Sitting of 19 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Robert Gordon's Technical College and Aberdeen Endowments Trust Order Confirmation Bill,—"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Robert Gordon's Technical College and Aberdeen Endowments Trust," presented by the Lord Advocate; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 28th October, and to be printed.

FINANCE BILL.—PETITIONS.
Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I beg leave to present Petitions against the Finance Bill from the following places: Brighton, Ealing, Oxford, Bedford, Weston-super-Mare, Croydon, and Sevenoaks. The petitioners object to the Bill on the following grounds amongst others—that it will give a great shock to confidence and credit, seriously disturb and injure the commerce and industries of the country, and tend to diminish employment and to reduce wages.
Petitions presented.

NEW WRIT.
For Bermondsey Division, Borough of Southwark, in the room of George Cooper, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]

LICENSED PREMISES.
Return ordered "for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1909, showing in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland the number of licensed public-houses in (a) each county borough; (b) each municipal borough; (c) each urban district; and (d) the rural districts of each county; classified according to annual value, and showing the maximum amount of Licence Duty payable at each step of the scale of value, and the total sum paid in duty on
122
licensed public-houses in each such area:—
"Of the number of dealers' licences for beer, spirits, wines, and sweets, together with 'additional retail' and other retail off-licