating a valuation which is common to all the taxes between Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 14 deals with valuation, which is the basis of all the taxes, and it ought to come either before all the taxes or after them. I do not think any draftsman would ever accept the responsibility of advising the Government to put Clause 14 at this particular stage.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the point of the Amendment. The question is not whether valuation should come first. The question is this: Under the Bill there must be a valuation. The original valuation will be made immediately after the passing of the Act, and then upon any transfer of property, whether by sale, lease, or by death, the second valuation. We contend that in the Bill the Government have put the cart before the horse, and have put the second valuation first, which will be a very great practical inconvenience, because while the discussion is proceeding upon Clause 2, which is the second valuation, we must refer to the first valuation, otherwise our arguments will be unintelligible, and we shall come under the ban of the Chair. We shall therefore be unable to have free discussion at all. We should get rid of all these difficulties if we proceeded first of all to discuss the original valuation. There are in the Bill vital differences between the method of arriving at the original value and the method of arriving at the secondary value. Take the case of the original valuation of agricultural land. There in the eye of imagination you are to see the land stripped of buildings and growing timber, whereas when you come to Clause 2 not a word is said about growing timber at all, and there
  474
  are other differences and inconsistencies. Surely, dealing with the matter as a practical Assembly, we ought to take the valuations in the order of time in which they will occur. It will conduce to the celerity of our business instead of getting ourselves into a morass of doubt, difficulty, and inconsistency.
  Mr. J. A. CLYDE: The reasons for postponing consideration of the clause are such as, from my point of view, go deep into the consideration of Clause 2 itself. It has already been pointed out that the whole point about Clause 2 is that it institutes a comparison of something which is supposed to be already known, otherwise you could not make the comparison, namely, that which is called by the Bill original site value, with something else which is referred to in section (2), namely, the actual price when sold, less certain deductions, to be made in order, by the comparison of the one with the other, to arrive at what the Bill calls increment value. It has already been pointed out, and, at first sight, it seems unanswerable, that you cannot possibly discuss a proposal to compare two things together unless you have the two things before you. It is perfectly obvious that to consider the result of comparing the original site value with the price less certain deductions, which are described in section 2, is all futility and waste of time unless you may examine the thing with which comparisons is to be made. It is necessary to under-stand what are the points of difference between these two things which the Bill asks us to compare. It is only, if we realise effectively how different these two things are, that the expediency or propriety of postponing Clause 2 until we have Clause 14 before us can be judged of at all. It is not at all improbable that a good many of us have read the Bill without realising that the two clauses in question both deal with site value, and deal with it from entirely opposite points of view, and propose that it should be arrived at by totally different methods of valuation, which have not only nothing to do with each other, but are contradictory of each other, and yet it is on a comparison of these two things that we are asked to arrive at increment value, which obviously could only be arrived at fairly if you compare like with like. These two clauses must be compared together, because the moment you look at them you will see that they propose to compare unlike with unlike. If that is so, it is absolutely necessary that

  475
  we should have them both before us for comparison if we are to discuss Clause 2 at all. The conception which underlies these two clauses is in each case entirely different. Chronologically we begin with the original site value, which in its conception is imaginary altogether. You begin by imagining that all the buildings and structures, all the timber, all the gooseberry bushes, and everything that grows on the land have been removed from it, that you are left with the bare site, and that you ask yourselves the question: What would that bare site fetch in the market? That is not an impossible, but it is a difficult form of valuation. It is not impossible, because you are dealing with something which might physically exist, namely, a perfectly bare site instead of a site covered with buildings. What you are asking to be compared with that is not a revaluation of the same thing on the same imaginary basis, but something totally different. Here is the conception of Clause 2. It starts with a hard fact. I take for simplicity the case of a transfer on sale. Under Clause 2 you begin with the actual price fixed by the transaction, and then the conception of the clause then is that you deduct from the actual price the value attributable to the value of the buildings, trees, bushes, and anything growing on the site. Just observe how completely different these two things are. If I were valuing original site value the existence of the buildings on the site would be of no importance, because I have to suppose that they are non-existent. The buildings may be valued at anything. The value may be £500 only or £50,000; it would make no difference to the original valuation of the site value. The condition of the buildings, their cost, and their state of repair, would be as immaterial as their existence itself. See how the scene shifts when you come to the second valuation. You begin with the site, and you deduct from it the value of the buildings. That is the only bit of valuation there is under Clause 2, and that is precisely the valuation which you totally ignore in the valuation of original site value under Clause 14. It is perfectly plain that the two things are totally different in method. Moreover, another thing is perfectly plain about it. Whereas, if you take the imaginative method of stripping the site of buildings, you may value that. You may value that ten years later, and you compare like with like, but if you begin with the original site value on the basis of the imaginary
  476
  bare site, 10 years afterwards the price, less the value of the buildings, will depend on what may be the value of the buildings. There may be a valuable building on the site at the beginning, and no building 10 years afterwards. Nay, more, two sites, lying next door to each other, may be identical in every respect except one. On one there is a building worth £5,000, and on the other a building worth £10,000. When you make the valuation these sites will have two different values. It is as plain as can be that these two methods of valuation are not the same. I challenge anyone to say they are the same. One begins by valuing the site in regard to which buildings are of no importance, and the other takes the value of the complex subject and deducts the value of the buildings. You cannot get a comparison between these two things, and if you cannot get a comparison of like and like, I venture to think it is absolutely idle to suppose that you can arrive at any reliable measure of increment value.
  I want to point out the difference in another way. While I admit quite frankly that it is feasible to have an original site valuation on the basis of land being clear of buildings, I defy any man to do it in any way that will produce a reliable result. The second valuation requires that you should have regard to the valuation of the buildings whose value is to be deducted, and here, again, it is necessary to have these two clauses together. Then the subject of deduction from the price, namely, the value of the buildings, must be valued on the footing that there is no site. Well, what is the answer to that? You are going for the purpose of the second valuation to arrive at site value, and you are going to take the price of the complex subject and deduct from that the value of the buildings. Are you going to include part of the value of the site in the value of the buildings? If you do, you will not arrive at site value, and if you arrive at site value you are going to do what nobody ever did in this world except in very exceptional circumstances—you are going to ask people to value buildings without site at all. I would like to know what value there would be without a site. If you consider the difficulty which this problem presents in comparison with the comparative simplicity of Clause 14, you cannot fail to see the necessity of having the two clauses before you at the same time. All the instances of valuing buildings, apart from site, which I know of,

  477
  were cases in which it was legitimate to treat the value of the buildings as a mere matter of construction cost less depreciation. I wish to know whether this Committee is to be asked to accept the view that, under this clause, the valuation is to be on the basis of construction cost less depreciation.
  I have said enough to make it perfectly clear that these two valuations are completely different. They are of no service except for comparison, and the result of comparison is vain unless it gives you increment value. I think I have said enough to show that these two clauses, as they stand, are not comparable, and that it would be idle for us to commit ourselves to the method of valuation proposed in Clause 2 unless we had before us the method of valuation proposed in Clause 14. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that his only reason for objecting to this Motion was merely that there was nothing in Clause 2 that could be changed on consideration of Clause 14. My proposition is that Clause 2 from beginning to end would require alteration if it is to be made comparable with Clause 14, and, therefore, if it is to be valuable for a discussion of the method of valuation disclosed in Clause 14 this result can only be attained by bringing in at the same time for criticism and comparison the method proposed in section 14.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): We have listened to a very interesting speech on the methods of valuation, whereas the question which the Committee is invited to consider is whether we should postpone Clause 2 until we have considered and discussed Clause 14 as to definition and machinery. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clyde) thinks that it is very desirable to have the two clauses before us at the same time. I am afraid that that is a Parliamentary impossibility. One must come before the other, and the question which the Committee has to decide is which of the two clauses is to come first. The argument which he has offered to the Committee would be conclusive in favour of taking the definition clause in every Bill the first clause of the Bill. That might in some cases be very convenient, and I think I know one or two Acts of Parliament which commence with the definition clause, but they were certainly not Finance Bills, and certainly did not relate to the raising of taxation. What I ask you to consider really seriously is whether it is an inconvenience to us or something graver than an inconvenience to consider
  478
  Clause 2 here before we consider Clause 14. Clause 2 defines the increment value, and it says the increment value is the difference between two things—first, the original site value; and, secondly, the site value at the date of the transfer on sale. What does it signify what your definition of original site value is, or what does it signify what your definition of site value at the time the duty is to be assessed is until you have determined that it is the difference between these two from which the Increment Tax is to come off. My hon. and learned Friend apparently has not read the clause. You assess the difference between the two things. Original site value is just the value of the land alone, divested of buildings and structures, and other things which my hon. Friend has described. Having ascertained the original site value you must find out in order to assess the Increment Duty what is the site value at the time the duty is to be paid. So my hon. and learned Friend is quite correct in saying that the methods by which you arrive at the two are different. They are not in the least degree inconsistent, but they are different; but even though they were inconsistent it would not in the least degree affect the argument, the argument being that Clause 14 should come before Clause 2, because that is the only question at issue.
  Necessarily the method by which you reach site valuation is different in the two cases. In the case of the original site value you have no standard to go by. You must rely undoubtedly on the question of opinion, the question of opinion being the price that the willing buyer would pay for the land alone divested of buildings, and the rest of it. Is there any other method? I am assuming at the present moment that we are going to ascertain what is the original site value. Is there any other method conceivable by which you could arrive at original site value than by according to the valuation it may be of a skilled expert, ascertaining what the willing seller would take for that piece of land if it were put on the market at once. If for example a railway company or a bank, or a corporation came on with compulsory powers, and said "we want to take that bit of land." That is original site value. "Now," said my hon. and learned Friend, "when you come to your site value at the date of the transaction you proceed upon a different principle." Certainly we proceed upon a different principle because there you have, ex hypothesi, an actual transaction before you, a sale and transfer.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Of a complex site, not a site.
  Mr. URE: I was just going to say so, certainly; but you do not, in point of fact, sell, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, the land apart from the buildings and improvements; and the object of this tax is to sever the land from the buildings and improvements and not to impose the tax upon the buildings and improvements. We have an actual transaction before us of which the complex subject, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, is the subject matter of sale, and you do not want any comparison of the original site value with the price which the owner receives. What you want to compare is the original site value with the site value which he is receiving for the composite subject, a price which is not severed. You have a price which is a stock price for the composite site. You must do your best to sever that. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks this is a bad method. Can he suggest a better? The method proposed in the Bill is that you should take the price which is got for the composite site and then endeavour to obtain what is the price of the buildings actually upon the ground and the improvements that have actually been made. That is a matter of estimate. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he had never known of a case in which it had been attempted to sever the valuation of buildings from the valuation of the land, but he added "with some exceptions," and we shall make those exceptional cases normal. I have known instances in which building value has been taken separately from the site value, and, curiously enough, I have seen very considerable differences between the valuers with regard to the value of land, but I have never seen any serious difference between them with regard to the buildings on the land. In regard to the latter there are certain very familiar methods.
  Mr. CLYDE: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to a case in which the valuation of the buildings was independent?
  Mr. URE: It was absolutely independent. The valuer was told to sever absolutely the site value, and he valued the buildings.
  Mr. CLYDE: With cost of depreciation?
  Mr. URE: He took the buildings, found what they cost, and then allowed for depreciation. The fact is that the same operation has been frequently followed,
  480
  though hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it is an impossibility. The net result is this, that in this Clause 2 the duty is taken on the difference between the value of the two things. You have got the value of one of these things fixed and ascertained by the method laid down in Clause 2; you have got the value of the other thing defined by Clause 14, and the duty is upon the difference between the two. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that we cannot fix the difference between the two until we have laid down absolutely the definition of both.
  Mr. CLYDE: Certainly.
  Mr. URE: I differ entirely from the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say the clause as it stands tells you that you are to take the duty as the difference between the two valuations. Clause 14 elaborately defines what is the value which, ex hypothesi, is greater than the value which is set out in Clause 2, and it seems to me that we can with propriety proceed to the discussion of Clause 2, disregarding altogether for the moment the definition in Clause 14.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the consequence of the proposition which he has just laid down, that the original site value is to be obtained first, and is to be compared afterwards with the site value in Clause 2. It is impossible for us to discuss adequately what is to be done under Clause 2 until we know exactly what form Clause 14 is going finally to take. The right hon. Gentleman admits that under Clause 2 you have to take the composite subject of the land and the buildings upon it, and that you have to take the actual value of that at the sale price. Then you have to take from that the value of the buildings, and we now ascertain from him for the first time what the value of buildings means. He quite clearly stated that it means the value totally apart from the site, and he further admitted that the only method in which the buildings could be valued apart from the site was by taking their cost less depreciation. I think we are greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, because we are really now on a clear and definite basis. I cannot emphasise that too much. Under this clause we are simply to arrive at the site value by deducting the cost less depreciation of buildings from the total sale price.
  Mr. URE: That is how I would value it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We could not have a higher authority, and we are prepared to accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great study of this subject, and he has looked at it from the point of view of a very ardent advocate trying to discover the best way of doing it. Take the instance where you have two sites adjoining one another. Both, first of all, would be valued under Clause 14 as bare site at the same value. You have then upon these two sites buildings of a similar character costing the same sum of money, but one building 10 or 20 years older than the other. Under the method suggested by the right hon. Gentleman as the best method the site value in these two cases would be absslutely different. My point is that if this be the result you get no comparison, and therefore we cannot rely on this at all until we have a point of departure. When under Clause 14 the original valuation is definitely established then we have a point of departure. I suggest that the Government should consider their position. Clause 2, as at present drafted, is so utterly hopeless, impossible, and inconsistent with the principles on which the Government advocated the introduction of the Bill, that they would do well to postpone it, and give it a little more consideration, and in the meantime we may consider Clause 14, which is comparatively simple.
  Mr. J. F. P. RAWLINSON: This discussion has brought out a most valuable point from the Lord Advocate as to site value. Take a site value of £1,000, the question we have to determine is what will be the value 10 years hence when a sale is effected, and when you have erected upon it buildings worth £2,000, less some small sum for depreciation, you have a property which produces the sum of £3,000. He deducts £2,000, less depreciation, and the residue is the site value. Can you imagine any business assembly ever arriving at such a valuation? Has he ever in his life known a person who built a private house at considerable expense who could ever realise the full value of the building even four months afterwards. I will not discuss the merits of the two separate clauses. I am only thanking the Lord Advocate for having brought out into clear prominence the disadvantages we are under in discussing clause 2. The value will have to be taken, as he says, by taking the land for building on it, and taking the cost price of the building from the selling price, whatever it is, which is an absolutely delusive way of arriving at such a value. We have to
  482
  discuss that question without having discussed a totally different valuation which comes under Clause 14, which is taking a piece of land at what it will fetch in the market, which is a comparatively simple operation. Surely this Motion has been justified, and it will be advisable to take Clause 14 to know where we are before we pass this extraordinary proposal.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: I think the discussion has amply justified the hon. Member for Windsor in bringing forward this Motion, which cannot possibly be called a dilatory Motion after the argument used by the other side. It seems to me absolutely plain that we cannot discuss Clause 2 until we discuss Clause 14, for the reason that section (1), Clause 2, says:—"For the purposes of this part of this Act the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the sits value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due, exceeds the original site value of the land." Therefore, we have two site values, the original site value and the increment site value. The latter part of Clause 2 goes on to say what shall be done and the amount of the increment value, with certain deductions. How can we discuss the increment site value until we have discovered what really is the original site value, which is dealt with in Clause 14? It is perfectly absurd to attempt to discuss Clause 2 without having discussed Clause 14 on which it is dependent.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: This Motion seems to me to be in the common form which is applied to every clause. We are always told that we should postpone a clause until a later clause is reached, but we all know that if the later clause were in the position of this clause the same Motion would have been made. The only way in which we could discuss the two would he by discussing them both together, and that the Rules of the House would not allow, and it would be very difficult to do so even if the Rules did allow. It seems to me that there is really little or no fundamental distinction between the two. In the original valuation it is proposed to ask how much a man puts down for the market value of the clear site, and in the subsequent operation the object is to arrive at precisely the same thing, but only to take as a basis the actual price. I feel certain if we did not take the actual price as a basis those who are criticising this clause would condemn us for neglecting the actual price and for making our valuation

  483
  entirely in the air. I understood that the criticism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) was along these lines, that you have two properties of similar size, situation, and position, and on each of them a building of the same cost, but with one 40 years older than the other, and which has, therefore, suffered greater depreciation. Then he went on to say that that gave us two different site values for similar sites. I do not think that that conclusion follows unless you assume that the two purchase prices were the same to start with. It seemed to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooked the fact in these two cases that there would be an important difference in the original purchase prices, namely, the difference for the depreciation of the second building, and that if that had been properly allowed for his argument would have failed, and the two site values would work out. I was interested to hear the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). He said you have a site, and on the site you had a building.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): Those are arguments into the merits of the Question. We are dealing with the Question to postpone, and although I quite admit great latitude has been taken, we had better keep to the Question of postponement.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I thought one might be allowed to answer a case put. The argument of the hon. Member that a house is worth less four months after it is built tells in favour of the Government Bill, and not against it, and the proposal instead of being ungenerous is really more than generous under the circumstances.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I should like to add another argument in favour of postponing this clause, that is in reference to the reply which came from the Secretary of the Treasury to-day as to the taxes on royalties. It appears to me, so far as this valuation is concerned, that the reply, which stated that there was a possibility that royalties would be taxed instead of ungotten minerals, really alters the case altogether in reference to the valuation of land. It was definitely stated by the Chancellor this afternoon, and I believe it has been stated previously, that as far as the valuation of land is concerned that the question of the value of minerals must be
  484
  taken into account in land for the increment value.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is really going outside the question whether this clause should be postponed.
  Mr PIKE PEASE: What I want to point out is that when we are discussing the question of value it is necessary to know what our definition of land is. It is impossible to define the value of land if we do not know whether ungotten minerals or royalties are to be taxed. It is really necessary for us to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a definite reply on this point before we discuss Clause 2.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Lord Advocate said that the value of a building was quite distinct and divorced from the site. May I ask whether the building he had in mind was somewhere in the lowlands of Scotland?
  Mr. URE: The building I had in mind was in the City of Glasgow, and it was valued by a firm of Scotch valuers. I admit there is a difference of opinion among the experts.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would that building have the same value in St. Kilda, or in the Shetlands?
  Mr. URE: It certainly would not.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Therefore part of the value of the building was attributable to its site in Glasgow.
  Mr. URE: The cost of erection would differ in different parts.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The cost of erection in St. Kilda would be greater because of the cost of transporting the materials. On the other hand, the value of the building would be greater in Glasgow because of its site. Therefore the value of the building in either case must depend upon the site. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the grounds alleged against this Clause were the same as under Clause 1. That is not so. In this case the argument arises out of the extraordinarily difficult position the Committee is in owing to the fact that in the Bill there is what purports to be a double definition of the same thing one in this clause and one under Clause 14. In this clause the definition is in a sense subordinate. The clause does not profess to be a definition clause, but in working out the clause a definition is introduced. In Clause 14 you have a definition not only

  485
  of the original site value, but of site value generally for all purposes of this part of the Act—a definition which is entirely different from that in Clause 2. When you have two definitions of the same thing in the same Bill, which of the two is to prevail in a construction before the Courts? I submit you would have to take the superior definition in the definition clause, and if it came in conflict with the subordinate definition the superior definition would prevail. If that is so, we ought obviously to take the definition clause first, otherwise when we come to deal with that we should override what we had already done. I submit that we ought to deal first with the main governing definition, and afterwards bring the subordinate definition into harmony with it.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Whilst I am generally out of sympathy with anything in the nature of mere dilatory Motions, I think on this occasion we are bound to make a protest against the position in which the Committee finds itself entirely owing to the astonishing order in which these clauses are placed. We have apparently decided that there is to be an Increment Duty imposed upon land, but we are still without a definition of land. We are told that we must wait for Clause 27 for that definition. The Lord Advocate says, "What is the difficulty of arriving at a difference between two numbers when you do not know what the numbers are? I can substract one from the other without knowing either of the two numbers."I have always given Gentlemen from the other side of the Tweed credit for an enormous ability and sagacity, but I think that that task even they would find exceedingly difficult to carry out. We have no right to be embarrassed in this way by the manner in which the Bill is framed. It would have been very simple and only reasonable to have put these clauses in their chronological order. The first thing we want to know is how you are going to fix the valuation of to-day, which is to be at the basis of the whole thing. But what does the Bill do? In Clause 1 it tells us that some day or other, about 15 or 20 years hence, there is to be an Increment Duty. It goes on to say that when various events happen such as a sale and so on, there is to be a valuation. When you come to ask what the Increment Duties are to be you have to wait till you get to Clause 14 to see how the valuation is to be arrived at. Not only has this extraordinary difficulty arisen through an entire reversal of the chronological order of
  486
  events, but when you come to compare the wording of the clause with that of Clause 14 you find, much to your astonishment, that each of these two sets of valuations which are supposed to be compared together and deducted one from the other have to be taken in an absolutely different and contradictory manner. I think by a serious Amendment we shall have to try to put the methods of valuation of Clause 14 bodily into Clause 2, so as to arrive at the same basis of valuation both for comparative reasons and for justice; or else we shall have to decide when we come to Clause 14 to take the words of Clause 2, and put them into Clause 14. Really, on an occasion like this we are entitled seriously to complain of the very great embarrassment which has been caused to us by the order and method of arranging these valuation clauses, and for that reason I support this Motion.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It is obvious that Clause 2 should be read subsequent to Clause 14, otherwise it is absolutely unintelligible, for Clause 14 was obviously drafted before Clause 2. I submit it is perfectly impossible to understand Clause 2 unless you understand Clause 14, and it is ridiculous if we enter upon a discussion of a clause that sets out in the margin to define increment value, when it becomes apparent in the clause that what purports to be the definition cannot be decided until you have a subsequent definition which appears in Clause 14?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That argument has been repeated by nearly every speaker.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I have not had the opportunity of hearing them, and I only wish to move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend who has put it down. I am not aware if the arguments have been repeated that an answer has been given by the Front Bench. Certainly the arguments seem to me to lose nothing of their force by repetition.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN rose to put the Question——
  Sir F. BANBURY: I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will kindly reply to the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House——
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: 3 have done so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: So far as I understand the only hon. Member on the other

  487
  side who has spoken to these points' is the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, whom I am informed has given the whole case away. It is in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply. I also wish to know how I am to vote upon this question, for I desire to give an intelligible vote. It seems to me that there are three clauses, all of which are definition clauses, and from the point of view of the efficiency of the House these three definition Clauses, 2, 14, and 27 ought to be discussed together.
  Mr. W. C. BRIDGEMAN: There is one question certainly which has not been answered by any hon. Gentlemen responsible for the conduct of the Bill, and that is the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, whose point is this: There are two definitions, if not three— one is in Clause 2 and one in Clause 14. Supposing we pass Clause 2 before passing Clause 14, and these two definitions are inconsistent, will an Amendment to Clause 14 be ruled out of order, because we have passed Clause2?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That question was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Mr. Baring), and it was one of the points to which I endeavoured to give an answer.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I did not hear the answer, but the question has been pressed since, and has attempted to be answered by the Lord Advocate; certainly no satisfactory answer has been given. Those who have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he really gave no answer. The point seems to be a very simple one, the definition of Clause 2 is a definition of "increment value." The definition of Clause 14 is of "total value and site value of land excluding minerals." If you are going to take a jump——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating arguments which have been used by several speakers in the Debate.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not think that when a point is raised, and has not been answered, that it cannot be raised again. If that is so of course I am bound to give way, but in previous Debates when a point was raised and not answered hon. Members pressed for an answer. This
  488
  question has not been answered, and I say if you are going to take a jump from Clause 2 to 14——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is persisting in repetition of arguments used by previous speakers.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I want to try and make it quite clear. I have listened to a great deal of the Debate, and I have not heard this point raised.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether it is not a fact that when arguments have been urged in Committee and have been answered fully by the representative of the Government, and when these arguments are reiterated over and over again, is it not perfectly competent for the Chairman to put the Question without further delay?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: On that point of order if the Question has not been fully answered, as we contend it has not, are we not entitled to continue the Debate, and to press for an answer. It is open to hon. Members opposite to do now as they have done over and over again, to move the closure. I only wish finally to beg for an answer. Is it not better to start from high ground to make your rise rather than to start from a quagmire to take a jump?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand from the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the day that minerals are to be part of the site value upon which Increment Value Duty will be charged. I venture to press upon the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that, whether this clause should not be postponed until at any rate we know what is to be included in the word "minerals." Of course, we know that" minerals" does come into the word "land"; we do-not know what conies into the word "minerals." I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House some assistance in that matter. We asked him to have re-printed for the use of the House the words out of the decision on which he relies for the meaning of the word "minerals." That has been refused —I do not know why. It appears to me to be a very reasonable request, and I do think, in these circumstances, the Committee will find themselves in some difficulty in discussing Clause 2, and I think the clause should be postponed until the Government tell us what they include in. the word "minerals."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason) said it might be necessary in Clause 2 to insert words which might safeguard Clause 14. What are the words the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to insert in Clause 2. Are we to take it that they are included in the Bill? I cannot find in Clause 2 any words of the kind referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If there are two inconsistent definitions of the same thing in a Bill, I wish to know which will override the other. Will it be the first in order, or will it be the one which is to act expressly as a definition and not merely as an illusive explanation of something else. I ask the Attorney-General to say which is the right construction where you have two inconsistent definitions in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I appeal to the Attorney-General to give me an answer.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it is open to any hon. Member to put a highly hypothetical question of that kind relating to a hypothetical Bill and to claim as a matter of right to have an answer from the Law Officer. If the hon. Member put some concrete case pertaining to the subject matter of the Debate, then it might become necessary that he should receive an answer, but where a question of this kind is put dealing with the contingency I never heard of, and that does not—as far as I know—arise upon this Bill, I do not think it is at all proper to take up the time of the Committee by answering
  questions which cannot possibly be pertinent to the object of the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The learned Attorney-General is in the same unfortunate position as most of us—that he has to find time to refresh wearied nature, and he has not heard the whole of the Debate. The question put by my hon. Friend is not a hypothetical question referring to a hypothetical Bill, but it is a question arising on this clause when read with Clause 14, which has been so clearly argued by my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. The occasion, therefore, for answering such a question has arisen here and now. This is not a hypothetical question we are discussing; it is a practical question, of which the Attorney-General would have been aware had he, like many of us, not been obliged to be absent for a while.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: It certainly does appear to me that when a very important question of this kind arises as to whether two clauses are inconsistent, and where the question before the Committee is which should be taken first, that the Attorney-General, who is in receipt of a salary, and is the paid servant of the House, shall answer. We are entitled to ask for a serious answer to a reasonable question, and not to be put off as the Attorney-General has sought to put us off.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 249.

  Division No. 217.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Moore, William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Percy, Earl

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manot)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Renaldshay, Earl of

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W W. (Liverpool)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Sandys, Col Thos. Myles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. D. Faber and Viscount Helmsley.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Winterton, Earl

  NOES.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morse, L. L.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Myer, Horatio

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Armitage, R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholls, George

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N. )

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Bell, Richard

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Branch, James

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Brigg, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brooke Stopford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, J.

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kelly, George D.

  Radford, G. H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Cameron, Robert

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richardson, A.

  Charnning, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cooper, G. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, T.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rowlands, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crooks, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. H. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Frederick

  Snowden, P.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Elibank, Master of

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulh (Cheshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman C. F. G.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mond, A.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Glover, Thomas

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  492

  493

  Toulmin, George

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Winfrey, R.

  Verney, F. W.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ward, W Dudley (Southampton)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Wardle, George J

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig) has asked me to move to leave out sub-section (1).
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that to leave out the sub-section would make the rest of the clause rather unintelligible. The discussion should come on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What I wanted to raise was the distinction between the original value and the site value. There is nothing hypothetical about the tax. It is a grim reality. The question is between the site value and the original value.
  The CHAIRMAN: That raises the question of the whole clause, and the Motion must be taken at the end of the clause. If taken at the end of the clause it cannot be taken now.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If this sub-section were left out now, would it not be possible to move a consequential Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The point that has been raised is one of some importance, and I have dealt with it according to our Rules of Procedure. I do not think that the question should be raised now, but, as I have said, at the end of the clause.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The point which we wish to raise is, What is the increment value?
  The CHAIRMAN: As I have said, the point is one of some importance, and it should be raised at the end of the clause. It will not do to discuss all these principles on the first sub-ssction.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very difficult for us to forego any opportunity of discussion when there is so much uncertainty as to what we shall be allowed to discuss.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether we cannot raise a discussion on any part of the clause? It is very important that there should be a ruling on the subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: I take it that this Amendment is hostile to the clause as a whole. That is how I understand it. The
  494
  right hon. Gentleman for East Worcestershire has asked me a question which I cannot answer. Until I know how the clause is discussed I cannot bind my hands.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We wish to raise the question that a comparison should bo made. We do not desire to go into details.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to move the sub-section it will be equivalent to defeating the whole clause, because that is the very essence of it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then do I understand from you that it will not be possible for me either to dilate on the sub-section, or even to move its omission, without prejudicing the general discussion at the end of the clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly: to discuss the clause in the way I have stated will be to anticipate a discussion which ought to be taken at the end of the clause.
  Mr. HOPE: I take it I shall not prejudice that discussion if, by way of protest, I move simply to leave out the first subsection?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think your ruling is quite clear. There ought only to be one general discussion on the substance of this clause, and that general discussion can be taken on two occasions without transgressing the Rule. It can take place on the motion to omit the sub-section, or it can more legitimately take place on the motion that this clause stand part of the Bill. That being so, I hope the Committee generally will decide on the second alternative, and will take the discussion on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. I trust that any general arguments we may wish to put forward will not be prejudiced by any prolonged discussion on this sub-section, and that we shall have a full opportunity of discussing the matter on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. But I take it that a Division would not militate against any future discussion. All you desire to lay down is that the general discussion can only take place once on this subject.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the sub-section is omitted, as proposed, it is perfectly clear it will be equivalent to the omission of the whole clause, because the rest of the clause is purely dependent upon it. Subsection 1 declares what the increment value is, and proceeds to define it, and if that sub-section goes it is equivalent to knocking out the next sub-section. I submit that there should be neither discussion now nor a Division taken on this point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I press for an answer to my question whether or not it is not in order to discuss any part of a clause, or any sub-section of a clause, and then when the Question is put, "that the clause stand part of the Bill," to discuss whether or not the clause should stand part of the Bill, whether the Amendment of the clause is good or bad, or whether the clause should be omitted altogether? Is it not a fact that the discussion on the point that the clause stand part has nothing whatever to do with any discussion which may take place upon any individual word, or line, or sub-section?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Is it not the fact, Sir, that it is always within the power of any Member to move the omission of a sub-section? Of course, I quite admit your ruling as to the Debate taking place at once, but it is rather a serious precedent if this is to be established, and if an old custom of the House which has enabled us to move the omission of subsections should be broken. Applied to a great many other cases., it would be a serious breaking down of the privileges of this House, and therefore I would suggest that it is still in order for the Motion to be made.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not the case that precisely the same objection could have been made to omitting sub-section (1) of Clause 1, which has already been passed, but I understand it was allowed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; that was ruled out of order.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: But was not the ground on which it was ruled out of order purely owing to the printing?
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: On the point of order, I desire to know whether, you, Sir, having given your ruling on this point, and having called upon an hon. Member in whose name the next Amendment stands, this whole discussion is not out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have been very patient, as the matter is of some importance, and I have come to the conclusion— and this answers the question of the hon. Baronet—that to move the omission of sub-section (1) is equivalent to moving the omission of the whole clause, and is out of order.
  Mr. MOONEY: Your ruling, Sir, as I understand it, is that if sub-section (1) is omitted from the clause the rest of the section is nonsensical, and, therefore, you take it that the omission of the sub-section means the omission of the whole clause. May I submit that it is within the power of any Member of this Committee to move an Amendment at a future stage which, while omitting the whole of sub-section (1), may make the clause perfectly in order? Is it not within the power of any hon. Member to move an Amendment to any part of the clause at any time, and I ask therefore whether you can decide before you have seen the whole Amendment whether the omission of the sub-section would make the clause nonsensical?
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no consequential Amendment of that kind, and that is a hypothetical question.
  Mr. MOONEY: There is no consequential Amendment at the present moment on the Paper, but if the Amendment is carried that does not prevent any hon. Member from moving an Amendment; whereas, if you rule sub-section (1) cannot be omitted, then an Amendment cannot be moved.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment must be complete.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I apologise for intervening again, but this is very important. You, Sir, said just now there was a precedent for the decision which you ruled. You did not state what the precedent was, nor should I think myself justified in pressing you to give it, unless you thought that was a proper course; but, unless my memory greatly deceives me, in the many Bills which it has been my business to promote or oppose in this House, it has constantly occurred that the first sub-section has been moved to be omitted, although it made nonsense, and I am quite sure that no man has moved more omissions of that kind than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not at all say or suggest for a moment that the ruling you are disposed to give is not perfectly correct, but I would ask whether it is not a restric-

  497
  tion upon the general practice of the House so far, and, therefore, whether it ought not to be taken with all solemnity as guiding the deliberations of this House, whichever party is in power.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has put a question to me. I feel I must answer him frankly. Similar cases have been allowed, but they have been allowed in the case of Bills which are under the closure. In regard to Bills such as this, where there is no such Order of the House, this precedent holds good. It is a precedent of 1896, on the Education Bill of that year, and, indeed, I have myself once or twice ruled it also in similar cases. I am in somewhat of a difficulty about the matter, because, having stated that, I must frankly say we do discuss Bills here under different conditions, and, therefore, I do not want to carry my ruling further than the clauses of this Bill to-night under the conditions under which we are dealing with this Bill.
  Mr. FELLmoved to leave out the words "of this part." There are a number of additional clauses already down to the Bill which do not come under the first part, which relates to land, while the subsequent parts do not touch on that question. The additional clauses, if carried, would form part of the Act, but I do not see how they can come in the first part of the Act, because we shall not be able to discuss them till the Bill is practically passed.
  Sir W. ROBSON: All the clauses relating to the Land Tax are in the first part of the Bill, and any clause subsequently added will be added to the first part.
  Mr. FELL: But we cannot discuss them while we are discussing part 1 of the Bill.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The omission of these words will not make any difference.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD rose to move after the word "Act" to insert the words "Increment Duty shall only become payable in respect of any land which on 30th April, 1909, shall, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be neglected, uncultivated, unbuilt upon or inadequately built upon, and not utilised to a reasonable extent having regard to its capabilities, and——"
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is not in order at this stage. We already have words in Clause 1 "the
  498
  increment value of any land. "Clause 2 must deal with "any land in the sense of Clause 1. We cannot now restrict Clause 1 by inserting the words which the hon. Member desires to insert in Clause 2.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: When Clause 1 was under discussion we on this side felt very considerable difficulty with regard to the definition of the word "land." It was urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think you rather entertained the suggestion, that the proper place to define the word "land" would be in Clause 27 (Definitions). Acting on that suggestion, which was not exactly a ruling, some of us have bean studying the question as to where we could in the most convenient way have a definition of the "land" to which the Increment Duty is to apply. I may be allowed to point out that in Clause 27 there is a definition, but it is not exactly a definition of land. It says that "land" shall not include something, but it does not say what shall be included. The word "land" there applies to the three taxes on land, and it is quite clear that land for the purpose of each of these three duties is an entirely different thing. It is not the same for the purpose of undeveloped land, and it is not the same for the purpose of increment.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really making a long speech. I perfectly understand his point, but I must say that, in my opinion, his Amendment is not in order at this stage. We cannot now change the words in Clause 1.
  The CHAIRMANruled that an Amendment by the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) was not in order.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: On a point of order, I desire to address myself to the Amendment standing in my own name. My Amendment is to insert after the word "any"("any land shall be deemed") the word "urban." When you ruled that Amendment out of order it was, I understand, on the ground that the matter had already been decided. I would point out that what was decided by the first clause was that there shall be charged increment value in respect of any land. Now the question is, the method of arriving at it, and the point raised by the Amendment is that, although in respect of urban land, the method prescribed by Clause 2 may be a fit and proper one, in respect of agricultural land it is not.
  The CHAIRMAN: The specific point of the hon. Member was, as a matter of fact, settled upon Clause 1 on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I moved an Amendment this afternoon, the first of a series of consequential Amendments on this clause. Does that Amendment come in here? If it is out of order I should be glad of your ruling, so long as it is not passed over by mistake I shall be satisfied.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise at this point. We can deal with it at a point later on. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) is out of order——
  Mr. ASHLEY: On a point of order——
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no question about this being settled by the previous clause. I am really very much surprised that hon. Members should argue about this. Let me finish my ruling on a point of order, and if there is any point afterwards I am willing to consider it. The, Amendment of the hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Remnant) will come in under deductions in a later part of the paragraph.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit, with due respect, that Clause 1 decides that Increment Value Duty shall be charged on all, while Clause 2 proposes to define in a particular way the increment value on which that duty is to be charged. May I ask whether it is not in order for a Member, conforming himself to the decision of the House on Clause 1, to propose that the provisions, as laid down in Clause 2, shall apply to a particular class of land, and, if he has succeeded in confining it to that, then to submit to the House complementary proposals for the other class of land comprised in Clause 2.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The first section decided, first of all, that there should be an Increment Duty, and then decided the subject, the subject being land. Several exceptions were moved. For instance, agricultural land was moved as one exception, so that in that clause we decided the subject-matter of the Increment Duty, and we also decided the exceptions. Now we come to the definition not of the subject-matter, but the amount of the increment. These are totally different points.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We decided that there should be an Increment
  500
  Duty in the first clause. We have now to decide what is the value on which the Increment Duty is to be charged. I submit that though the Increment Duty applies to the land, the value need not be the same in respect to different classes of land.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that he intends to safeguard the interests of agricultural land. How is he going to do that after we have already decided that there should be an Increment Duty on all land, and that cannot be altered?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: One fact will not be disputed, that land which is the property of rating authorities is specifically included in a later part of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have decided that the increment value of land must be charged. We cannot alter that now. Clause 2 defines what the increment value is to be. I am ruling entirely in accordance with all precedents. There is no question at all about it that my ruling is perfectly proper.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry if I have not answered it. I say that we have already decided that a charge shall be levied and paid on the increment value of land. Now we have to decide what the increment value is to be. It must be the increment value of any land, as in Clause 1, otherwise this clause would not be intelligible.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Clause 1 does not say what the increment value is. We have decided that the Increment Duty is to be charged on the increment value of any land. We have decided that Increment Value Duty is to be charged on all land, and we have now to define what that increment value is to be. My hon. Friends have been pressing to move Amendments which would differentiate between the method of calculating the increment value in the case of one kind of land and another. My argument is that that is a wholly distinct question from that which is embodied in Clause 1, and if Clause 1 had settled it there would be no necessity for Clause 2 in the Bill at all.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Supposing Clause 2 ran as follows: "For the purposes of this part of this Act the increment value of any urban land shall be

  501
  deemed to be," and so on, "and the increment value of any rural land or agricultural land shall be deemed to be," and so on, would not that be perfectly consistent with Clause 1; and what is to prevent a Member of the Committee moving the insertion of the word "urban"?
  The CHAIRMAN: An Amendment was moved to Clause 1 in regard to that.
  Mr. A STANLEY WILSON: Are we to understand from your ruling that it would be impossible for us in the future, in spite of the pledges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get any further protection for agricultural land?
  The CHAIRMAN: Oh, no; nothing of the kind. I am simply dealing with what is before me now.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved in section (1), after the words "shall be deemed to be the amount," to insert the words "not being less than one-tenth of the original site value." The right hon. Gentleman will be aware it has been on the Paper before the discussion took place last night. The object of the Amendment is, of course, to secure that there should not be valuations for trivial increases over the original site value, and that those valuations should only take place when the increase was 10 per cent. on the original site value. If I understood correctly, last night we came to a sort of agreement that there should be a dispensing discretion given to the Commissioners ranging up to the amount of 15 per cent. on the original valuation. If I am correct in that assumption I think there may be no necessity to move this Amendment, and at this stage, if he thinks it will be more convenient, I would move it in the form of 15 per cent. now. I am anxious that we should get a statement from the right hon. Gentleman on the point. While I quite agree with his desire that there should be some means for effecting this protection, I do not agree altogether that there should be a dispensing discretion given to the Commissioners. I should like to see provisions made by which the expense—and it will be very large and frequent—of small valuations would be avoided, because, let it be remembered, these valuations will have to be made on every occasion. The right hon. Gentleman says if there is no increase there will not be any tax, but there will be a valuation, and the unfortunate owner has to make the valuation, which
  502
  cannot be done for nothing. I think in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's. Bill, if for nothing else but the practical working of it, valuations of small increases are not worth the trouble, and that they are a mistake. The same money will be obtained, and it is only a question of the intervals. It is only reasonable that the intervals should be fairly substantial. Therefore, if I may, I will move the Amendment in this form: "not being less than one-fifteenth of the original site value."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'not being less than one-fifteenth of the original site value' be there inserted."
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I think my hon. Friend has made a slight mistake as to the understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I understood, it was not that there should be any discretion so far as the Commissioners were concerned in regard to the 15 per cent.; the discretion only came in in the case of a second valuation being necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already stated twice that I think cases of small increment ought to be excepted. I do not pledge myself as to the percentage, because there are a good many things to be considered. But the present Amendment would not effect the purpose the hon. Member has in view, inasmuch as it exempts only the first transaction. I am prepared to go even farther than the hon. Member suggests, and that is my reason of objecting to his Amendment. The concession which I think I shall be in a position to make will be more substantial than the one he is pleading for now, but this is not the point at which to introduce it. I think you ought to safeguard all small transactions, not merely the first. You do not want the worry, expense, and trouble of obtaining the Increment Duty in every small case, and later on I will place on the Paper words substantially raising the point. The words are at present being considered by the Government, but it is a question whether they should be in Clause 2 or Clause 4. There was a valuable suggestion last night by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), that the object would be better effected by means of a discretion vested in the Commissioner under Clause 4, so that where there appears to be a very small increment the vendor should not be put to the expense of inquiring into the matter. Whether it will come on Clause 2 or Clause 4 depends on the nature

  503
  of the Amendment. I hope the Committee will not press the Government at the present moment to state the form in which they propose to make the concession; all I can say is that we are prepared to meet the case, and are only considering what is the best way of dealing with these small transactions.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to make two observations: first to express the hope to, or to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of placing this Amendment, or any similar one, upon the Paper at the earliest possible moment. If the Government are going to introduce an important modification it is only fair that we should have the longest time possible to consider it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated assent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The other observation is that the right hon. Gentleman must not think that it will be satisfactory to Members of these Benches if his concession takes the form of the extension of the already enormous discretion of the Commissioners. Many of us feel that the powers conferred upon the Commissioners are already too wide; that, in fact, while this House is nominally imposing a tax upon certain individuals, what that tax will be is not and cannot be decided by us, but will vary enormously according to the judgment or the mood in which the matter strikes the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I take note of the warning that the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give of the form in which the Amendment will be acceptable to his friends and himself. With regard to the other part of his remarks, I think it is reasonable that the Amendment should be put down in time so as to give hon. Members full opportunity to examine it before it comes up for discussion.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I only wanted to be clear as to the concession promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night that there shall be an absolute right not to have the duty charged if it is less than 15 per cent.——
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no; I distinctly safeguarded myself as to the percentage.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Well, upon an increment value lower than a certain
  504
  amount; also the power of the Commissioners not even to have a valuation in that case. The two points are quite distinct. A great deal of the cost, inconvenience, and objection to the tax will be the valuation, and the great thing is, therefore, if possible, to avoid the valuation in small cases. In addition to that there is the burden of the small man paying the tax. I am not certain whether that point has been considered or dealt with by the Chancellor.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I ventured to suggest last night that whatever course was taken care should be taken not merely to exempt the taxpayer, but to frank the land up to that point.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood the point.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: The Chancellor will agree that the object is to exempt the taxpayer in cases of small increment not merely from payment, but from accounting. The responsibility is thrown upon the payer of this duty to account if increment value is due. The, difference is this, whether you do not think in cases of a small fractional increment it would be better to exempt a man from accounting altogether, or whether you say in that case the Commissioners shall have a discretion in this, that, and the other case. It is most important to say that a man shall be exempt not merely from payment, but from accounting.
  Mr. PHILIP MORRELL: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention in the case of a small increment to exempt the payment of duty altogether until the increment is sufficiently large? The distinction is an important one. As I understand the Amendment, the object of it was that no duty should be charged for a time in the case of a very small increment.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The point I made was not only as regards the duty, but also as regards the valuation, because in small cases it is not the payment of the duty so much that matters as the cost of making the valuation.
  Mr. MORRELL: As I understand, the hon. Member's point is that the Exchequer, will get the money in the long run. It is only a question of time as to when the duty shall be collected.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very much obliged for the suggestions that have come from all parts of the House to help the

  505
  Government to understand the Amendment. At the same time, I rather deprecate the discussion in advance, and I think it better not to enter into this question now.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman has given me a very reasonable promise, and under these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHAPLIN Mr. CHAPLIN moved, after "any, "["amount (if any)"] to insert the words "as ascertained by the Commissioners specially appointed for this purpose." And further to add the words "and subject to appeal as hereafter provided."
  I move this Amendment at this stage, because it seems to me to be most desirable that the question of the position of the Commissioners under this Bill and the immense work with which they are entrusted should be raised at the earliest moment in these discussions. This is the first clause in which the Commissioners are referred to. The question must occur to any one who has read this Bill and considered the enormous interests which are to be dealt with by the Commissioners and the uncontrolled powers with which they are vested. Is the authority to whom all these powers are to be entrusted to be an independent authority and not merely officials of the Government? In regard to the questions with which they will have to deal, and especially with regard to agricultural land, they should certainly have some practical knowledge and experience of their own. We know from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that not one of the Commissioners to be nominated have had any experience of that kind, and it is obvious that neither of the conditions which I have laid down are fulfilled. The new duties are enormous, the powers of the Commissioners are practically uncontrolled, and I think it is safe to say that no such authority, having regard to the character, kind, and amount of the property with which they are to deal, has ever been submitted to Parliament before by any English Government as a proper authority for the purpose. Those gentlemen have very onerous duties at the present time, and how they are going to perform the additional duties which are to be cast upon them under this Bill I cannot understand, if they are to be carried out in the way which we all desire.
  I have endeavoured to ascertain what are the duties which they have to perform
  506
  now, and I find they have to deal with the Income Tax, Property Tax, Land Tax, stamps on documents, the Death Duties, including the Estate Duty, and the Settled Estate Duty, Succession Duty, and the Legacy Duty. I have often heard that even with their present duties great difficulties arise in getting replies from the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and it is no uncommon thing to hear complaints made; and altogether their duties are not fulfilled with as much punctuality as might be desired. What is going to be the case when in addition to all these duties you cast upon them such an enormous burden as will inevitably be entailed by this Bill? The Chancellor of the Exchequer undoubtedly entertains a different view to that which I hold as to the position of the Inland Revenue Commissioners at the present time. It must be borne in mind that all the houses in the country and all the land on which they stand must be separated from each other, because all the land, agricultural and otherwise, is to be placed under this Bill, and will be practically at the mercy of these four Commissioners. I wonder whether the Committee has considered at all the amount and the extent of this property which these four gentlemen will have-to deal with in the future. It cannot be less than four thousand millions at the very least, and that is probably a considerable under estimate. I have a table here showing the rateable value of England and Wales on a 20 years' purchase;. The value of the property which will have to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue Commissioners amounts to 4,224 millions. One of the first duties of these gentlemen will be to call for returns dealing with the valuations. That is no simple task to begin with, but it is a task to be given to these Commissioners.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The right hon. Gentleman is now arguing with regard to powers to be given to the Com-missioners which are dealt with in another part of the Bill.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am endeavouring to show, first of all, what are the duties given to the Commissioners at present; and, secondly what will be the new duties which will be placed upon them.
  The CHAIRMAN: Within the scope of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to his Amendment, and he cannot wander over the whole of the Bill.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I move the Amendment for the purpose of raising the whole question of the Commissioners. I do not see otherwise how the matter can be dealt with.
  The CHAIRMAN: The object of the right hon. Gentleman is something other than is shown in the Amendment. I can only deal with the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman may incidentally mention that the Commissioners appointed will have heavy duties which they will be unable to perform. One purpose in asking that they shall be a special body is that those duties should be referred to a special body. But the Amendment is that special Commissioners shall be appointed for a special purpose, and that is the only question that can be argued.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The Increment Duty affects all the different kinds of property to which I have referred, and undoubtedly it is one of the subjects which the Commissioners in the Bill as it stands will have to deal with over and over again. I am endeavouring to show that for that purpose of Increment Duty—one of the main purposes of the Bill—the present Commissioners will not be adequate and that there ought to be a body specially appointed for the purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. He is perfectly entitled to argue that for the purpose of ascertaining the increment the proposed Commissioners will not be adequate, but the argument cannot extend all over the Bill and to the other duties proposed to be put on the Commissioners.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I will adhere as closely as possible to the ruling you have laid down, but limited as you make it I suppose I may refer to the duties cast upon the Commissioners. So far as the Increment Duty is concerned, I was pointing out that under Clause 16 their first duty will be to call for a return, because the Increment Duty cannot be ascertained without these returns. I was then proceeding to make certain criticisms upon the manner in which these returns were called for and on the powers given to the Commissioners for this purpose. I think that would be in order. With regard to these valuations, certainly the powers placed at the disposal of the Commissioners are of a most extreme and extraordinary character. They are powers
  508
  involving duties which are cast on the Commissioners as well as upon the owners of land from whom the returns will be required.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman desires to raise the whole question whether the Commissioners shall be special. Commissioners or Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I submit the right hon. Gentleman really wants to discuss a proposal that special Commissioners shall be substituted throughout, not merely for the purpose of Clause 2, but for all the other important functions cast upon the Commissioners by this Bill. May I just point out to you and the right hon. Gentleman that we have raised that point specifically in the Bill—who the Commission is to be—in Clause 74, and the right hon. Gentleman can address the survivors when we come to that clause. I will call your attention to Clause 74:—
  "Any reference to 'the Commissioners' In Part II. Part VI., or Part VII. of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and any reference to the Commissioners' in any other part of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
  That raises specifically the question of who the Commissioners shall be, and then it will be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to say that a special Commission ought to be appointed for the purpose, but I do not see how he can possibly argue it at this stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: The whole Amendment would be out of order, if we had to wait till Clause 74 was reached. I consider it in order at this stage as applying to increment value. He must confine himself, however, to those points which are in order.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I pointed out that I would confine the Debate strictly to Increment Duty, and I was pointing out the extraordinary difficulty of the task, with regard to increment alone, which would be thrown upon the Commissioners under the Bill, and I will endeavour to adhere as closely as possible to that particular subject. I am quite aware of the fact that the constitution of the Commission and the question who ought and who ought not to be Commissioners is perhaps the most important thing in the Bill, for it must be remembered that all through the Bill all control and guidance at every point which is raised by the measure of the right hon. Gentleman is referred to the Commissioners. Not only that, but there is no appeal from the Commission, except

  509
  one which is nothing but an appeal from the Treasury to the Treasury. One of my chief objections to the present Commission, even with regard to this single duty—this most important Increment Duty—is this, that they represent a Department which is really a branch of the Treasury and nothing else, and consequently we are in this position, that however arbitrary, however unjust, however unfair the decisions of the Inland Revenue Commissioners may be, or may appear to be to those who feel that they are suffering from them, their only redress is an appeal to certain referees appointed by the Commissioners themselves.
  For the purpose of settling what that Increment Duty is or is not to be, it should be done by Commissioners specially appointed for this purpose. Their other duties must interfere with the practical performance of their duties under the Bill. They will be placed in great difficulty by the collection of the returns. The extraordinary and exceptional powers you have given them for this purpose alone make it clear that in the mind of the Government they have a most onerous task to perform. They are to call on every landowner for a return of every estate, big or small,' separating one from the other, and the value of the houses apart from the land has to be returned, and they may be called upon to make it within a period of 30 days, and if they are unable or neglect to do so most terrible penalties are to be inflicted on them.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, the right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the functions of the Commissioners under Clauses 15 and 16 in regard to returns on an Amendment which deals with the functions of the Commissioners in ascertaining the difference between the site value and the original site value. I submit that it is quite impossible to discuss that at this stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that these special Commissioners have to settle increment value. His argument is that part of the settlement of the increment value involves these returns, and that there are other duties under a good many other clauses. I must say I think that is so, and I cannot see that he is out of order in raising that. What he would not be in order in doing would be raising any duties they might have to perform on Reversion Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, Ungotten Minerals, and things of that kind. But
  510
  what really applies to increment value I cannot help because it is involved in the Amendment.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am grateful for your ruling, but it is certainly what I expected. I am not in the least surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be extremely desirous of postponing the discussion. He suggested that the question could be discussed on the seventy-fourth clause, but it seems to me that if the clause is ever reached it must necessarily be twelve months hence. A good many of the difficulties in connection with the Bill have already been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and in regard to the majority of them he has hardly favoured us with any answer at all. I hope he will in some way meet the difficulties which I have suggested, and that he will explain why the Commissioners should not be a separate body created for this purpose. What are the objections? The appointment of an independent body would be only in accordance with the precedents to be found in connection with other great measures dealing with vast quantities of property. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the tribunal is to consist of his own officials; they are not independent of him and of the Government. So far as I can remember the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to all the precedents in regard to such appointments.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I understand your ruling the question which the Committee is now called upon to deal with is whether the functions which are assigned to the Commissioners in the fixing of the Increment Duty and in the valuation which is the basis of the Increment Duty should be discharged by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or by a Special Commission set up in some manner which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) no doubt will explain later on if this Amendment is carried. I think that is a very important matter, but I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman moving such an Amendment. It is a very revolutionary proposal. It is that you should set up a special land board, nominees of the Government, to decide questions of this sort. The Government are leaving these functions to gentlemen of very wide experience—gentlemen to whose experience the right hon. Gentle-

  511
  man has testified. He gave us a list of the gigantic operations these gentlemen are conducting. They are superintending revenue amounting to scores of millions a year, and they are superintending the Income Tax, a work which involves the review of £800,000,000 or £900,000,000 of income.
  Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in referring to Clause 74? That refers entirely to Part II. of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the whole clause, which is very short, it would have saved the necessity of interruption. The Commissioners are commissioners of very wide experience, who have got enormous duties of very great importance to discharge. They have got to review an income of £900,000,000 every year. They have got to collect something like 30 or 40 millions Income Tax. They have got to deal with the Death Duties of about 18 or 19 millions a year. That is a much more considerable revenue than anything that we propose to consider under this clause, and it is a much more important and a much heavier charge on land in many respects. Yet those duties are discharged by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in a very responsible manner. Then there are the taxes on stamps and many other questions of a similar character with which they have to deal. They are men of experience whose impartiality has never been challenged in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is the first Gentleman who ever criticised them as a body, and his criticism was of a very perfunctory character. The only charge he brought against them was that they were not very punctual. That is not a subject of complaint against the Commissioners. It may be a question of increasing their staff. But I never heard the charge brought against the Commissioners that they were not a very able, judicious, hard working, body of men. If you will consult those at the Treasury you will be told that no finer body of men could possibly advise any Government on questions of revenue.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Will the Commissioners make the valuations?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman might confine himself to the question under debate. The whole question here is who is to determine the Increment Duty? The other question is
  512
  who are the people who are to superintend the increment valuation? The right hon. Gentleman wants to draw me on the question who is to perform the valuation in each case. That surely is beyond a debate of this kind.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman very properly eulogises the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The only relevancy of that observation is that they are competent to perform the particular task of valuing for that particular duty. What I have to ask is on another matter, in order to ascertain are they to perform that duty or is somebody else to perform it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean this, that he so interprets the remarks of his colleague that he thinks he is going to set up a special Commission to go valuing land all over the country?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I am asking what you know?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am examining an Amendment, an alternative proposal by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) interrupts me by asking will the Commissioners of Inland Revenue value land? My answer is that these Commissioners are only set up to superintend and direct operations. The right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that he is going to have a body of six Commissioners going over the country and valuing every plot of land. I say if you are going to have a body of Commissioners to superintend this valuation you cannot have a more experienced, impartial, and responsible body to discharge the function to the satisfaction of every party in this House than we have at the present moment. The Death Duties, for example, involve valuations of a very important character, and they involve the imposing of not a small but a heavy duty. The valuation, it is true, is not conducted by the Commissioners, but it is directed by them. And the same thing would happen in the present case. The valuation would, of course, be by expert valuers, but the operation would be directed by the Commissioners, and I submit that no better body could possibly be set up than those Commissioners, who are men of experience, and who have discharged the duties up to the present without the slightest suggestion of partiality from any quarter of the House.
  Earl WINTERTON: The Amendment of my right hon. Friend has been left entirely unanswered by the right hon. Gentleman, who has absolutely ignored the principal difficulties put forward by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) in regard to the duties to be performed. He stated with a considerable amount of reason that the Commissioners have already an enormous burden on their shoulders of exceedingly technical and complicated work. The considerations put forward by my right hon. Friend in support of his Amendment should really be more fully discussed by the Committee. The work to be done under this Bill requires to be done by persons of real technical training in valuation, and I submit that it is a physical impossibility for it to be done in the way proposed by the Bill, however great the staff they may have. The greatest Transatlantic hustlers, let alone the gentlemen trained in the leisurely ways of Whitehall, even working 18 or 20 hours a day, could not possibly deal with the work which it is asked should be done under this Bill. One point mentioned by my right hon. Friend has been quite ignored by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is the question of the time at which the valuation is to be made. It is impossible for any person who has not been trained and versed thoroughly in land valuation to know what is a reasonable time to ask for a separate valuation. This is a matter which affects all of us who have an interest in land. We are going to be at the absolute mercy of these gentlemen. If we are going to have our throats cut by Government servants we should have them cut by men who know how to perform the execution. I am rather surprised at the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to nominees of the Government, because I understand quite recently he nominated an outsider to advise him with reference to the land clauses of the Bill. If he went outside for that purpose I do not see why he should have any objection to asking gentlemen to work the Bill. It is obvious the right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest idea how these gentlemen are to carry out the duties. That is obvious from the answer he gave to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), and that he has not the faintest idea of how the whole thing is going to be carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told
  514
  us that he had spent on the Bill as many weeks as my right hon. Friend had spent minutes; but those weeks did not enable him to tell us how these gentlemen are to carry out their duties or how the valuation is to be made.
  Mr. BALFOUR: So far little has been said on what I think is the most important part of the Amendment. The Amendment consists of two parts. In the first part my right hon. Friend suggests that an ad hoc body should be appointed to carry out the valuation; the second part suggests that the decision of that ad hon. body should be subject to an appeal. Personally, I should certainly desire that the appeal should be to a judicial tribunal. I am by no means sure that I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Inland Revenue must be in the first instance the primarily responsible body for the collection of the tax. You would have to add greatly to their strength; but as at present advised my inclination is to believe that you cannot have two separate bodies dealing with separate fragments of revenue—and with separate fragments of revenue from land. I would rather this initial work was done by permanent civil servants than by an ad hon body. I am not particularly in love with the machinery we have set up in Ireland, and in the first instance I should like to continue the ordinary traditional method of the country and employ the Inland Revenue. But how are the Inland Revenue to do the work? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that they shall work simply through the local land valuers in different parts of the country; that there shall be a body of expert valuers; or that the number of Inland Revenue Commissioners should be augmented? What is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the additional machinery which will unquestionably have to be set up?
  Further, what view do the Government take of the second part of the Amendment, which I think is of far greater importance than the first? What is their view as to an appeal on the question of valuation in connection with Increment Duty? The right hon. Gentleman reminded us, quite truly, that the Inland Revenue are responsible for work in connection with Death Duties which is remotely analogous to the work they are asked to do under this clause. But their operations in that matter were clearly laid down in the Bill, with the methods they were to pursue, and the appeal to be granted against their

  515
  decision. Without arguing the matter further, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a convenient opportunity for giving some general view of the constitution of the body which is to decide these questions, and of the expediency of granting an appeal from the all-important decisions which from time to time will be given?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman invited me to enter into an explanation on two or three questions, the provisions of which are especially set out in subsequent clauses of the Bill. For instance, he asked for a full exposition of the position in Clause 22 with regard to appeals. But a Minister cannot make a statement with regard to that which cannot be made a subject of discussion. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman asks me to make a special statement as to the whole of the machinery that is going to be set up by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in Clauses 14 to 21. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot comply with that request. I think he will see that it would be rather unreasonable to call upon me to make a statement upon a thing that I shall have to state fully and minutely afterwards. I shall have to tell the House of Commons all the arrangements—provisional, of course—made by the Inland Revenue with regard to valuation. When that time comes I shall be glad to give the house full information as to the provisional arrangements and the intentions of the Government.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was not able to hear all that the right hon. Gentleman said, but from what I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks, I do not think an exposition of what should be done under Clause 22 would be at all in order. If you were going to settle the whole question of appeal on this point it might be in order, but we are only concerned with the appeal suggested in the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would be quite impossible for me, without trenching upon Clause 22, to say that which the right hon. Gentleman invites me to say. Sub-section (3) of Clause 22, under which appeals can be made, raises an important point. It raises the question of appeal from the referee to a judicial tribunal. But if I made a statement on the point I would be anticipating Clause 22. For that reason I would rather the right hon. Gentleman did
  516
  not press me, because I hesitate to refuse to answer. The right hon. Gentleman quite forgot that he had given verbal notice of the latter part of his Amendment; he never explained it, and he never told us what it meant, and, therefore, I attached no importance to it. That is the reason I never said a word about it.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, although it meets some of the points, leaves us still in some considerable doubt. He made no reference to the question of appeal because he said my right hon. Friend did not address himself to that part of the subject. Quite true; but I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his reply he dwelt upon the present powers of the Inland Revenue Commissioners under the Estate Duties Act, and he entirely omitted to tell us that all their power under that Act, which differ entirely from the powers you are now conferring upon them, are subject to appeal. Under the Act of 1894, if the person against whom a decision is given by these Commissioners feels aggrieved, he has a right of appeal to a court of law. I quite agree, those of us who have had experience of conducting Bills know, there is nothing more inconvenient for a Minister than to commit himself in regard to clauses that are to come up subsequently for consideration, but I think the Chancellor has exaggerated the effect of my right hon. Friend's argument. I do not think all the clauses the Chancellor has referred to would be involved by the Amendment. Clause 22, which is the clause dealing with appeal, would be involved. The duties the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have to perform now are perfectly simple duties compared with those which this Bill would throw upon them. Let me remind the Committee what are the duties they have to perform. They have to value for the purposes of Probate and Estate Duty, and so on, at a figure which a willing seller would obtain from a willing buyer. They have in reality no discretion. There is a certain piece of property like a certain piece of furniture, and it is governed by a price. What are the duties they will have to perform under this clause of this Bill? The clause as it stands is rather difficult to understand. Many Gentlemen opposite would, I think, be very reluctant to get up and explain it if suddenly called upon to do so. I venture to say a good many lawyers would find it very difficult

  517
  to explain it. This clause has got to be interpreted by the Commissioners. They have to decide as to the incidence of the Increment Duty upon accommodation land.
  I have not the smallest doubt there are lawyers in the House who would not hesitate to get up and tell us what accommodation land is, but to ask those who own that land to pay an Increment Duty upon a decision of that kind is to make a demand upon owners of that kind of property which is very unfair. You are throwing upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue duties which they will find it almost impossible to perform. The Government claim to be a democratic and popular Government who trust the people, and yet in every single Bill they bring in— [An HON. MEMBER: "Order, order."] I am perfectly in order. The Government are granting under this Bill powers to the Commissioners in a way in which they have never been granted before. Nobody will suggest that there is any charge to be brought against these officers. The public officials of this country are beyond reproach, and nobody suggests that they are liable to pressure, or anything of that kind. What we do say is that you are proposing to throw upon them duties which they cannot perform, and you are not giving them what they ought to have, namely, the plainest possible instructions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about accommodation land. When you come to building land that is a most important matter. What definition are you going to adopt which will accurately describe building land in such a way as will guide the Commissioners in the execution of their duty. If you do constitute a body of this kind and give them these wide powers you certainly ought to make their duties perfectly clear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objects to the Amendment and the criticisms we have advanced, but he does not realise that he does not give the only safeguard which can be given, namely, an appeal to a court of law, by which an ill-considered or unfair action may be subject to revision. The only way in which this can be satisfactorily done is through a court of justice. In these circumstances, between the two courses, although I object to both, I shall decline to vote for either the one or the other, and I shall reserve myself to oppose the whole proposition that you should leave this discretion to any body of Commissioners, and if you do appoint Commissioners you must define clearly what their duties are.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having had some experience in these matters, I may say that I am in favour of a special body of Commissioners, for the Inland Revenue officers are totally unable to cope with the work that will be placed upon them by this Bill. Under this Bill there is a legalised system of robbery, and we want to know by whom the Commissioners are to be appointed. I understand that the Commissioners are not to be controlled by legal decisions. I should like to move that you do report Progress, owing to the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway who do not understand the details of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member are now quite irrelevant.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I have misunderstood the interruptions of the hon. Members below the Gangway, and I do not now propose that you move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The right hon. Gentleman proposes by this Bill to take away the right of appeal, and in order to maintain that right I shall support the Amendment.
  Captain CRAIG: What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is this: In Clause 23 of the Bill it is distinctly laid down that whoever the Commissioners may be, any appeal against their decisions will be to persons who have experience in the valuation of land. Surely, then, if the appeal is to be to such persons it is only right that those who appraise the increment value in the first place should also have expert knowledge on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that Inland Revenue officials will perform that duty. What duties are they at present performing? Are they so slack that they are able to undertake this burden, the enormous extent of which the Government do not appear to have appreciated in the slightest degree. I cannot speak for England, Scotland, or Wales, but as far as Ireland is concerned, I can assert confidently that the duties imposed by this Bill must prove to be of a very arduous nature. What is the object of the Amendment? It is to secure that special Commissioners shall be appointed for this purpose? Could anything be more reasonable. They will have to deal with a highly intricate problem, very different indeed from that imposed on them by the Death Duties, when they simply had to call for a return from a stockbroker as to the value of certain stocks and shares.

  519
  Here we have an entirely novel principle established, and you are beginning a system which has been hitherto unknown in this country. All of a sudden you? press upon that department work which is probably more arduous than all these other duties put together. How is the Inland Revenue to keep track of an estate for the purpose of this increment value? In some instances societies are started for purchasing estates that come into the market in order to divide them up into small holdings and for every lease of an acre or half an acre a certain increment value may possibly accrue, but until the last half acre, or perch, or rood of that property is sold, the owner cannot tell whether in the long run he will have an increment or a decrement in the profit. During all that time the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, according to the Bill, will have to keep track of every small transaction which takes place on the property. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that they have it within their capacity to deal with such a matter. Take an estate of 2,000 acres, where half an acre is sold to-morrow, and a few acres next year, a careful record will have to be kept. They cannot possibly do it. Hon. Members below the Gangway have some experience of land in Ireland, and the blocks there are already in regard to Irish land with special Commissioners appointed for the purpose of dealing with small fractions of lands in parts of the United Kingdom. But here you have to deal with the whole of the land in the United Kingdom, and not merely agricultural land. The idea that the Inland Revenue will be able to deal with a subject of that sort is absolutely absurd. Not very long ago there was an estate sold, and hon. Members opposite are all for facilitating the sale of land to small holders, so that they may become proprietors of their own particular holding——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  Captain CRAIG: I apologise for trespassing; at the same time I was only pointing out to hon. Members what the absurdity of this Bill was. You cannot expect a clerk in a great Department to know anything about the intricacies of land in Ireland.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: May I call your attention to the fact that the present
  520
  speaker has repeated that argument three times.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was carefully listening to the hon. Member. That is a matter which is within my discretion.
  Captain CRAIG: I take an instance where tenants have purchased under the last Act, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman to produce anyone in the Inland Revenue Department to cope with that subject, where there are annuitants who hold their property under the Government for 68½ years, and to differentiate in their appreciation of the increment value between what is due to the expired term of the 68½ years and what to the increment value. I think the right hon. Gentleman may have in view certain classes of property nearer home, but his advisers have escaped altogether the rather intricate subject of Irish land in proposing that the Inland Revenue should take it up as a branch of their duties.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: In view of the very laborious day we have had, and of the importance of the subject raised by my Amendment to leave out the word "site" ("the site value of the land"), and insert the word "capital," I would move: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do trust that my hon. Friend will not press that Motion. While I do not say that this is an attempt to delay the progress of the Bill, I would point out that the progress on Clause 2 has been slow enough. We have only got two lines of the clause, and I trust that my hon. Friend will see his way to go on with his Amendment now. It is no more important than the Amendment which we have just been discussing.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) is no more important than the last one. We discussed the last Amendment for two-hours, and we are now asked to begin the discussion of a question of very great importance. Do the Government seriously propose that at half-past twelve we are to go on and deal with an Amendment raising perfectly fresh issues which have an important bearing on the future of their own Bill commencing these questions at

  521
  half-past eleven o'clock? For my part I offer no objection. I have sat in the House for a long time, and I do not mind sitting up at night. But a great many Members of this House object strongly to sitting up. In their interests let me remind the House that the present Government altered the hour from 12 to 11 and took great credit to themselves. But what becomes of this additional hour's saving if in regard to the most important measure of the Session which is making greater charges in our system than any other measure we have had before us, certainly during the time that I have been in Parliament, we are asked to deal with it at an hour at which the Government themselves declared we ought not to be asked to dispose of business? If the Government really expect the House to deal with these grave questions as they ought to be dealt with they should, now approaching one o'clock in the morning, adjourn and resume consideration of the matter at a proper hour.
  Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) will not accede to my request, I beg formally to ask leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress.
  Leave to withdraw Motion withheld.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) because I wish to protest against the question of site value, which is one of the most important points in the Bill, being raised in the House at almost a quarter to one o'clock. The country takes an interest in this question. Everybody knows that it is impossible at this hour for Debates to be reported in the papers. The Prime Minister, who is now here, has not been present during the night. He went away and enjoyed a pleasant evening, after having imposed the closure on the Leader of the Opposition, and spoken before dinner, so that he could go away himself, I suppose, to get a comfortable dinner; and now, after a few hours rest, he comes down to the House of Commons and insists on us continuing. The right hon. Gentleman insists on our sitting still longer. [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: These cries are most disorderly, and we cannot get on with the business at all if they continue.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: It is a remarkable fact that the Prime Minister should come down at the moment when
  522
  Progress is moved, and that he should insist on our continuing until the small hours of the morning. I think that every Member on this side of the House and a good many on the other side will agree with me that it is a monstrous proposal that the Prime Minister should ask us to enter on a Debate of this character at this hour, and if he had been here half an hour ago he would have seen many of his own supporters asleep. I trust those hon. Members who were asleep just now will enter their protest. ["Name"] The hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Lupton)——
  Mr. LUPTON: Had I been twice as fast asleep I could have understood much better reasons than those which have come from the benches opposite.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: The hon. Member for Sleaford may continue his slumbers. I protest strongly against such an important Debate being entered upon at this hour of the night.
  Captain CRAIG: I think it would facilitate matters if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) would give us some indication of how far in the Bill he intends to proceed to-night, so that we may arrange as far as we can with our small numbers that some may go home, take a rest, and come back again. We are desirous of debating all the subjects in the fairest manner possible. If some indication is not given it is only fair to press the Motion to a Division.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Right hon. Gentlemen take credit to themselves for making a good many precedents as we go along in the course of these Debates, but I am not quite certain that they know what great new precedents they are making in the matter of our procedure. It is no doubt true, and always has been, that the Finance Bill is not subject to the Eleven o'clock Rule, or in former days to the Twelve o'clock Rule. On a special occasion, after prolonged debate for many days in order to finish a stage of a discussion, from time to time there has been a single very prolonged sitting. I do not think any parallel can be found for the course which the Government are now asking us to adopt of habitually sitting, not half an hour after the time, for rising, but one, two, three, and four hours after the time for rising. I am quite certain if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn back to the conduct of his great predecessor, Sir William Harcourt, when he was conducting a most contentious Budget

  523
  through this House, he would find that Sir William Harcourt did not put the Committee to the strain to which the right hon. Gentleman is putting them. I do not say that they never sat very late, but they did not habitually sit two, three, and four hours after the usual hour for the rising of the House.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASEmade an observation which was inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Patronage Secretary can make his speech afterwards. I would be very glad if he did. The particular observation he interjected was that they did set to one o'clock. That is to say that they sat one hour after the usual time for rising. We sat one hour after the usual time yesterday and four hours after the usual time on Monday. That is a method of getting the Bill through. It is perhaps more derogatory to the House, renders less possible the proper discussion of the points raised, than any system of gag, guillotine, or closure which
  has hitherto been attempted. For my part I do hope even now the Government will have some regard to the importance of the questions which are raised, to the necessity for having fair discussion at reasonable hours, and that they will not insist night after night in proceeding in this way. I am surprised the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) should have been ready so hastily to withdraw the Motion. I read the other day in the "Westminster Gazette" that great satisfaction was expressed amongst the Liberal party at the haste with which the Gentleman who had momentarily formed a cave had again, come to heel. I thought the observation offensive, and I did not know to what it referred. I begin now to understand.
  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, 209; Noes, 95.

  Division No. 218.]

  AYES.

  [2.50 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Armitage, R.

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jardine, Sir J

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beauchamp, E

  Essex, R. W,

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshires)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kelly, George D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Falconer, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gill, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Massie J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Verney, F. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rogers, F. E, Newman

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowlands, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Seely, Colonel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Whitbread, Howard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Williamson, Sir Achibald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Richardson, A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Robinson, S.

  Toulmin, George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Ashley, W. W.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clyde, James Avon

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 214.

  Division No. 219.]

  AYES.

  [1.0 a.m.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cechrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baldwin, Stanley.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fell, Arthur

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Foster, P. S.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Gretton, John

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stonier, Beville

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Starkey, John R.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Wardle, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Oddy, John James

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Renwick, George

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lock wood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Lonsdale, John Brownice

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Forster.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Agnew, George William

  Falconer, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Armitage, R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gladstone, Rt Hon. Herbert John

  Massie, J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Glover, Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Middlebrook, William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Word, A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholls, George

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harvey, A. G. C- (Rochdale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Philipps, Col Ivor (Southampton)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pointer, J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Hudson. Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cooper, G. J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Richardson, A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robinson, S,

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)

  Kelley, George D.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan. J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, J.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Essex, R. W

  Lundon, T.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seely, Colonel

  528

  529

  Shaw, Sir Charles E.

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Winfrey, R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, namely, to leave out the word "site" and to insert the word "capital," and I do so because on looking through this Bill, with all its difficult, complicated clauses, it is borne in on my mind that that process for arriving at the site value will not only be complicated but almost impossible. I want to refresh the memory of the Committee as to the process' by which the Commissioners arrive at the basis upon which they are to impose the Increment Tax. It will be found in Clause 14, section (2). They will arrive at the site value by eliminating all that is appurtenant to it used in connection with any buildings, and all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes, and other things growing thereon. We have, in arriving at this naked state, not merely to imagine a particular site, but the whole country in a somewhat pre-historic condition; and, having arrived at this imaginary condition, then, according to sub-section (b) at the bottom of the page, Commissioners will have to call in skilled engineers to give them an estimate as to what the cost of the operation of eliminating everything from the land will be. Let me take a concrete case. The Surrey Docks are a great centre of trade and industry. The Commissioners or those they appoint will have to go down and reduce those docks to a mud-flat condition. They will remove all the dry docks, the quays, the buildings, and everything that has gone to make the docks the industrial centre they are. Having reduced them to a mud-flat condition, they will then have to deduct from that value the cost of removing all the material to some distant place. It is not, however, the Surrey Docks only which will be in that condition. I could give a hundred other concrete cases which would reduce the thing to rather absurd proportions.
  This proposal to reduce the value to a naked site value appears to
  530
  me to be a quite unnecessary and complicated operation, when a much simpler one might be resorted to. It is a novel suggestion which has never been made in any previous proposals for valuation. In Sir William Harcourt's Bill of 1894 you had what was called a "principal value," and in all subsequent measures of the same character you had valuations known as "capital value." Even in this Bill itself, in different clauses, you have what is called "total value" and that is practically the same as capital value. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be very much simpler in the future operations of this complicated clause if the basis of valuation were the simple, well-known basis of capital value. I would say that in order to arrive at this site value the Commissioners would first of all have to arrive at the capital value, because they will have to estimate both the capital value of the buildings and of the land before they can arrive at the full capital value. It will be said, and it is thought by some hon. Members, that if this form of valuation is substituted it will bring about a greater hardship for owners of property upon whom this Increment Tax is to be placed. I cannot see why that should be the case. A capital value will be taken after the passage of the Act, and, when the time comes for putting into operation any of these taxes, another valuation will be taken, and that value will be compared with the former, with all the necessary deductions made for any improvements that have taken place on the part of the owner between the time of the original valuation and the time when the tax is imposed, whether at the time of death or on the grant of a lease or on the sale of the land. You will have a complete valuation on the one side compared with a complete valuation on the other, and the only deductions which it-will be necessary to estimate will be those which can be shown to be improvements

  531
  due to the energy or the capital placed in the land or property on the part of the owner. If that operation is to be carried out it should be carried out by those who understand the conditions of the land. It is no earthly use asking Commissioners from London to go down to remote districts of the country, utterly ignorant of the conditions, and value the land. There must, of course, be a system of local valuation, and the whole of the success of this scheme must depend upon the knowledge of those who undertake the valuation. This scheme of a universal valuation by a State bureaucracy applied partially to land and property under certain conditions is, in my judgment, a great mistake to introduce in a Budget Bill. I wish the Government had introduced a measure, comprehensive in its character, giving a complete reform of the whole system of valuation throughout the country, so that you could have a complete system, both local and Imperial, going on at the same time. If that had taken place, then the present system of assessment, with certain forms attached to it, might have been introduced to carry out a valuation on a capital system, such as I have indicated in my Amendment.
  A Bill was, I think, introduced in 1894 by the right hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Long) which would have carried out in spirit a complete reform of the assessment committees throughout the country. It would have got rid of small assessment committees and would have enlarged them. I would have liked to have seen the substitute of capital value for annual value proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, you could then have applied it to the whole system of local as well as Imperial taxation, and that instead of having the old system continued with its imperfect conditions, and having alongside it created a new system on a capital basis for State purposes, conducted by State officials, the expense of which is bound to be very great, and the machinery of which, unless these local committees are brought into operation in the working of it, must be very imperfect. This subject is one of very great importance. If site value, as interpreted in Clause 14, is continued in the Bill, it is bound to lead to the greatest possible complication in the future. It will undoubtedly be a matter of very great expense and one which at the end must be very imperfect in its character. I would far prefer to see the well-recognised system of capital value in-
  532
  troduced into this Bill, and that the capital value should be estimated by those who fully understand the conditions of the locality. The assessment committees have proved themselves on the whole to be thoroughly satisfactory in character. There is undoubtedly room for improvement in them, and they might be enlarged, but on the whole they have done their work very well and there is no reason at all why this work should not be placed upon their shoulders and the capital system substituted for the present annual system. They know the conditions of the locality and the value of the land, because they can value it in relationship to the land around them. You might have upon these committees what was proposed in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, namely, an official from the Inland Revenue, so that you would have a direct connection between the Treasury and the local authorities.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You mean a Commissioner of Taxes.
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Yes. Then instead of the double and cumbersome system introduced by a side wind in this Finance Bill you would have one uniform system. I admit it would be difficult to carry out what I am proposing under the present provisions of the Bill. I should have liked to see this tax confined to those occasions when without a universal system of valuation a comparison could be made simply by the existing staff of officials at the Treasury. If the occasions had been confined to those of reversion, sale, the conversion of agricultural land into building land, and the granting of such leases, I believe it would have caused very little loss to the revenue, while the cost of collection would have been very light and the work of supervision reduced to the smallest dimensions. Unfortunately the Amendment on that subject was refused by the Government, and other occasions are now inserted in the Bill, such as death and the general granting of leases, which must necessitate a general system of valuation throughout the country. All I say is that if a general system is to be established under this Bill, let it be one which in days to come we can apply to the readjustments and the reform of our local system of taxation as well. It would be far simpler to have the well known system of capital valuing in place of the novel proposal now introduced in the Bill of site valuation. It is for these reasons that I

  533
  ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the proposal I make, and I hope that in the answer he gives he will be able to indicate to us not only that he will look favourably upon it, but also indicate the way in which the valuation is to be carried out under the direction of the Commissioners. If it is to be carried out with any sense of justice and in any satisfactory way it must be done with the aid and co-operation of those who alone know the conditions of the locality.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): My hon. Friend has raised what is undoubtedly an important point, which I am sure both sides of the House desire should be dealt with carefully but, so far as possible, briefly. The Committee is not unaware of what is likely to be put forward by way of reply. My hon. Friend has pointed out that if we substitute the total value with capital value—these expressions are interchangeable in this connection—for site value we should not need to have a valuation Of such a complicated character as that which now appears in the Bill. That is no doubt true., and so far as valuation and its cost is concerned, pro tanto, that argument is sound and has to be met by showing that there are compensating advantages. First of all my hon. Friend has not quite appreciated the nature of the valuation either of the original site value or of what we might call the second valua-tion. I do not like the word valuation. I should prefer to call it computation, when the tax comes to be imposed. He has drawn a somewhat alarming picture, such as we are accustomed now to see, of the denudation of this ancient and beloved land of ours of all its buildings, the very water that is drawn from its docks, and so forth. That is not to be done even hypothetically. He has forgotten one part of Clause 14 which deals with allowances to be made for the purpose of divesting the land of buildings. It says the Commissioners shall allow as deductions "any sums which, in the opinion of the Commissioners it would be necessary to extend in order to divest the land of buildings, timber, trees," and so on. That is only given in the somewhat rare and particular case where land has not already been put to its full site value. For the purpose of putting the tax on you must make an allowance for land if it has not been adequately used. The words I have given are a direct quotation from Clause 14, sub-section 4 (b.) What is laid down
  534
  there is necessary in order to divest the land of those various matters for the purpose of realising the full site value, and not for the purpose of destroying site value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to have this point clearly explained. I understand we were referred to the deduction which has to be made in the first instance in order to arrive at the site value. That is in Clause 14, sub-section 4 (b), but under Clause 14, sub-section 2, as applied to the Surrey Docks, the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) says that in order to arrive at the site value you have to remove the whole structure—quays, wharves, and docks—and leave the site bare. That does not come under 4 (b,) but under section 14, sub-section 2.
  Sir W. ROBSON: This rather illustrates the inconvenience of this kind of interruption. It is perfectly clear to me what the hon. Baronet said. He describes what happens under section 2 of Clause 14 as a mere hypothetical valuation of the land.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: You said it was not.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Baronet went on to say that there was to be an allowance. What I was pointing out was that that is only an allowance in a special case where it is necessary to get the full site value to clear the land of buildings. Now my hon. Friend raises another point of interest and he introduced a novelty. He spoke of what would happen if the valuation were taken at probate value, and he suggested that valuation might well be committed to the hands of local authorities. I am not quite sure whether he implied that even under the Bill as it now stands there ought to be a valuation reform which would put the valuation of site values in the hands of the local authorities. Clearly that is not possible.
  Mr. YOUNGER: That was the case in the Scotch Land Bill.
  Sir W. ROBSON: There again the hon. Member is interrupting without full reflection. I think he will see that what he says does not apply. When you are dealing with rateable value which expresses itself in a given year, your assessment committees and local authorities could apportion the value without much difficulty. But they are not land agents, and therefore they cannot make a hypothetical valuation. They cannot say what is the value of a particular spot if it is divested of the buildings upon it. That is

  535
  a task which evidently requires an expert. I think we all agree upon that. Therefore for that purpose you cannot avail yourselves of the local authorities. The same thing may be said with regard to the capital values of land, such as would have to take place if we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Baronet. There, again, where you are dealing with the capital value of undeveloped land your local authority would have to deal with what requires expert knowledge. It will be seen that even under my hon. friend's suggestion you would still have to have experts. For that reason, I do not think he would find quite a satisfactory tribunal if he took the tribunal suggested in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) of 1904. The real difference between the hon. Baronet and us on this matter is something much more vital and important, and I think the Government are entitled to say that the difference between us is one which is really due to the desire on the part of those who framed this Bill not to make this tax as burdensome or as severe as my hon. Friend would make it.
  The principle upon which we base our tax is very simple. The effort that we have made is to see that we keep away from the scope of this tax anything that can be ascribed to men's labour—that we should tax only that which has not come into existence by any special degree of personal labour. In dealing with the premises my hon. Friend would deal with the goodwill belonging to a particular business because of the great increase in the value of them. All that would come in under my hon. Friend's proposal. We are careful to put our tax only upon the site. Why? In order that we may not tax anything other than that which arises from what we call social co-operation, i.e., the labours of the community as a whole. We have been careful to exclude everything resulting from a man's own labour. That is the principle on which we stand and undoubtedly that principle does involve this elaborate, costly, and extensive valuation. Is it worth it? Now there are on the two sides of the House totally different opinions on the question. We think it is worth it. We think the principle so just and so fair to all classes. That shortly stated is the reason why we are determined to put the tax upon the site rather than upon the capital value. It is a much smaller tax and falls with much less hardship upon those who have to live by labour.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am sure we are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the endeavour he has made to enlighten us upon the very complicated proposals contained in the clause to which the hon. Baronet has moved an Amendment, but I think the Committee has hardly realised the effect of the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given. He resists the Amendment on several grounds, one of which is that if adopted it would result in a system of valuation more costly to the owners of property concerned than would be the case under the Bill as it stands.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I only said that this system, like ours, would involve a valuation by experts.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that if the Amendment were adopted it might result in a more unsatisfactory valuation. But I pass that by. What he did undoubtedly say at the end was that the adoption of this system by placing a special valuation upon the land necessitated a system of valuation which he described as elaborate, extensive, and costly. As we go along we learn from the Government by slow degrees a little more as to what the real effect of this Bill would be. We have constantly asserted on this side of the House that under this Bill you are throwing not only a new and a very heavy taxation upon a particular class of property, but in addition a very heavy expense in connection with valuation. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken up the challenge of the hon. Baronet, and has made a comparison between the system of valuation adopted under this Bill and some proposals I had the honour to submit to Parliament some years ago in connection with general valuation, and he finds, for some reason I cannot follow, that the Bill which the Government of that day produced would not be sufficient for the purpose, because experts are required. We now appreciate for the first time the effect of the system of valuation of the site as separate from the buildings and other appurtenances which we were told, during the earlier stages of this Bill, was so much easier and simpler. We are now told that this system is so difficult and costly that a local authority, although fortified by being drawn from a very wide area, and having on it the Government Commissioner of Taxes, and having full power to obtain expert advice, could not discharge this duty, which we are now told

  537
  the body of Commisioners are fully able to discharge. I really do not think the learned Attorney-General ought to blame us if we do not fully understand this Bill.
  We do not wish to levy any charges against the Government, and certainly not against the Attorney-General, who has to do work even harder than that which ordinarily falls to the lot of an Attorney-General, because he has to explain many details of the Bill which Ministers are unable to explain. I am not, therefore, making any complaint, but I do submit that as we go along and find revelations in the Bill which throw an altogether new light on its provisions, it is a little difficult for us to live up to the high standard of intelligence required to appreciate the fact that the Bill means something which is not on the face of it. Moreover, the attitude of the Government upon Clause 2 is exactly the reverse of their attitude on Clause 1. We have had some rather sharp lessons during this Debate. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) holds us as having approved the principle of the Increment Duty because we have urged that if you can justify it in regard to one class of property you can in regard to another. It therefore becomes necessary for anyone on this side who thinks the hon. Baronet's scheme better than that of the Government to be chary of expressing that opinion, otherwise he may be held to approve of the principle. I disapprove of the principle, and of the hon. Baronet's Amendment. I disapprove of site value and of capital value. I believe that the whole principle involved in this clause is wrong, and therefore, so far as I am con-concerned, I leave it to the Government and their supporters to fight it out between them.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I am not quite sure that I undertand in detail the exact nature of the proposal of the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment. I find the expression "capital value" used in this Bill in relation to minerals, and from his speech I gather that by the expression "capital value" he means that which is described as "total value" in Clause 14, section (1). I would venture with great respect to suggest that he should use the technical expression which finds a place in this Bill, and not complicate the matter further by using a term which has a special meaning in this Bill with regard to minerals. I gather that it is not the intention of the hon. Baronet to tax
  538
  improvements, but it appears to me that without a great deal more elaboration than he has given us, the effect of his Amendment would be to tax those improvements which have come into existence between the periods when the capital value is taken. Assuming that to be guarded against, I am disposed to look with great sympathy upon this or any proposal which would eliminate from this Bill that basis of site value which at present underlies the whole of this scheme. I think I can understand prairie value. I can understand it, at any rate, in those new countries where prairie value is talked about and used as the basis of taxation. I can also understand a valuation such as takes place under our own Agricultural Rating Act, where the task of the valuer is quite simple, where there is no element of denudation, but where the valuer values separately those portions of the farm which are agricultural land and the other portions which constitute the buildings.
  But that is obviously a very different task from that which is proposed to be put on the valuer in this case. Here, to take a simple instance, how is one to ascertain the site value of an old pasture field? The site value is conceived to be the value of the field denuded of the herbage which has grown on it for ages. How is any valuer to assume what will be the value of these three acres of land denuded of their pasture? Is the valuer to say that the value would be the value of the field if it were ploughed? Anything which would eliminate this basis of site value would be an advantage. I should' have thought that if there was any-country in the world where there had been a warning against basing taxation on legal fictions it was this country. What has been the cost to us in years past owing to the fact that our rating value system has been based to a large extent on legal fictions? No one who is familiar with rating law will challenge me when I say that the existence of the hypothetical tenant and the unreal basis of fiction on which our rating laws have been based has been nothing less than a national calamity and has cost millions to this country. Yet, in spite of that, we are now deliberately starting a new unreal system.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I must confess that it is rather discouraging to have to deal with this Question at this late hour when hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are asleep and the Chancellor of

  539
  the Exchequer is absent. I should like to say a word or two about the remarks of the Attorney-General. We are learning something. We now know what this valuation means. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that his valuation is of such a nature that no one at present accustomed to valuation can make it. Yet it has to be performed by four gentlemen who have no experience. He says it requires experts. Where is he going to get experts on hypothetical cases of this kind? It will take him much longer than this Parliament will last to create his experts who are going to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I am in favour of the Amendment rather than of the Bill as it stands, for though in my opinion the two proposals mean the same thing in 99 cases out of 100, there is the difference that the hon. Baronet states openly what he means, while the Government, meaning the same thing, do not admit it. The objection of the Attorney-General to the Amendment was that the hon. Baronet proposed to tax something which would not be taxed in the Bill as it stands. What the Government propose to do is to tax not unearned increment, but the profit which anyone may make out of dealing in property. Let us take an ordinary case which will come under this Bill. A man sees a piece of land suitable for a building, and buys it for £200, spends £3,000 on it, and then receives an offer of £3,750 for the property. Before he can sell it he has to satisfy the Commissioners on the subject of increment value. The Commissioners will say the increment value is £550, and what the Bill will do will be to put a tax on the profit which a man sets out to make and succeeds in making. Take another case. I buy a piece of land with a house on it, and it has also a registered site value. I have it for a year, and I sell it for a higher price than I gave for it. What happens? The Commissioners step in. They have the original site value and the capital value. The site value is the total value less the buildings. They find I get £500 more than I paid for it. They take the value of the buildings and deduct it. The buildings are older than when I bought them, and, unless there has been an increase in the price of bricks and mortar, the Commissioners are bound to estimate them at not more than when I bought them. They therefore deduct the value of the buildings from the new price, and the new price, which is my profit, is what they tax. I have found "great difficulty, as everybody has, in
  540
  understanding this Bill; but, if I am wrong in the assumption as to the way in which the Commissioners are bound to act, the least the Government can do is to show how I am wrong. Instructions are clearly laid down as to how the Commissioners are to act, and, in my judgment, that is the effect they would have. I am able to give you an experience. I myself have had an exact illustration of the way this new tax would act. I had to get a new house to live in only a month ago. I found a house at the end of a long list of houses for sale, and the price seemed to me so low that I bought it. I thought it was a good investment, and I bought it for that and no other reason. The very next morning I received a letter from the agent of whom I had bought it offering me £500 profit if I would cancel the bargain I had made. Will anyone say that between night and morning there had been an unearned increment due to the growth of the community of £500? If this Bill had been law I should have been called upon by the Government to give up as taxation a fifth of the profit I had made. That would undoubtedly be the effect of the Bill. I say more than that: judging by the speeches of the Government, it is their intention to secure a share of the profit of these transactions. The Attorney-General the other night, talking about the ease of making this computation, as he calls it, this second valuation, said the man who had got to make it will not be troubled by the value of the buildings. The value of the buildings will not be the deduction which will trouble him. Having got his original site value and his price, he will have to consider whether there should be any claim for deduction in respect of anything personal to himself, and, having secured all this, he will know what the increment is. In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that what he means by increment value is the difference between the price at which he obtains and at which he sells, less goodwill, or something personal to himself. I will put it more plain. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox), who, has rather an acute mind for cases of this kind, interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman, and said: "Might there not be a value in a building apart from the site, as, for instance, in the case of licensed premises?" The Attorney-General said: "I do not think bricks and mortar will have risen in price."
  I think the whole proposal of taxing the profit which I make in one way

  541
  while not taxing the profit somebody else makes in another way is about as vicious a proposal as was ever made in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, who takes quite an active part in the Budget where he is not open to have his remarks criticised and where he does not hear what the objections to the Bill are, said, dealing with this very point, that it is unfair to tax one kind of property while not taxing another: "Where is the harm, the Chancellor of the Exchequer by-and-by may tax somebody else?" That is really overlooking what is the essential injustice of taxing one form of property and not another. The essential injustice obviously is that the country only requires a certain amount of revenue, and, if you get it by taxing one kind of property, you put a wholly unfair burden upon that kind of property. If you tax all kinds of property, and they are all liable to the same tax, then the amount which any one pays is much smaller, and the thing is not radically unjust as it is in this case. I shall conclude by quoting, curiously enough, words contained in the report as to the State of New York.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure how far that has to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With all respect, perhaps you will judge better after you have heard it. In this illustration which is given to us of the fairness and all the rest of it of this tax, this law is laid down:"It is an inalienable right that no one citizen is to be taxed for his property at a higher rate than others are taxed for theirs."
  Mr. YOUNGER: I rise to make good, if I can, the interruption which I addressed o the Attorney-General when he talked of the impossibility of leaving valuations of this character in the hands of local authorities. I reminded him that in the Land Values (Scotland) Bill the valuations were expressly left in the hands of existing authorities, and they were very much on the same basis as those which are required to be made for the purpose of this tax. I think the Lord Advocate will bear me out when I say that no change whatever was made in the tribunal which now deals with rental and the tribunal which under that Bill would have had to deal with local value.
  Sir W. ROBSON: In Scotland the local authorities have expert valuers.
  Mr. YOUNGER: That is exactly where the learned Attorney-General shows his ignorance. It is nothing of the sort. The assessors in Scotland who make the primary valuation are not valuators at all. They make no pretence to be valuators. They are not skilled in the art. They are dropped upon us from Somerset House after a few years' experience of Income Tax collecting and law, and then set to value property straight away. These are the experts to whom the Lord Advocate left the valuation of capital under a very abstruse definition in his Bill. Therefore I was quite right when I interrupted the learned Gentleman, and I do not think the Lord Advocate will contradict me. I have long ago given up the idea of expecting consistency from this Government, and it does not surprise me that the Attorney-General for England refuses something for England which the Lord Advocate thought good enough for Scotland. The speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) interested me very much. While I do not know that I should like to bind myself to an acceptance of the Amendment, I am inclined to think that, on the whole, it offers a much better solution of this difficulty than the proposal in the Bill. I believe that if proper deductions are made for permanent improvements on land which have been carried out by the owner between the two valuations, you would go very near doing right in cases of this kind, without having recourse to the valuation proposed in the Bill. I believe that is the system, or something very like the system, employed in Frankfort. But I rather think the intention of this Bill and the proposal to embody in it these extraordinary valuations have an ulterior motive. These valuations are not wanted so much for the purpose of collecting increment Taxes as that of pandering to the particular heresies of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. J. C. Wedgwood). He does not care two pence about Increment Tax or anything else so long as lie gets a valuation made of the whole of the land in the country on the principles set down in this Bill. That is really the object of these valuations. If the learned Attorney-General would only be quite honest I think he would almost be inclined to admit the fact. It is probably not done for the purposes of this Parliament, but of some future Parliament, when the hon.

  543
  Member will perhaps occupy a higher position than he does at present and when he may see some of the old proposals put before us again.
  Mr. FELL: I have no doubt that the proposal of the hon. Baronet is an attempt to adopt the system in vogue in Germany at the present time to the proposals of the Government and to make a practical Bill out of what is now an absolutely impracticable measure. The last two days' Debates have shown that the making of these valuations of sites of houses, as opposed to the houses themselves, will be of such a costly nature and take so much time that it is dawning upon the Committee—what has already dawned upon the public—that the present proposals of the Government are absolutely impracticable. The hon. Baronet has seen that, and is attempting a very short and a very practical way out of the difficulty. He proposes to take the price it will fetch in the market as the basis of the tax. Say a house fetches £5,000 and a few years later it fetches £6,000, you will not have to go into the question of what the site value is on either of the dates, but simply say the house has increased in value by £1,000, and the Government will be entitled to one-fifth, or £200. That is a simple thing. It does not require any valuation at all. Under the Government's proposals on both occasions you would have to have a most elaborate valuation, because it does not follow that the site value would have gone up £1,000. It might happen that the site had fallen and that the buildings upon it had increased in value. On the other hand, the buildings might have gone down and the site increased. There are places in London where the site value is going up, but the buildings upon it are unsuitable for the neighbourhood, and therefore the building values are going down. Two or three years ago I received a circular from an insurance company suggesting that my house should be insured for a further sum because, owing to the increased cost of building, the house would not be replaced for the amount at which it was insured.
  That is absolute proof that, quite apart from site value, the buildings upon the site may go up in value, and when a sale takes place it by no means follows, if it is sold at an increased price, that there is an increase in the value of the land. The Germans have realised that buildings go up and land goes down, and vice versâ. I
  544
  heard two Members discussing this question to-day, and one said to the other, "What would you say was the value of the site of the Bank of England and the buildings upon it?" It was pointed out that when the Bill becomes an Act that site would have to be valued, and it would be the best piece of valuing that could be obtained for the valuers who got it. It may be one million or it may be three or four millions. It will be millions. And what will be the valuation of the buildings upon that site? When this Bill comes into force the Bank of England will have to be valued and the site value will have to be fixed and the value of the buildings upon it ascertained. In fifteen years they will have to be valued again, and the increase in the value will have to be ascertained and a proportion of it will have to be paid to the Government. Now I am perfectly sure that the framers of the Bill never intended such a thing as that to take place. They must have been always thinking about the suburbs and of the land there unoccupied and held up by the landlords from the builders. That is the object of this Bill; but the real fact is that such buildings as the Bank of England will have to be valued and the Government will be claiming some of the increase in the value that takes place. Is it suggested that in any other country in the whole world people are so unwise as to suggest anything like this? Do they do it in cases similar to our Bank of England in Berlin or in Frankfort? The idea seems to be that you should pay upon an imaginary site value such as that at the Bank of England because some valuers may think it has gone up. I say are we quite reasonable people? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War, who takes an interest in these questions, think it reasonable that the Bank of England should have its site valued next autumn, and that fifteen years hence it should be valued again, and that the difference should pay its proportion to the Government?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): Order, order. The hon. Member is now dealing with the merits of the tax.
  Earl WINTERTON: On a point of order, Mr. Caldwell. This is a matter of great importance. I submit that as the Amendment is drafted by the hon. Baronet this question affects the whole matter of the valuation and of the tax, and I submit further that it is quite impossible to dis-

  545
  cuss the relative merits of the site and capital value without going into the merits of the tax also.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question of the site or capital value and the merits of the tax are two different questions. The hon. Member was raising another matter than that before the Committee.
  Earl WINTERTON: On a point of order. It is obviously a matter of very great importance. I submit—
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We are now dealing with the definition of the increment value. We have already discussed the increment tax.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: The hon. Baronet's suggestion is that with the whole buildings together it will be easy to value, and the transactions in regard thereto will be immensely simplified. The increased value of the whole can be easily obtained from the purchaser, and that is much simpler than a double valuation of the site. It is very hard not to be led astray by remarks that have fallen from others. The proposal of the hon. Baronet is an extremely simple one compared with the proposal before us in the Bill, and it has, of course, the advantage that it will enable any valuation of the site at the present time, and it may extend further to a valuation of the whole buildings at the present time; but it would not require separate valuations of the site and building, and then, when sales take place, it would entail — if you paid on the difference on the whole building — a difference in the percentage paid on the profit. There is no doubt that a certain amount of the profit is on the building as well as on the site, so instead of paying 20 per cent. it might be 10 or 15 per cent. If that were so, it would be much fairer and would not entail the difficulties I have sketched out. I am not supposed to be advocating any increment value; but I do think the proposals of the hon. Baronet are less confusing and are very much to be preferred to those of the Government.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid that at this late hour our wits are not quite so clear as during the earlier discussions. Even now I do not quite appreciate the exact point of this Amendment in its relation to the proposals of the Government. It is obvious that the hon. Baronet proposes to substitute the word "capital" for "site" in reference to land in this part of
  546
  the Bill; but I do not see any Amendment to substitute "capital" for "site" in line 20.
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: That is an omission. That would be a necessary and consequential Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In the proposal before us there are two valuations that have to be considered. And now I understand the hon. Baronet's proposal to be to substitute "capital" for "site" value in this Bill in both cases. As I now understand the Amendment, if you are to take the capital value on the original valuation under Clause 14, you are going to take the full capital value of the land and hereditament as it stands, including everything upon it. On a subsequent date—perhaps some years after—you are going to take capital valuation again. There may be a great many features, such as buildings, trees, etc., upon the hereditament when the first valuation is taken. Before the second valuation has been taken these may have been removed. How are you going to get your comparison? Can the hon. Baronet answer that question?
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: It is perfectly simple to get capital value. After ten years, if the property is sold, another capital valuation is taken. Of course, the owner who is charged Increment Duty will show the Commissioner anything that he has spent out of his own purse during the ten years and which has made an increase in the capital value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Baronet does not appreciate my point. I quite understood that the hon. Baronet's proposal meets the additional expenditure between the two valuations, but it does not meet the point of the removal during that period of anything from the property?
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Surely that is included in the valuation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: But you would require a complete record, which everybody knows is a most difficult thing, and it would be detrimental to the individual, because the original valuation against which the comparison has to be made would be reduced. He would suffer, because what he had in the first instance and had subsequently removed would be charged against him for the purpose of raising his valuation. The suggestion, therefore, that you should take capital valuation at one period and then attempt

  547
  to use that valuation for the purpose of comparison many years afterwards, without having a complete record of everything there was upon the property at first, and a record of every tree or bush removed in the meantime, does not meet the case. During the dinner-hour this evening we raised a point as to how this valuation was to be obtained under the proposal of the Government called site value. It is proposed to be obtained by taking first the sale price of the whole hereditament and then—omitting other minor deductions— deducting the value of the buildings. We asked the Lord Advocate what was meant by the "value of the buildings," and whether it included any sort of value due to the site. He said that it must be only the value of the buildings themselves. We then asked the Lord Advocate how that value was to be ascertained except by the cost, less depreciation, and he told us that in his opinion that was the only way in which it could be arrived at.
  Mr. URE: The best way.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: He did not suggest any other way was possible, and I have never heard any other suggested. The Lord Advocate says it is the best way, and therefore I presume the Government will adopt the best way of arriving at this valuation. They take the wholesale price and deduct from that the cost, less depreciation, of the buildings. What will be the effect of that in this one single instance which, I think, is enough to condemn the whole thing? A man buys a house which is valued at the time the seller paying the increment duty, if any. The purchaser lives in the house for 20 years and then dies. The valuation is arrived at on the occasion when he took the house and after his death on the principle which the Lord Advocate told us is in the Bill. In each case the value is the same. But the house is 20 years older, and, depreciation being a deduction from cost, the value of the house will be less, and the mere fact of the value being less will render the individual liable to an Increment Value Duty. There is no escape from it. That is the method on which site value is to be obtained. There are many other cases besides the one I have mentioned. Take the case of any house or square in London. Every hon. Member is aware that houses of identically the same value in the ordinary sense of the term, of similar size and standing on adjacent sites, are sometimes sold on
  548
  the principle that the purchaser is very anxious to obtain the house, but the owner is not anxious to sell, and then the house fetches a high price. On another occasion the owner is obliged to sell, but there is no purchaser, and he puts the house in the market, where a much lower price is realised. It is common knowledge that when houses adjacent to each other are sold at short intervals one will fetch perhaps 50 per cent. more than another, because in the one case there is a willing purchaser and an unwilling seller, and in the other case a willing seller but an unwilling purchaser. The Increment Duty, therefore, will depend upon whether the seller or purchaser is the more willing of the two. If the right hon. Gentleman will amend the Bill so as to avoid that effect we shall be glad to hear how we will do it. The right hon. Gentleman indicates that I am quite wrong in what I have said.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman's point is that merely by the operation of depreciation there will be an artificially created increment. Of course, that will not be so. I will take the case he has given in regard to a person who has had a house for twenty years and then dies. Let us assume that in the first instance the sale price was £2,000. When you come to value the property after twenty years for estate purposes the total value for the duty will be only £1,000 because of depreciation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said value when property in the neighbourhood remains, generally speaking, the same.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am assuming that
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think a great deal of this Debate has justified the Motion we made earlier to postpone this Debate till Clause 14 was reached. That was the reason why, I hope not discourteously, I interrupted the Attorney-General when he was speaking on Clause 14 instead of Clause 2. Some of us on this side of the House are very much perplexed as to how we are to regard this Amendment. I do not think it is necessary for us to elaborate the ridiculous position which you are getting into in regard to these site values. The question of the City of London has been quoted, and it might well be asked what is the value of the site on which this House rests? It would cost a very considerable sum to reduce these premises to prairie value, and then I suppose you

  549
  would have to get a sort of prehistoric market. That is only a very difficult instance of how impossible it is to arrive at what the site value of particular clay is, and therefore any Amendment which gets away from what the Government themselves describe as a costly, elaborate and expensive valuation would appear to be an improvement. The Amendment has been received with a certain degree of welcome by some of my hon. Friends, but it seems to me that by substituting capital value for site value you are running a certain amount of risk.
  I doubt very much whether adequate reductions could be made to ensure that the increment due to the energy of the owner or his predecessors should not be regarded as unearned increment. Take the capital valuation in the first instance. It is quite possible that an owner may have completed some improvement, the effect of which would not become apparent for a number of years. A man might build a bridge over the river connecting his property with growing property, and the only other access might be another bridge three or four miles away. No valuer could say immediately after the bridge was built what its ultimate value would be, and it would be difficult for the valuer to say whether the improvement in the value of the land was due to the bridge or the growth of the town on the other side of the river. The whole of the increased value might be due to the energy and foresight of the owner in building the bridge. It will be very difficult in the first valuation to calculate the potentialities of the improvements which have already been made. The Amendment, if carried, would simplify the working of the Act and lessen some of the ridiculous absurdities it might impose, injustices greater than those already in the Bill, and I do not think I
  can vote for it. We have only just had the privilege of the attendance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been absent for three hours.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not been absent anything like that time. I heard the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and most of the reply of the Attorney-General.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: During the whole of this Debate we have been without the presence of the Prime Minister, who reserves his remarks for convivial gatherings at the Holborn Restaurant. We have not yet had a single speech from him on the Committee stage of this Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The noble Lord must really speak to the Amendment.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am connecting it with the Amendment by endeavouring to suggest that we should have the benefit and guidance of the Leader of the House.
  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."
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON(seated, and wearing his hat): Slight I ask you whether this afternoon you did not say one of your duties was to look after the rights of a minority, and whether you consider we have no right to a reply?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a very improper remark to make.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 220]

  AYES.

  [2.53 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Agnew, George William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dunn, A, Edwards (Camborne)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Armitage, R.

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

  Essex, R. W,

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Falconer, James

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Branch, James

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gulland, John W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, A

  Summerbell, T.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Toulmin, George

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pointer, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wardle, George J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jenkins, J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richardson, A.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Kelley, George D.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seely, Colonel

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

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

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Renwick, George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebene, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FDR THE NOES.—Sir

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Foster, P. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Valentia.

  Gretton, John

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'site' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 34.

  Division No. 221.]

  AYES.

  [3 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Agnew, George William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boulton, A. C F

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W

  Armitage, R.

  Branch, James

  Cherry, Rt. Hon R. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  dough, William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robinson, S.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rowlands, J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Kelley, George D.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Durne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lundon, T.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Summerbell, T.

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Falconer, J.

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

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Maddison, Frederick

  Toulmin, George

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gibb, James Harrow

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Gill, A. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, F. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Mond, A.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Glover, Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wardle, George J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholls, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gulland, John W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pointer, J,

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Winfrey, R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richardson, A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  NOES.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kerry, Earl of

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Meysey-Thompson, E C.

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Moore, William

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLEKS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  John Dickson-Poynder and Mr.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Oddy, John James

  Ridsdale.

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause, to the word "land' ['original site value of the land'], be now put."[Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members will allow me, I wish to explain that in accepting the Motion the only Amendments of any substance interfered with can be better raised as to form and place after the word "land."
  Question put, "That the Question that the words of the clause down to the word 'land' be now put."
  Mr. WALTER LONG(seated and wearing his hat): I understand you to rule, Sir, that there are certain Amendments which can be better and more conveniently put at a subsequent stage. Would it be in order to ask you what they are?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) is wrongly stated as to form in his

  555
  Amendment, but it does raise a point, which I think is of importance, which can be raised as a proviso at the end of this sub-section. It is not satisfactory in the form he proposes it. I think the only other point is the one raised by the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), which is more satisfactorily raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale). He raises it in better form. That is also not excluded.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask what will be the effect of the Motion
  on such Amendments as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton? His Amendment is to bring in words at the end of line 20. I presume that will be in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
  Question put, "That the Question' That the words of the clause, to the word 'land' [at the end of section (1)], stand part of the clause,' be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 73.

  Division No. 222.]

  AYES.

  [3.10 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Agnew, George William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Richardson, A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rostendale)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Armitage, R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Robinson, S.

  Baring, Godfrey (isle of Wight)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barlow, Percy (Benford)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rowlands, J.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Seely, Colonel

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford!

  Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Summerbell, T.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Kelley, George D.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Cotton, Sir H J. S.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Toulmin, George

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crossley, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Micking,- Major G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Middlebrook, William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mond, A.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Worrell, Philip

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Nicholls, George

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Falconer, J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Winfrey, R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Pointer, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Giadstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Radford, G. H.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bull, Sir William James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Berkett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Barrie, H. T (Londonderry, N.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Gretton, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Fester, P. S.

  Moore, William

  Winterton, Earl

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Valentia.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause to the word 'land' [at the end of section (1)] stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 73.

  Division No. 223.]

  AYES.

  [3.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholls, George

  Agnew, George William

  Glover, Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Armitage, R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pointer, J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Branch, James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richardson, A.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Carr-Gomm, H, W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Robinson, S.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Clough, William

  Howard, -Hon. Geoffrey

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kelley, George D.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stracey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, T.

  Summerbell, T.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustaoe

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Middlebrook, William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Wilton, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  NOES.

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

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Oddy, John James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E,

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Col. James

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Edmund Talbot.

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Foster, P. S.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. RIDSDALE Mr. RIDSDALE moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Captain CRAIG: I would like to elicit, if possible, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he intends to do in regard to the Budget after to-night. It seems extraordinary that as soon as we are settled down to the Budget the Government should move to report Progress at half-past three o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did not."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events, turned round and assented at once to the Motion. I shall resist the Motion, and for one reason, that the Prime Minister has not been in the House on one of these occasions to give us the benefit of his views on the subject.
  Mr. RIDSDALE: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in withdrawing the Motion?
  Captain CRAIG: We are practically being bullied on this side. We ought to be able to say whether we shall continue the business or not, and I hold that we ought to continue. The question is whether the discussion on the Budget is going to last up to Christmas or after, or whether we are to go right through and
  560
  finish with this peculiar piece of legislation. We have heard that fortnightly rest-cures have been arranged by the Government's supporters so as to overwhelm the minority on this side. These elaborate precautions have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who return after a very pleasant week-end at the seaside, to meet us who are fatigued, and I do think it is time that this farce came to an end. If the Government are sincere about then-Budget they will push forward and get rid of it. If they are not sincere, they will continue night after night to get a few lines closured. I recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the bull by the horns and go forward with the Budget.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is rather unexpected opposition to a Motion which I understood was arranged, or at least, an intimation was conveyed to the Opposition that we should not proceed further when we reached the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton. Amongst others who were made acquainted with this suggestion was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). However, if it is the general desire that we should go on, I am prepared to do so, although I understood there was a general desire that we should go no further to-night.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I only desire to know whether there has been any arrangement, because in the ordinary way I was certainly not aware of it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not wish to use the word "arrangement."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Of course it is entirely a question for the Government whether they should put aside a Motion made, I imagine, quite seriously by the hon. Member for Brighton, and most certainly made with the full knowledge of the Treasury Bench. Therefore I cannot help commenting upon the extraordinary position in which we are placed. My hon. Friend, who has been kept up to an extraordinary hour to discuss this Motion, suggests that the Government should go on, and thereupon the Government immediately brush aside the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale), who is so anxious that he rises to withdraw it in the midst of my hon. Friend's speech. Surely the Government have made up their minds whether to adjourn now or go on. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Go on."] That was not the Government's Motion. The Motion made, with the approval of the Government, was that the Debate should be adjourned. If they intend to abandon their proposal at the request of my hon. Friend I do not complain, but it is another matter if the right hon. Gentleman falls in with it for the purpose of scoring over his political opponents. If practically at the beginning of these troublesome, anxious, and grave Debates the Government are going to lay down the precedent of not controlling the Debate, but are going to leave the whole conduct of this serious business in the hands of those who have not that responsibility which should properly rest with the Government, then they will be taking a course which I think they will have grave cause to regret.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has shown his usual fairness in the observations he has made. I intimated to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) that we did not propose to proceed, and immediately afterwards we assented to a Motion to report Progress, having given my word to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire that we would do so. I must say I was somewhat surprised to find that it was resisted by the Opposition.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I only want to know on what the right hon. Gentleman rests his charge against me of unfairness. If he had adhered to the arrangement made with my right hon. Friend, I should have had nothing to say.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do adhere to it; and if the Opposition persist in resisting the Motion to report Progress, it is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester did not represent the Opposition when he tacitly assented to that course, and I must have misundertood the position. If the Opposition are really desirous of going on, and prefer to do so, we are quite willing to meet their convenience in the matter. I am not trying to get out of any arrangement, and the right hon. Gentleman must not think I am trying to take advantage of a rather absurd and futile Division. I still adhere to the arrangement, and if that is the view of the responsible Leaders of the Opposition, I shall support the Motion if it goes to a Division.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was something unfair in my attitude. I do not think that charge can be substantiated. All I have to say is, that, if any arrangement were made between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, as representing the Opposition, to that arrangement I absolutely adhere in the fullest detail. What I said was that I was unaware that any communication was made to him or that any such arrangement was arrived at. I naturally asked the question, and I do not think any charge of unfairness can properly be levied against me because I said that, if the Government accepted the withdrawal of a Motion made by one of their own supporters, they would be abandoning the position they had taken up.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: A charge has been made against my right hon. Friend, and I think I have a perfect right to make my protest. I was the first speaker, and I was ruled out of order; afterwards I was closured at a quarter past eight, and now we are kept up till a quarter to four and we are accused of delaying the Committee. You accused my right hon. Friend of unfairness, and I think I have an equal claim to protest.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not desire to oppose the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton

  563
  (Mr. Ridsdale). I accept entirely the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do think, before we go away, we are entitled to protest against the attitude taken up by the Government this evening. There is a very strong feeling on this side of the House that we are not fairly treated in this matter by the right hon. Gentleman. At one o'clock in the morning the right hon. Gentleman insists on us taking what is admitted by both sides of the House to be an Amendment raising important questions of principle, moved not from this side of the House, but by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, who, I understand, is a supporter of the Budget and a Member of the Budget Committee. That is discussed for over an hour at an unreasonable time, and, the moment it has been hustled through, an hon. Gentleman opposite moved to report Progress. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has really treated me fairly; and I hope, before we agree to this Motion, as I think all my hon. Friends on this side are prepared to do, we shall have some undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not on future occasions take important Amendments at one o'clock in the morning, and immediately afterwards encourage his hon. Friends behind him to move to report Progress. If we, and the House generally, are to be put to all the inconvenience of sitting up till three o'clock in the morning, we may just as well sit up till eight. If it is to be a question of relays and shifts and a contest in sheer physical endurance, let me inform the right hon. Gentleman he will find very soon that this House will adjourn not at three but at eleven or twelve in the morning. Some of his hon. Friends behind him seem prepared to challenge us to a contest in sheer physical endurance—are they prepared to carry the matter to its logical conclusion and discuss this Budget not on a Wednesday night, when there is Thursday which the right hon. Gentleman can spend in bed, but on Mondays and Tuesdays till eleven and twelve in the morning. ["Yes."] That is an important admission. We know now that the party which boasts of its intellectuality is not going to rely upon that intellectuality and their speeches, but upon sheer physical endurance and the support of their sleepy adherents in the Lobby. We protest in the strongest possible manner against the absence from these Debates of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BYLES: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask you if we have not had enough of this foolery?
  Earl WINTERTON: Is that grossly offensive remark in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: Really this kind of behaviour must not go on. The observation is a most improper one.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Do I understand you to rule the hon. Member's observation cut of order, and if so, should he not withdraw it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will see the propriety of withdrawing it.
  Mr. BYLES: I thought it was entirely a classic remark in this House. If it is offensive to hon. Gentleman opposite I will use it outside.
  Earl WINTERTON: I have no desire to make any further reference to the interruption of the hon. Member, for I feel sure that he, like most hon. Gentlemen opposite, is not at this hour of the morning in a clear state of mind as to what is going on around him. In conclusion, I say that we are entitled to demand that in the future, if we are kept up till this hour, the Prime Minister should be present. Anyone who was a Member of the last Parliament will remember that time after time, when the House sat after midnight, Motions to report Progress were made.
  Sir J. DALZIEL: Is it in order on a Motion to report Progress to give a general lecture on the conduct of the Opposition on previous occasions and what it might be in the future?
  The CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord is not out of order.
  Earl WINTERTON: I hope that in the future the right hon. Gentleman will not ask us to adopt the same methods as he has to-night. While I am not prepared to vote against the Motion, I am bound to protest against the utterly unconstitutional procedure adopted by the Government to-night, which, if persisted in, will before these Debates come to an end lead to such scenes as the right hon. Gentleman never dreamed of even in his most stormy days of Opposition.
  Sir J. DALZIEL: I hope it may be possible for the constituencies outside to take note of the conduct of the Opposition during the present sitting. The

  565
  Committee will remember that we had a Debate of something like two hours on an Amendment from the Opposition side of the House, but when the time came for taking a Division they deliberately refused to make any challenge, and said that they would raise the whole question again on a future occasion. There was a subsequent Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir J. Dick-son-Poynder), and when a Division was taken only 34 Members voted for it.
  Mr. HAY: Some from your own side.
  Sir J. DALZIEL: I submit we have had a great and important object lesson tonight on the opposition to this Bill. After the two Amendments were disposed of the suggestion was made from the other side that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was keeping the Committee sitting too long. Having gone on with another Amendment, the Opposition now say we ought to sit longer still. That is bringing Debates in this House to an absolute farce. It is obvious that the Opposition have no policy whatever except to continue criticising and delaying the passing of this Budget. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take particular note of what has occurred to-night, and as a humble private Member I hope he will go on boldly with this Bill.
  Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: i wish to say one word in fairness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) beckon to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as we were going to the Division, and, at the invitation of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor was good enough to say that, immediately after that Division, Progress would be reported. Upon the faith of that, my right hon. Friend and a good many Members on both sides went home. In these circumstances there was a distinct understanding, and in fairness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think I ought to mention it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It is pretty obvious to the Committee that our object in resisting the Motion to report Progress is not to prevent discussion on the Finance Bill, but to enter a protest against the way in which the Debate has been conducted by the Government. It does not lie with the last speaker, who lectured us, to blame us if we take a leaf out of his book.
  Sir J. DALZIEL: We never complained that the Government rose too early in the last Parliament.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It is only natural that we should object when the Government keep us several hours beyond the normal hour for rising, discussing important points which most Members considered would have been better postponed till another day. Some felt very strongly in previous Parliaments—although I was not here—the constant remarks made by hon. Members opposite about the absence of the Prime Minister; but hon. Members opposite assumed an air of superior virtue when we ventured to call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister and Leader of the House has not been present more during the discussions on such an important measure as the Finance Bill. He has allowed this Debate to go on for five days, and has not said a word in regard to it. He and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, will find that the opposition to this measure will be of a serious and determined character, and that we do not mean to be shouted down or prevented from opposing this Bill.
  Mr. F. MADDISON: I really think the source of the whole mischief is to be found in the peculiar method of doing business on the Front Opposition Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr, A. Chamberlain) came to a certain arrangement. Now it appears that the right hon. Gentleman for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) knew nothing about it. There has been a good deal of twitting going on about the absence of the Prime Minister, but surely if the Opposition leaders had told each other what arrangements had been made all this bother would have been saved. The right hon. Gentleman for South Dublin heard with amazement—and I can sympathise a good deal with him—from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a certain arrangement had been come to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it seems, did not want to go so far as to call it an "arrangement"; but it was something so binding on the right hon. Gentleman of the Front Opposition Bench that he at once agreed to it as an arrangement, and had it been known to his colleagues this mischief would have been saved. Therefore, before right hon. Gentlemen opposite allow their followers to make all sorts of rude remarks——
  Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  Mr. MADDISON: I was going to say that hon. Members opposite should first of all be sure who is their leader, and then when they have done so follow him.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: One hon. Member said he hoped the people opposite would take notice of the opposition. I trust the people opposite will take notice of the way in which the Prime Minister has treated this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. This is merely tedious repetition.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: After all, the Prime Minister is the Leader of the House, and I cannot help thinking there are—
  The CHAIRMANcalled the attention of the Committee to the tedious repetition on the part of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division, East Biding of Yorkshire, and directed him to discontinue his speech.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight minutes after Four o'clock a.m. [Thursday. 1st July.]

  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Boy Sorters (Pensionable Status).
  Boy Sorters (Pensionable Status).
  Stamp Duties (Yield).
  Stamp Duties (Yield).
  Yield of Irish Licences.
  Yield of Irish Licences.
  Charges on Wine and Spirit Merchants.
  Charges on Wine and Spirit Merchants.
  Arrest of Englishman in Panama.
  Arrest of Englishman in Panama.
  Dinizulu's Defence.
  Dinizulu's Defence.
  Irish Linen Trade.
  Irish Linen Trade.
  Companies Act (Codification).
  Companies Act (Codification).
  County of Lanark Sheriff Courts (Workmen's Compensation Cases).
  County of Lanark Sheriff Courts (Workmen's Compensation Cases).
  St. Dunstan's College, Catford.
  St. Dunstan's College, Catford.
  Army Ordnance Department (Curragh Camp).
  Army Ordnance Department (Curragh Camp).
  Island Bridge Works, Dublin.
  Island Bridge Works, Dublin.
  St. Joseph's Retreat, Highgate (Soldiers in Procession).
  St. Joseph's Retreat, Highgate (Soldiers in Procession).
  Military System (Approximate Annual Cost).
  Military System (Approximate Annual Cost).
  Proposed Sub-division of Holdings (Meath).
  Proposed Sub-division of Holdings (Meath).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant (O'Neill),
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant (O'Neill),
  Application for Holdings (Ballyboe).
  Application for Holdings (Ballyboe).
  Unemployed in Belfast.
  Unemployed in Belfast.
  Labourers' Cottages (Newtownards).
  Labourers' Cottages (Newtownards).
  Moneen Holding (County Cork).
  Moneen Holding (County Cork).
  Sale of Property at Lismakeery.
  Sale of Property at Lismakeery.
  Lord Southwell's Estate (Rathkeale).
  Lord Southwell's Estate (Rathkeale).
  Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
  Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
  Scaffolding Work.
  Scaffolding Work.
Preamble
The LORD ASHBURTON—Took the Oath.
KILKENNY, CASTLECOMER, AND ATHY RAILWAY BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
HOLYWOOD TRAMWAYS BILL.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SLIGO AND BUNDORAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
WATFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, AND HYTHE TRAMWAYS BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 2a.

GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
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 Boards of the following parishes: Maryhill—Covington and Thankerton—Dalziel—Carmichael—Shettleston—Libberton—Dalsert—Lanark (Landward)—Alloa (Landward);—Committee on Secondary Education for the county of Renfrew;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS,&c. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

MUSSELBURGH GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
MUSSELBURGH CORPORATION (EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
GLASGOW HOSPITAL FOR SKIN DISEASES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
MERCHANTS HOUSE OF GLASGOW (BUCHANAN AND EWING BEQUESTS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

MERCANTILE MARINE—EYE-SIGHT TESTS.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose "to call attention to the colour-vision test to which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or mate are subjected; to ask whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of Mr. W. H. Glover, who has been certified by the London Local Marine Board, after hearing expert evidence, as fit to discharge the duties of first mate, notwithstanding the fact that three persons who had tested his sight on behalf of the Board of Trade had failed Mr. Glover on the ground that he was defective in colour-vision, and therefore incompetent; whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further action in this matter, and whether they will state in how many cases within recent times have candidates for the Higher Grade Board of Trade Certificates, who have already passed the colour-vision test, been rejected on the ground of colour blindness when re-examined on application for a certificate of a higher grade; and also to call attention to the case of Mr. Trattles, who after having passed for first mate in colour tests, as well as for other qualifications, and having received the examiner's authority for the delivery of a first mate's certificate in 1906, received a letter stating that his examination had been cancelled as he had failed to pass a special colour examination in 1905; and to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which eyesight tests for the Mercantile Marine certificates are conducted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am bringing to your notice a most urgent and important matter. I say this because it is not only closely identified with the safety of life at sea, but under present
110
conditions it seems evident that very grave injustices may be perpetrated upon those who serve in the mercantile marine, either as officers or as candidates aspiring to become officers. I am referring to the examinations in colour-vision which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or mate are required to undergo. For your Lordships' information I will state in a few words the procedure which is followed in the case of candidates for these certificates. On filling up the necessary form and paying the sum of 1s., any person serving or intending to serve in the mercantile marine may present himself voluntarily for the examination. But, as I have said, in the case of candidates for certificates the examination is compulsory. It is with these candidates alone that I propose to deal.
In the first place, the candidate is examined by an examiner, the examination being conducted by the official Board of Trade examiners at the different seaports. If the candidate fails in the colour-test he may appeal to the Board of Trade, who, if they think fit, may submit the case to a special examiner or body of examiners for a final decision. If, on appeal, the candidate again fails, he must pay his own expenses, but if he succeeds they are under certain circumstances borne by the Board of Trade. When the candidate fails on appeal, and there is reason to believe that, in consequence, he is, through incompetency in regard to eyesight, unfit to discharge his duties, the Board of Trade, in the public interest, may cause an Inquiry to be held before a Court having jurisdiction to cancel or suspend such certificate. That is, of course, providing the candidate already has one or more certificates. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that the result of such an Inquiry, when set on foot by the Board of Trade, has two issues only; one is that it may mean the cancellation of an officer's certificate—that is, if he has already passed the test when a candidate for a certificate of a lower grade. The unfortunate officer's professional career may be ruined, whilst the most valuable years of his life may prove to have been absolutely wasted.
The case of Mr. Glover, which I refer to in my Notice, has excited widespread attention, and a considerable amount of public controversy has arisen over it. The Imperial Merchant Service Guild,

111
which represent so many captains and officers, have laid certain facts before me in connection with this and other instances, and have expressed their alarm at the many injustices for which the existing mode of testing candidates in colour-vision may be held responsible. The Shipping Gazette, our leading shipping paper, has dwelt in the most emphatic terms on the enormity of Mr. Glover's case and of another case which I will bring to your notice, and has gone to much trouble in eliciting striking and significant facts which bear upon these cases. The Journal of Commerce, another well-known shipping paper, also identifies itself with this question, and without doubt there is a consensus of opinion that it demands the prompt attention of the Board of Trade.
To put Mr. Glover's case shortly, in the first place he was failed in colour-vision by a Board of Trade examiner. On appeal he was examined by an expert examiner specially appointed by the Board of Trade, and again failed. The Board of Trade then caused a Local Marine Board Inquiry to be set on foot in order that Mr. Glover should be adjudged incompetent through defective colour-vision. Those who had examined Mr. Glover on behalf of the Board of Trade gave evidence to the effect that Mr. Glover was undoubtedly colour-blind. But that well-known specialist, Dr. William Ettles, pathologist to the Royal Eye Hospital, was called by Mr. Glover to give evidence on his behalf. Dr. Ettles stated that, from the point of visional power, Mr. Glover was fully qualified to undertake any position in the mercantile marine. He stated that Mr. Glover accurately matched colours every time without hesitation, and in the doctor's opinion a good many of the Board of Trade examinations were wrong. This, as your Lordships will observe, was a case of experts falling out.
The Board of Inquiry which heard the case considered that the best way out of the quandary was to test Mr. Glover for themselves. The result of it was that the Board found that he was not incompetent by reason of colour-blindness to perform his duties, and his certificate was therefore returned to him and the sum of ten guineas awarded as costs. Whether the London Local Marine Board is a competent tribunal to decide on a colour-vision test when experts differ
112
so absolutely is a matter of opinion. In any case, it will be patent to your Lordships that the position as it stands is untenable and at present we can have no confidence in these examinations. It would be a most dangerous thing if, by chance, a colour-blind officer were allowed to go to sea and be in charge of a ship; whilst, on the other hand, it is a grave injustice to a man if he is failed in colour-vision when his eyesight is not defective in this respect.
Besides this case of Mr. Glover, another of a most extraordinary character has been brought to my notice. It concerns an officer of the name of Trattles. In the year 1904 Mr. Trattles was passed in colours on going up for his second mate's certificate at West Hartlepool. I had better read to your Lordships Mr. Trattles' statement. It is as follows—
"On February 3, 1904, passed in colours before Captain Young at West Hartlepool. Remainder of second mate's examination the two following days before Captain Forrest, who gave me an unofficial examination in colours. On July 6, 1905, sat for chief mate and was failed in colours by Captain Forrest. Appealed to the Board of Trade against his decision and was examined at South Kensington by Captain Harvey, who upheld Captain Forrest's decision. Received a letter two days later asking me to surrender my second mate's ticket, which I refused. Got examined at the Central London Ophthalmic Hospital, also at the South London Royal Eye Infirmary, and received certificates from both stating that my colour sense was good."
I would ask your Lordships to note what follows—
"Shortly after received a request from the Board of Trade to deliver up my certificate together with a statement that I surrendered it voluntarily, or, in the event of my not doing so, the Board of Trade would feel compelled to hold an Inquiry into my competency to hold a ticket—
They often use the word "ticket" instead of "certificate"—
"I answered demanding an Inquiry, and asking for it to be held in London at an early date. On September 1, 1905, an Inquiry was held in London, where I was given an examination before the Board and was informed that, so far as colour-vision was concerned, I was competent to hold a certificate. On April 27, 1906, again presented myself to be examined for first mate's certificate and was examined in colours and passed before Captain Saul, London. On May 7, 8, and 9, 1906, sat for the remainder of the examination and received examiner's authority for the delivery of a first mate's ticket, which I still hold. On May 17, 1906, received letter stating that my examina-

113
tion had been cancelled and that I had been improperly allowed to sit, having failed to pass the special colour examination on July 18, 1905."
I understand that the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, who issues the certificates, said that it had been decided to withhold this certificate on the ground that Mr. Trattles was completely "red-blind," and Mr. Lloyd-George, who was then President of the Board of Trade and was appealed to in the hope that he would reverse the arbitrary decision of the Registrar-General, stated, in reply, that it had been found that Mr. Trattles was "green-blind." It is therefore palpable that either great injustices have been done or the present eyesight tests are total failures; and I would point out that the great proportion of candidates who are failed in colour-vision do not avail themselves of the opportunity they have for appealing.
At the Colonial Merchant Shipping Conference a resolution was adopted calling upon the Board of Trade to institute more severe examinations in connection with eyesight—that is, both for form-vision and colour-vision. But it is not the severity of the examinations so much as the mode in which they are conducted which needs adjusting. I understand, and I believe it is a fact, that the question has been under the consideration of the late Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade acting on the initiative of the Board of Trade itself. What their views were on the situation I do not know. There was an amount of secrecy about the proceedings of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee which seemed to be quite unnecessary. The present forms of eyesight tests are based upon the report of a Committee on Colour-Vision appointed by the Council of the Royal Society. The Chairman of this Committee was Lord Rayleigh, and others upon the Committee were the late Lord Kelvin, Professor Foster, Mr. Francis Galton, Sir George Stokes, and Sir William Abney. One is inclined to question, therefore, the inefficiency of the present examinations. The mode of conducting them, however, is quite a different matter, and one for which the Committee I have referred to is not to be held responsible.
Since these experiences that I have mentioned of Mr. Trattles and Mr. Glover they have both been re-examined in colour-
114
vision at the instance of the Board of Trade—on May 28 last—and they have both been failed. Dr. Ettles, who had examined them and stated that, as far as their professional duties required, they were perfectly competent from the point of colour-vision, was invited by the Board of Trade to be present on the occasion of the examination. They said they would welcome his presence at the examination. I wrote to Dr. Ettles asking him what he thought of the examination, and whether he was satisfied with it. At this time neither of us had learned the result of the examination. I hold in my hand his reply, which is most interesting and instructive, but is too long to read to your Lordships. I will, however, give you one or two extracts from it. I may say that Dr. Ettles does not appear to have been very courteously treated at this examination, and he certainly does not think that the examination was fairly conducted in the interests of the candidates. On the contrary, it would appear as if conducted with the object of proving that the former adverse decisions were correct. I also understand that the examiners were those who had already conducted previous examinations of these gentlemen and had failed them, and surely they could not be expected to contradict themselves on this special examination when they were practically sitting on an appeal from their former decision, and I do not think that it was at all fair that they should have been the examiners on this occasion. Dr. Ettles states—
"It is with regret that I am constrained to say that, in my opinion, it [the examination] was conducted on quite wrong principles."
After referring to the invitation that had been sent to him from the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, Dr. Ettles proceeds—
"On my arrival I was ushered into a room containing a considerable number of gentlemen, among whom I recognised one or two ophthalmic surgeons. I then asked Sir William Abney if he desired to consult with me as to the order and character of the tests, but this he declined to do, adding that I was free to look on if I chose. This was an unfortunate attitude, I think, because obviously if one or both of the candidates failed under conditions which I had accepted as adequate, the matter would have been at an end."
Then Dr. Ettles describes how the first candidate, Mr. Trattles, was taken in hand and the various tests adopted. He says—
"He was not asked to match the wool, the only correct test with wools, but to pick out all the

115
greens. The poor man was in a pitiable state of nervousness, but no one would give him the smallest assistance. The proper attitude of the examiner is thus given by Adams Frost in Juler's 'Ophthalmic Science and Practice' [3rd edition, 1904, p. 356]: 'With people of low intelligence, and with children, it is a good plan for the examiner to go through the test himself to show how simple a matter it is; if the number of wools is sufficient, and they are properly mixed afterwards, this gives no unfair assistance to those whose colour-vision is defective.' Captain Harvey, who conducted the examination, evidently held no such view with regard to nervous examinees."
Then Dr. Ettles goes on to state the colours which Mr. Trattles picked out. Further on he says—
"He was next given a deep rose pink, a more saturated colour than that described by Holmgren. He correctly drew out seven correct rose pinks and then 'went to pieces,' for the next two were a violet and a vermilion. He had been examined under great tension for ten minutes. A man with weak colour-vision will match a violet with a pink but not a vermilion. The red-blind chooses blue and violet: the green-blind a grey or a bright green. Trattles' match with pale green showed that he was not red-blind, while his match with pink showed he was not green-blind. The simultaneous production of violet and scarlet at the end of a succession of correct wools simply showed that the nervous tension was too much and his judgment had broken down."
Dr. Ettles continues—
"The third test was a violet. Test III of the wool of Holmgren is a bright red. It was clear that the official order was not to be observed."
He goes on to speak of the tests, and then proceeds—
"Sir William Abney asked the names of colours while a sliding spectrum was being exhibited, so that several times when the answers came a new pair of tints was on the screen. I do not allege that this was in any way intentional, but it was careless of the candidate's interest. Another surprising point was the absence of method. The colours were shown haphazard and it would be impossible to analyse a defect by these means."
And towards the end Dr. Ettles says—
"The memory of these examinations is unpleasant because there is an ineradicable conviction in my mind that the whole focal point was to prove the infallibility of the Board of Trade, and not to sift the case of these men whose whole future was at stake."
As I have said before, my Lords, it is not so much the form of the test that is objected to as the way in which it is sometimes conducted; and surely if, as Dr. Ettles says in the case of Mr. Trattles, he was in a pitiable state of nervousness, the attitude that Dr. Ettles describes was shown to him by the examiners was not likely to reduce that
116
state of nervousness, and, as Dr. Ettles quotes, not the proper attitude as described by authorities of ophthalmic science and practice. I do not for one minute say that Mr. Trattles is unintelligent; he certainly could not have passed the other portion of his examinations satisfactorily if he were; but a pitiable state of nervousness and the attitude shown to him might have reduced him nearly to the condition of a person of no intelligence on the occasion of the examination.
Now, my Lords, there is one other test which Mr. Trattles has undergone, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is a most excellent test, and one to be thoroughly relied upon. I myself attach more importance to it than the tests of any scientists. I must tell your Lordships that all these years Mr. Trattles has been doing his duty as second mate. After the first question about his sight arose in 1905, naturally it was heard of by the captain under whom he was serving. No captain in his senses would trust his ship to the care of an officer about whose sight there was any doubt, and therefore this captain, without Mr. Trattles' knowledge, tested him in various ways and told Mr. Trattles afterwards he had done so. Apparently he was perfectly satisfied as to Mr. Trattles' colour-vision, as this letter, dated the 21st of this month, will show—
"We have pleasure in stating that Mr. John Trattles has been second officer of our s.s. "Kingfield," 5,500 tons burden, from September, 1905, to May, 1909, during which time his conduct and ability have been all we could desire, and had he been eligible we should have promoted him to chief officer, as vacancies occurred. We have frequently questioned the captain as to his visual powers, and on every occasion the former has assured us that he has perfect colour-vision and that he always felt every confidence in leaving him in charge during his watch. We shall be very pleased to give him further employment."
This is from the owners of the steamer in which he served, and it is signed by the manager. Then I hold in my hand letters from the captain, in one of which he says—
"I have no doubt as to his eyesight, having tried him on numerous occasions while on duty at night."
My Lords, the scientific or other examiners living on shore who examine in colour-vision have absolutely nothing at stake should the examinee be colour-blind or otherwise; the captain of a ship has everything at stake—he has his own life, the lives

117
of his crew, and the safety of his ship. Therefore I say that these tests, under the actual conditions that prevail at sea and in practice, are of much greater value to my mind than any of the other tests. I am moving for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. Whether it will be granted or not I cannot say; but some Committee, and not a Departmental Committee, certainly should investigate this matter, and careful instructions should be issued to the various examiners as to the way in which they are to conduct these tests, for, take it how you will, there must be something absolutely wrong in the present system. Mr. Trattles was passed by Captain Young and then by Captain Forrest, who a year afterwards failed him. He has passed at the London Ophthalmic Hospital and at the Royal Eye Infirmary. Then, after being examined by the Court of Inquiry with which the Board of Trade had threatened him should he not surrender his certificate and say he did so voluntarily, and which he had applied for himself, this very Court found that, so far as colour-vision was concerned, he was competent to hold the certificate. Now, my Lords, someone must have been wrong in all these examinations, and therefore I submit that the whole subject demands a searching investigation.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which eyesight tests for Mercantile Marine certificates are conducted.—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I know that in the opinion of the noble Lord the Board of Trade never can do anything right, but I hardly think that on this occasion he will have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that the Board are wrong in being very particular and very careful, as they undoubtedly are, in the matter of these colour-vision tests. Your Lordships know that the whole safety of navigation by night depends upon the man in charge of the ship being able to distinguish between a red light, a green light, and a white light under all conditions of weather and atmosphere, and in those circumstances the very greatest care has to be exercised, and is exercised in these tests. They are based upon the Report of the Committee of the Royal Society to which the noble Lord has alluded, which sat at the request of the Board of Trade in 1892, and of which the most distinguished scientist in your Lord-
118
ships' House—Lord Rayleigh—was chairman. The ests are very much as the noble Lord has described them. The original test is carried out by the Board of Trade examiners or by the Local Board of Trade superintendent at the port. If a candidate fails, he is sent before special examiners, who have invariably been either Sir William Abney or Professor Watson, assisted by Captain Harvey, the chief Board of Trade examiner. These examinations take place at the Royal College of Science, South Kensington.
The noble Lord's Notice, as is usual, occupies a considerable amount of the Order Paper, and I find that on the present occasion the catechism is divided into seven parts. I think the only way in which I can satisfy the noble Lord will be by answering each of them in turn. I have alluded to the first one. In the second part the noble Lord asks whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of Mr. W. H. Glover. In answer to that I have to say that the attention of my right hon. friend has been called to this case, and not that only he, but everyone at the Board of Trade before whom the case of these two men has come, myself included, feel the deepest sympathy for them; but, unfortunately, they suffer from a physical defect which is absolutely insurmountable in the case of the profession they have adopted, and the duty of the Board of Trade, I am afraid, is perfectly clear.
Next, the noble Lord asks whether it is the case that Mr. Glover was certified by the London Local Marine Board, after hearing expert evidence, as fit to discharge the duties of first mate, notwithstanding the fact that three persons who had tested his sight on behalf of the Board of Trade had failed Mr. Glover on the ground that he was defective in colour-vision. Yes; that is the case. Here, again, the facts are as the noble Lord has stated, except that he was passed for second mate and not for first mate, though I do not think that makes any material difference. Mr. Glover, as the noble Lord has stated, on May 28 of this year went before the special examiners, who in this case were Sir William Abney, Professor Watson, and Captain Harvey, who certified that he and the other man, Mr. Trattles, were colour-blind. There were also present on this occasion four other

119
scientific gentlemen — Professor Church, Professor Callendar, Dr. J. H. arsons, representing the Ophthalmological Society, and Dr. Rivers, representing the Royal Society; and all those gentlemen agreed absolutely with the decision that was come to by the examiners. There were other gentlemen present as friends of the men who were being examined. The noble Lord has quoted from the letter of one of these—a doctor; and I think I ought to quote from the Report which Dr. Rivers presented to the Royal Society. Dr. Rivers wrote—
"I attended on May 28 the special examination of two men who had been rejected by the Board of Trade for abnormal colour-vision and had subsequently been certified as normal by a medical practitioner. The two men were tested by means of Sir William Abney's spectral apparatus in a dark room and were asked to name single patches of colour and pairs of such patches, both objective and contrast colours being used. The patches shown were of considerable size, but in spite of this both men made gross errors, all their answers being such as were to be expected from colour-blind persons. One of the two men was usually right with the largest patches shown, but made gross errors with smaller patches and was evidently a case of weakness of colour-vision rather than of absolute colour-blindness."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In what capacity was Dr. Rivers attending?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: He was invited as the representative of the Royal Society. This case having caused considerable comment, the Royal Society agreed to send a representative who would make a Report to them, I think especially in view of the fact that these tests are based on the Report of their Committee. The Report of Dr. Rivers proceeds—
"In addition, one of the two men was put through the Holmgren wool-test, and he gave a good example of the method of responding to this test followed by those who have been especially coached to pass it. There could be no doubt that in each man the condition of vision would be a definite source of danger at sea."
The last paragraph of the report is as follows, and I think it answers what the noble Lord has said—
"The only criticism I have to offer is that, though the tests must have been absolutely convincing to any one acquainted with the subject, their effect on the representatives of shipping bodies and other lay persons present may have been rendered less definite by the rapidity with which they were carried out. What might have been an absolutely convincing demonstration of the abnormality of the two men may have been marred, so far as lay persons were concerned, by this rapidity."
120
I think that accounts for the opinion which the noble Lord has read to the House.
The noble Lord then asks whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further action in this matter. Yes. In view of the opinions which have been expressed, it is impossible for the Board of Trade to take the responsibility of allowing these men to hold their certificates so far as the Board of Trade are empowered in that matter; and, as the noble Lord has said, the Board of Trade have written to these men asking them to surrender their certificates, and if they do not do so the Board will be compelled reluctantly to bring the case before one of the Courts which deal with these matters. They are bound to do this in the public interest. Then the noble Lord asks in how many cases within recent times have candidates who have already passed the colour-vision test been rejected on going up for further examination. I can give him the figures for the last four years. In 1905 there were none; in 1906, two; in 1907, one; and in 1908, two—a total for the four years of five. I think I ought to supplement these figures by stating that the total number examined for colour-vision during that period was 25,151, that the number who failed was 239; of the failures sixty-four appealed to South Kensington, and of these twenty-seven were passed on appeal and thirty-seven were rejected.
The noble Lord also called attention to the case of Mr. Trattles. His case is, again, much as the noble Lord has stated. In 1905, I think, he had already failed. He went up for examination and was rejected, and the Board of Trade then asked him to resign his certificate. As he did not do so, they brought him before a Local Marine Board in London. The Board heard the expert evidence of the Board of Trade, they also heard medical evidence on behalf of Mr. Trattles, and they determined, as the noble Lord has said, that when doctors differed they would decide for themselves. They accordingly subjected Mr. Trattles, as I understand, to a very crude test with wools, and decided on the strength of that, and in opposition to the scientific evidence of the Board of Trade, that he had normal colour-vision. There, for the moment, the responsibility of the Board of Trade ended. But when he presented himself for a further certificate it was necessary that he should

121
be examined again. He again failed, and went before the same Board, in May of this year, as Mr. Glover whose case I have already alluded to.
Then the noble Lord moves for a Select Committee to inquire into the conditions under which eyesight tests for mercantile marine certificates are conducted. I have to say that the Board of Trade are of opinion that these tests, as at present carried out, are efficient, and that they do not consider that any case has been made out for a Select Committee. The tests, as I have said, were based upon the Report of the Royal Society, and ever since they were established the Board have been in constant communication on this subject with Sir William Abney, who is recognised as being the greatest living authority on this matter in the country. The noble Lord shakes his head. When I saw this Notice on the Paper I communicated with Lord Rayleigh because I thought that your Lordships would like, if possible, to have the opinion of that very eminent scientist. Lord Rayleigh has written regretting that it is impossible for him to be present, but authorising me to say that he does not think the Board of Trade can be wrong in following the advice of Sir William Abney. I submit that the whole of the scientific evidence in this matter is on the side of the Board of Trade in the course they have adopted, and I submit that no case has been made out for further inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the very full manner in which he has gone into this case. At the beginning of his remarks he was rather inclined to resent the criticisms which from time to time my noble friend who sits behind me levels at the Board of Trade. I am quite sure the noble Lord opposite will not think that I underrate the services of the Board of Trade, or that I have ever been inclined to criticise them unfairly. On the contrary, I know too well how exceedingly valuable a public Department this is, and how able and experienced are the servants which the State has in that office. But I do not think your Lordships will be inclined to quarrel with my noble friend if he, even at the risk of tilting against a great public Department, comes forward in order to plead the cause of individuals who see, it may be by an inevitable misfortune, their whole method of gaining a livelihood threatened. We would
122
be, like any other body of Englishmen, very tender towards such men, and we are obliged to my noble friend for pleading cases such as theirs before your Lordships. But I think that, my noble friend having heard the great weight of authority which the noble Lord opposite was able to produce in favour of the system pursued by the Board of Trade and the immense care that had evidently been taken in the examination of these two men, he will not be inclined to press further the criticisms he has made.
I speak with great diffidence on this subject, but I have, perhaps, a special claim to be heard because I am colour-blind myself—not, perhaps, completely colour-blind, but quite sufficiently so to have been rejected under the tests which the noble Lord has described to the House. And perhaps I might contribute just this one mite to the discussion of the subject, as it may be—I am speaking from my own experience—an explanation of the inconsistencies, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, at the hands of the various authorities before whom these two gentlemen were examined. I am convinced that colour-blindness is very capricious. On some days I am much more colour-blind than on others. That capriciousness may easily account for the fact that when these gentlemen were before one authority they fared better than when before another. But, from the point of view of the mercantile marine, of course such caprice might be very dangerous; and therefore I am afraid that, from my own experience, I cannot quarrel with the Board of Trade for having applied these rigid tests; nor can I shrink from the consequence, which means in this case that these gentlemen must be content to abandon the profession which they had adopted. On the whole, I cannot regret that the subject has been brought before your Lordships' House. It has, at any rate, satisfied us that no injustice has been done, and it has given the noble Lord opposite an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships how careful and elaborate are the precautions taken to protect the lives of those in the mercantile marine, and how great is the care at the same time not unduly to injure the professional prospects of those engaged in that great profession.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, with reference to the statement of the noble Marquess that colour-blindness is very capricious, I think it is remarkable that Mr. Trattles during all the time he was at

123
sea was not colour-blind. The noble Lord opposite has stated that no case has been made out for an Inquiry. I would remind him that these gentlemen had passed the colour-vision test. If they were colour-blind, then there must have been some mistake on the part of those who tested them; there must have been something wrong if they were passed. If a mistake was made in these cases, how many men have been allowed to go to sea who are colour-blind? It gives one a very uneasy feeling, for evidently those first examinations were not effective. I will not press for a Select Committee, but I would ask my noble friend opposite to bring the matter to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. It is not the examination but the mode in which it is conducted that is complained of. The Board of Trade adopt the Holmgren wool-test, but when they do so they should carry out the instructions issued with the test, and it should not be left to the individual caprice of any examiner to use the test as he likes.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE VISIT OF THE FLEET TO THE THAMES.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH had the following Notice on the Paper—
"To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that if ships were sunk or mines were laid in or at the mouth of the River Thames the night before or the night after the intended visit of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs to the Fleet, nearly the whole of our available naval strength would be bottled up and unable to leave that river, thereby laying our coasts open to invasion; and to ask them whether, considering the enormous interests at stake, and the extraordinary progress of modern inventions, the time has not come when precautions equivalent to those constantly observed at Gibraltar, but varying in accordance with circumstances, should not at all times be taken to prevent the main body of our Fleets becoming the object of a successful surprise, and whether precautions of this nature will be taken while our principal Fleets are assembled in the Thames."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question as it appears on the Paper was originally based on the plan which appeared in the newspapers, and which I understood to be a copy of the Admiralty plan. Whether that was the case or not, the plan has since been considerably altered. In the original plan nineteen large ships, including the "Inflexible,"
124
the "Indomitable," and the "Invincible," which are of the Dreadnought type, were marked to be moored in the narrow waters between Erith and Thames Haven. This morning I received another plan from the Admiralty. In it I find that all the large ships referred to and a number of others are to be placed much lower down the river in positions where the Thames is so broad that any attempts to block its channel by sinking ships are not likely to meet with success. A number of destroyers and submarines are also to remain near the Fleet instead of being placed near London Bridge, as in the original plan. It formed no part of my Question to ask for a detailed account of the precautions that ought to have been taken. It is enough for me to say now that I consider that if the Admiral in command is allowed a free hand as regards merchant vessels and others that may approach his lines of anchorage the means at his disposal appear to be sufficient to ensure the safety of the Fleet during its stay at Southend.
There is, however, the second part of my Question, in which I ask whether, considering the enormous interests at stake, and the extraordinary progress of modern inventions, the time has not come when precautions equivalent to those constantly observed at Gibraltar, but varying in accordance with circumstances, should not at all times be taken to prevent the main body of our Fleets becoming the object of a successful surprise. We remain, and I hope we shall long continue to remain, on friendly terms with Spain; yet certain precautions against surprise are taken at Gibraltar every day, and these are redoubled every night. In future when our Fleets are within reach of a powerful rival they ought habitually to take precautions as much as Gibraltar does. If they did that as a rule and as a matter of habit it would not excite attention, whereas if they only did so when relations were strained it would increase the probability of war breaking out.
Many people consider that the danger of a successful surprise is not great. In the next war an effort may be made to make the initial hostilities the war itself instead of a mere incident in the opening of a campaign. Such an attempt would, of course, never be made unless the country

125
attacked was possessed of territory, commerce, or some other advantages that her rival was desirous of obtaining for herself. We have these, and if we wish to keep them we must recollect that we shall have to contend with a post-torpedo diplomacy—a very different thing from the pre-torpedo diplomacy of which we have historical knowledge. Diplomacy is invariably flexible, and is sure to adapt itself to the situation created by the new weapons.
I have lately been reading a German book, Deutschlands Flotte im Kampf, which is written in the form of a naval history of the next war. It commences with what the author calls a Fallen-stellen. Mine-layers disguised as merchant ships, with British names and ports painted on them, steam slowly about in the open sea in disconnected manner until they receive by wireless telegraphy the order to attack. The officer in command of them calls this a most genial idea. After describing the manner in which the surprise was effected, the writer sneers at our Minister of Marine, who, when taunted in Parliament for not having taken measures to prevent this disaster, feebly replies that—
"It was impossible to be prepared against an attack delivered with such infamous cunning."
The reason which induced me to put down the first part of my Notice no longer exists, but I still desire to ask the Question which forms the second part, as it is of vital importance that every precaution should be taken for the safety of our Fleets.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in replying to my noble friend. I am sorry that he had the trouble of putting down this Question, especially the first part of it. If he had waited until this morning he would have seen the official programme, from which it is clear that only twelve large ships go above Southend.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: They are only comparatively small ships. I did not count them among the nineteen to which I referred.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Therefore, so far as the first part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, he is perfectly satis-
126
fied. Then the noble Lord spoke of the precautions necessary and asked whether the time had not come when precautions equivalent to those at present observed at Gibraltar should not at all times be taken. I will bring the suggestion of the noble Lord to the notice of the Admiralty and ask them to consider it very carefully. At the present moment, however, they are of opinion that all adequate precautions are taken for the safety of the Fleet wherever it happens to be at rest. The noble Lord seemed to contemplate the outbreak of hostilities without any declaration of war, and that everything would be done by an initial surprise. I cannot believe that such a thing would ever happen, and I need hardly say that any such act on the part of any foreign country would be regarded as, I might almost say, an act of treachery. At present our arrangements with foreign Powers are excellent. There is no cloud on the horizon, and I sincerely trust that that state of things may go on for many years to come.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble Earl could throw a little further light on this subject. In the original statement published in the newspapers it was stated that a considerable number of large vessels were to be in very narrow waters up the Thames. That was felt, and not unreasonably felt, by the uninitiated, and even by others, to be a somewhat risky operation, and people were naturally anxious to know what the object of the operation was. It certainly does appear to me that it is unnecessary to place ships in what may be a risky position, except for some really useful purpose. The noble Earl has told us that there is not a cloud in the sky, and that an act such as setting mines and blocking the Channel would be an act of treachery. I hope we are not going to rely for the safety of our Fleet upon anything of that kind; our business is to make it perfectly certain that such operations will be impossible. I should like to know whether the first scheme set forth in the newspapers was the scheme of the Admiralty, and, if so, why it has been changed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid that we are not in a position positively to answer the question which the noble Earl has put. My impression is that the first scheme

127
described and published in the newspapers was not the authorised scheme, but I should not like to say so with certainty. We will make inquiries as to whether the scheme, which I understand is now considered to be unobjectionable, represents a modification, or whether it was the first scheme which the Admiralty devised.
On the general question, I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that it is not right, in affairs of this kind, to exclude the possibility of a coup de main of any kind, and in the disposition of our defences undoubtedly we ought not to ignore the possibility of sudden attacks. But, on the other hand, there are limits to the precautions which it is possible to take—limits which must, I think, be dictated partly by the teaching of history and partly by what we may assume to be human nature. If the noble Lord who introduced this subject is right, every one of His Majesty's ships should always have her torpedo nets down and the guns' crews should be perpetually ready every hour of the day and night for a presumed attack. If such were the practice of all nations, national life, I venture to submit, would become altogether impossible. The strain upon the service would be so great that the mere fact of taking such exaggerated precautions—precautions which alone, I think we must all agree, would meet certain kinds of absolutely unprovoked attack—would make war almost inevitable.
The noble Lord and those who agree with him are also represented in other European countries. The same kind of scares exist there—rumours of British fleets appearing and preparing to bombard important towns when no difference or question of any kind exists between the two countries. We know how impossible such an attack on our part is, and whatever we may think of other countries, we are bound to assume that there is a certain sort of what I may call brigand attack which would not be made by any civilised Power. But I am far indeed from saying that we ought not at all times, in time of peace as well as in time of anxiety, to take all reasonable precautions, and I am quite certain that my right hon. friend at the head of the Admiralty is as fully convinced of this as the noble Earl opposite.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the objects of this Bill are two—the consolidation and the amendment of the law regarding insurance and assurance. I use those two words advisedly because they are both to be found in the Bill. The word "assurance" is used where life business is dealt with, and the word "insurance" where other forms of business are dealt with. I confess that up till yesterday I was under the impression that the separate use of those words was nothing more than a custom of the trade, but I found on investigation that there is very sound precedent for a separate use of the words. The earliest precedent, I think, goes back to the year 1670. I cannot promise that I shall invariably use the words in the right place myself, but I thought it well to give the reason for their both appearing in the Bill.
As far as consolidation goes, I do not think I need labour the point. The advantage of consolidating the law of insurance is very much the same as the advantage which has been claimed for the many other Consolidation Bills which have passed through Parliament in recent years. It will, I think, obviously be more convenient that the law of insurance shall be contained in a single Act rather than be spread over half a dozen. The more important point in the Bill is the amendment which it is designed to make in the existing law; and here I have a small difficulty. An amending Bill of this sort is necessarily made up of a mass of small details. Any of these details may very properly be dealt with in Committee, but it is quite impossible to mention all of them on Second Reading. What I shall endeavour to do, therefore, is to indicate generally the nature of the alterations in the law as they will affect each different class of insurance.
First of all I ought to point out that the Bill does not strike out any new line in regard to the control of insurance by the State. We have not followed the example of certain foreign countries where there is a very complete, and, I might almost say, a grandmotherly control of insurance. The

129
model that has been followed is the control which has hitherto been exercised over life assurance business. I use the word "control," but in reality companies are given the greatest possible freedom to carry on their business in their own way. The two main conditions imposed upon them are these. First of all every new company before it is allowed to commence business in this country has to deposit with the Paymaster-General a sum of£20,000; and, secondly, each company has every year to file with the Board of Trade its accounts in certain specified forms. The first of these provisions—the deposit of£20,000—has been found to be most useful in preventing the formation of unsubstantial life assurance companies, but it has never been pretended that after the company has collected a certain amount of business the deposit was any protection whatever to the insurers, because£20,000 might very likely be but a small fraction of the liabilities of the company. The real security afforded to the insurer in the case of established companies is the publicity given to their accounts by the Board of Trade. The two main provisions of this Bill consist in extending to other forms of insurance those two provisions which have hitherto been confined to life assurance companies. Those two provisions have raised British life assurance companies to a very high level indeed—a very much higher level than they ever attained before the passing of the Act of 1870.
There is undoubtedly a necessity for extending these provisions to fire, accident, sickness, and bond investment companies. They have already been extended by the Act of 1907 to employers' liability companies. I take the case of fire companies as being typical. The great majority of British fire companies are beyond question sound, but there have been cases—I do not know whether there are now, but there certainly have been cases—where that soundness has not existed. Particularly has this been the case among British companies carrying on business abroad, of which very frequent complaints have been made by our Consuls. I do not know why, but for some reason or another Turkey and Norway seem to have been selected principally as the field of operation of these concerns, many of which were nothing better than a swindle. The most impudent case of all, the case
130
I should like to quote as showing the length to which it is possible to go under the existing law, was that of a company called the Credit Foncier Company—a British company registered in this country and which carried on considerable fire insurance business in Constantinople. When this company failed to meet its liability it was ascertained that its paid-up capital amounted to exactly seven sovereigns. A thing of that sort must be very bad indeed for British credit abroad, and it ought not to be possible that it should happen. It is, of course, a monstrous exception to the usual stability of British fire companies, but there have unfortunately been other cases of companies whose capital, though far more than£7, was, nevertheless, quite inadequate in view of the risks which they cheerfully and hopefully undertook.
This applies also to other forms of insurance, such as accident and sickness insurance, to meet which risks a number of companies are in existence. Most of these companies, again, are perfectly sound concerns, but there are some which have started business with a financial backing altogether inadequate unless they are very lucky and very discriminating in the risks they undertake. And I may say that luck and discrimination are just what you do not expect to find in these cases, because the people who have first-class risks to insure naturally go to the established and sound companies, and the new and doubtful ones have to take what is left, so that disaster is very likely. This Bill provides that all new companies, with whatever class of insurance they may deal, shall deposit a sum of£20,000 before they will be allowed to commence business, and they will also be obliged to file their accounts with the Board of Trade in certain forms which are set out in the Schedules of the Bill.
Then there is another class of insurance also dealt with—bond investment companies. They also would come under the same rules, and under Section (E) of the Fifth Schedule of the Bill it is provided that they will have to give statistics of the number of policies which have lapsed during the past year and particulars of the conditions upon which policyholders allowed to surrender their policies should they desire to do so. That is the same form of protection which is given

131
to other classes of insurers, and it seems really to be the only adequate form of protection and the only adequate way of bringing to the notice of people who take out these policies the real nature of the bargain into which they enter.
I have alluded to the deposit of£20,000 which is now required from life companies. At present a life assurance company is allowed to withdraw that sum when the accumulated life funds amount to£40,000. A Select Committee of this House, over which my noble friend the Lord Steward presided, recommended that that practice of allowing the withdrawal of the deposit should be discontinued. That is done by the Bill. Accordingly, all life companies which have exercised that right will now be called upon to redeposit the money. I may say that the representatives of British life assurance interests have been approached on this matter, and I understand that they have signified their willingness to do this. It is thought that this provision will be particularly useful in the case of foreign companies. My noble friend's Committee recommended that no discrimination should be made against foreign companies, and in that recommendation they were supported by the almost unanimous opinion expressed by the representatives of British assurance interests who came before them. The Select Committee recommended that every company which carries on business in Great Britain should be required to maintain the deposit of£20,000 so long as any policies continued outstanding in this country. The Committee said—
"We are aware that this sum would be of littl use to meet the liabilities of large companies which do business in this country, but we feel that if this amount were deposited and could not be withdrawn by the company it would afford an absolute guarantee to policyholders in foreign countries of being able always to proceed, if necessary, against such companies in the Courts of this country."
I may add that the object of the Committee has been furthered by a provision of the Companies Act of 1907, which requires that all foreign companies who have a place of business in this country must file with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the name and address of some person resident in the United Kingdom who may be sued on their behalf. I do not think I need say anything more about the life assurance companies.
132
Clause 34 of the Bill deals with collecting societies and industrial insurance companies. The clause is designed to regularise the position of these great undertakings, and to facilitate the conversion of collecting societies into companies where that is thought to be desirable. I may say that this has been rendered necessary by the enormous growth of some of these societies. One society alone, I am informed, has a membership of 2,200,000 and has altogether outgrown the machinery of the Friendly Societies Acts under which it is registered. This Bill is designed to give to policyholders and intending insurers the fullest possible protection which can reasonably be given, and, at the same time, to avoid any undue interference with the business of the companies. If your Lordships agree to its being read a second time to-day I will undertake not to put down the Committee stage for three weeks, so that if we have unwittingly trodden on anybody's toes he may have an opportunity of coming to the Board of Trade and explaining his case to us, when I can promise that it will receive the fullest and the most careful consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, my noble friend has given a very clear and sufficient explanation of the Bill which he is asking the House to read a second time, and I think your Lordships will agree with him that it was unnecessary at this stage to go into more details. I believe he is correct in stating that the life assurance companies are quite prepared to agree to what has been suggested by His Majesty's Government, and to give a general support to the Bill. They will be obliged to the noble Lord for his promise to allow a reasonable time before taking the Committee stage, particularly as there are still points which we hope His Majesty's Government may consider; and I trust that in regard to such suggestions of the insurance companies as may seem to be reasonable an agreement may in the interval be arrived at with the Board of Trade.
There are still points on which many of the insurance offices would like to see some change in the Bill. In the first place, as regards the reserve for unexpired risks, if I understand the Bill correctly no amount is laid down in the Bill. Insurance offices

133
generally consider that 33⅓per cent. is about the minimum amount that ought to be held as a reserve for unexpired risks. The general opinion is that it would be very desirable to settle some minimum percentage. Another point arises with reference to foreign deposits. It is thought that the exception which is made in Note 1 of the Third Schedule—
"NOTE 1.—When part of the assets of the company is specifically deposited, under local laws, in various places out of the United Kingdom as security to holders of policies there issued, each such place and the amount compulsorily lodged therein must be specified in respect of each class of business, except that in the case of fire insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited"
ought also to extend to employers' liability business.
With reference to amalgamations between companies, one of the provisions laid down in the Bill is that in the case of an amalgamation or transfer there shall be a notification to every policyholder of each company. So far as life policies are concerned, no doubt there is sufficient reason for that, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether it is really necessary in the case of fire, accident, and employers' liability policies. These policies are for short periods, and as regards employers' liability it seems the less necessary because it appears to be already covered under the law as it now stands. In any case it seems to most of us that it would be practically impossible in the case of amalgamation to give notice to all the policyholders if it is to apply to fire, accident, and employers' liability business. As regards employers' liability business, everybody to whom an amount is due or a weekly payment is payable would come within the definition of policyholder, and it does seem unnecessary that they should all have notice, however essential that may be in the case of life policies. There are several other minor points with which I need not trouble the House at this stage; and I hope that before the three weeks have elapsed many of them may be satisfactorily settled with the Government.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I think this Bill will be welcomed, not only by the public, but by the insurance companies themselves as an attempt to put the law in relation to those companies on a more sound and improved
134
footing. There are, however, one or two points to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention very briefly.
Clause 1 denotes the various classes of insurance business to which the Act is to apply, and subsection (c) of that clause applies its provisions to accident insurance, which is defined as—
"the undertaking of liability under policies of insurance upon the happening of accidents whether fatal or not disease or sickness or any class of accidents disease or sickness."
It appears that under this subsection the framers have in view personal accident insurance only, but as the subsection reads it would also include liabilities which many companies incur resulting from personal injuries under such contracts as property owners', third party, and vehicle owners' liability policies. Under these policies the risks of damage to persons and to property are included in one premium, and, in rendering the account which will be required, on the revenue side will appear the whole premium, while on the expenditure side only the amount paid in respect of damage to persons. It may be the intention to include this class of insurance under this subsection, but, if so, I suggest that the phraseology of the subsection should be made somewhat clearer.
Clauses 30 and 31 provides that the Bill is not to apply to fire insurance and accident insurance companies existing prior to its passing, and Clause 32 provides that employers' liability insurance companies are not affected by the Act if they were in existence prior to August, 1907, the date of the last Employers' Liability Act. Therefore these companies are not required to make a separate deposit against each class of insurance business transacted. I think it very desirable that, as in the case of life business, the Act should be made retrospective in all its provisions, and that the old companies as well as the new companies should be required to make and maintain a separate deposit in the case of each of the four classes of insurance business described in Clause 1.
Again, subsection (e) of Clause 32 provides that under certain conditions securities may be released in the case of employers' liability insurance. This subsection is obviously taken from the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870, which

135
I understand is repealed by this Bill. I cannot see why securities should be released in the case of employers' liability when they cannot be released in the case of fire, life, or accident insurance business. But these are really Committee points, and I will not pursue them further at this stage. I hope that when the Committee stage is reached the Government will be prepared to accept Amendments for improving and strengthening the Bill. In any case, speaking as a director of an insurance company and a member of the insuring public, I should like to express a hope that the Government will find time to place this measure on the Statute-book this session.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I venture to think the insurance companies will heartily support His Majesty's Government in their endeavour to pass this Bill during the present session. As representing two of these companies I would thank the Government for the way in which they have met the suggestions made, and I am hopeful that other suggestions will be accepted at a later stage. There are one or two points to which the noble Lord did not refer in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. One is the position of members of Lloyd's. It is not quite clear whether the term "underwriter" is sufficiently defined, and whether it might not be held to include every one of those members of Lloyd's who puts his name to a policy. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government that each one of the members of Lloyd's whose name is on a policy should deposit the sum mentioned. Further, I think, on behalf of the companies, we might ask the Government to consider, in some matters in which the insurance companies are, in their estimation, put at a disadvantage as compared to some members of Lloyd's, whether it may not be desirable for them to accept an Amendment which would place the companies in the same position. I understand that the object of the companies as well as of the Government is that any one who is doing business with absolutely inadequate capital should not be allowed to go on, either at home or abroad, and that there should be publicity given to the financial position of those who are undertaking very large liabilities. I will not trespass further on the time of the House to-day, but I hope that in such an important matter, involving large
136
interests, there will not be undue haste, but that full consideration will be given to the suggestions made. We have had experience in connection with Acts relating to employers' liability and workmen's compensation of the many pitfalls which arise in consequence of hasty legislation. I thank the Government for the way in which they have met the suggestions that have been made, and I join with the noble Lord who last spoke in expressing the hope that the Bill may become law this year.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has intimated that three weeks will be allowed between this and the Committee stage, and I think one may hope that during the interval the opportunity to which he referred of a conference between the bodies interested and the Board of Trade will be so utilised as to remove the causes of the criticisms which now attach to certain provisions of the Bill. On the whole, I think the Bill is welcomed by insurance companies.
The Bill does involve a somewhat new departure in what may be called, perhaps, its leading first principle—that of requiring from fire insurance companies a deposit of£20,000. Fire insurance contracts differ essentially from those of life assurance. The circumstances in connection with the former are temporary; the contracts may be modified, changed, or dropped. If an insurer thinks he cannot trust a company and any reason arises suggesting the propriety of transferring his business to another company, he can, with little difficulty, make the requisite change. It is essentially different in the case of life assurance, where the contract is made for many years and the contracting party enters into a contract from which he cannot afterwards depart without great loss—possibly the loss of the whole of the advantage he had in view when he entered into the contract. It is obvious that a person effecting a policy of life assurance ought to be protected in the way proposed; but no such reason can be discovered in the case of fire insurance, and the introduction of that principle here is a novelty.
My noble friend suggested a reason for this provision in the unfortunate fact that certain companies have been estab-

137
lished, though they have not done business, in this country, and have deluded residents in other countries, especially in Turkey and in Norway; and perhaps for the honour of our name we ought to interfere to prevent this happening in the future. But I would point out to my noble friend that he is introducing this principle of requiring a deposit from fire insurance companies only in the case of those companies which come into existence after the passing of the Bill. That is, in my opinion, straining the doctrine of vested interest very hard. I am sure that no respectable company would hesitate to make the deposit, and if it is unfortunately the case that many recent companies have started into existence with inadequate capital, or which have been the instruments, or capable of being made the instruments, of such deceit abroad as my noble friend referred to, then such companies had better be brought as soon as possible under the provisions of the Bill. I think we shall have to consider the question of making the provision to which I have referred apply to existing companies.
It follows from requiring a deposit from fire insurance companies that the question to which my noble friend who has just sat down referred arises—What are you going to do in the case of underwriters at Lloyd's? An underwriter under the Bill as it stands is required to make a deposit—a limited deposit, but a deposit. The members of Lloyd's are exempted from making a deposit as long as they comply with the rules of association of Lloyd's. That seems to me a very singular position to assume. It is a matter of delicacy, but it will have to be considered if you are to make your legislation consistent.
There is another provision in the Bill requiring foreign life assurance companies which do business in this country to make the deposit and publish accounts in the same way as our companies. That, I think, differs in some degree from the conclusion of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which sat upon this subject and presented a Report three years ago. That point, however, can be cleared up in the interval between this and the Committee stage. I will not dwell upon it further now, except to say that it raises some very delicate considerations with respect to international comity of legislation in matters of trade. I note the assurance given by my noble friend that an
138
interval of three weeks shall elapse before the Committee stage is taken, and I hope that during that interval the conciliatory action which has already, I know, been adopted by the Board of Trade in conference with representatives of insurance companies may lead to a settlement of minor points, so that the Bill may become law this session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to offer any remarks to your Lordships at any rate on the present occasion, because, as my noble friend Lord Mar said just now, all the questions which have been raised are practically Committee points. I do not think the noble Lord opposite has any reason to complain of the manner in which the Bill has been received. It has been received with general favour.
The only point which has been really dwelt upon has been the question of whether the£20,000 deposit in the case of a fire company should be made retrospective or not. As. the noble Lord who has just sat down said, the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill is a new departure, and primâfacie one would expect that a new departure would not be made retrospective in character. But that is really a matter for the facts of evidence to determine. I had the impression that there were not existing at this moment a material number of the bogus companies of which the noble Lord spoke. If there are a large number that require to be controlled, that might be a good reason for making the provision retrospective. If, on the other hand, when we come to consider the Bill in Committee the noble Lord, on behalf of the Board of Trade, is able to assure us that there are none, or very few, then one would be rather inclined not to make it retrospective. But that is a matter which can be discussed in detail when we reach the Committee stage.
The only other remark I am tempted to make will take the form of a general observation. When we are dealing with these Bills which are in a large degree consolidation and in a small degree amending Bills, would it not be possible so to print them that there might be some indication on the face of the Bill as to what is consolidation and what is amendment? Many of your Lordships are very hard-worked men, and it would save an immense amount of trouble if my suggestion could be carried out. Matters may, of course, be so dovetailed as to render this impracticable, but it very often is not so, and if the

139
noble Lord will devote his ability to that point in regard to Board of Trade Bills, in which this phenomenon frequently occurs, it will save considerable time.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think His Majesty's Government have every reason to be gratified by the reception which has been given to this Bill, and I hope for the measure an easy passage through your Lordships' House. I am sure your Lordships will agree that for a Bill of this technical character, the course suggested in regard to conference between the bodies interested and the Department concerned is probably the best method of procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the exception which is made in favour of fire insurance offices in Note 1 of the Third Schedule, and he was anxious that that exception should be extended to companies which do other classes of business besides fire insurance. The noble Lord probably knows that this exception as it stands in the Bill does not meet with universal approval, and that there are those who think that the exception should not be allowed to remain. His Majesty's Government, therefore, are betwixt two fires. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Courtney, seemed to object to the inclusion of fire insurance companies at all in this connection, and he laid emphasis upon the difference between the business conducted by a fire insurance and life assurance office.
As to the matter of accounts, I regret that although I was Chairman of the Select Committee which went into this matter I cannot safely charge my memory with the details;
140
but I have a very clear impression that the details with regard to accounts which are asked for in this Bill in the case of foreign companies doing business in this country are practically those already required in the United States and in other countries. Therefore accounts of that kind will not inflict any great hardship on the various companies. The noble Marquess who has just spoken referred to the point as to whether the provision regarding fire insurance companies should be made retrospective. I am sorry that the question of fire insurance companies was not included in the terms of reference to the Select Committee. On that account we were unable to go into the question.
The suggestion of the noble Marquess that there should be some distinction made in Bills between what is mere consolidation and what are matters of amendment has been brought forward more than once by noble Lords on both sides of the House. My impression is that this is not entirely a matter for any Government Department. I think the suggestion would be very useful and of great assistance, but I rather think it is one which should come before the House of Lords Offices Committee. The matter of printing is not directly under the control of the Government in this House, and certainly it would be necessary to take the Committee's advice and the advice of the printers before anything could be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.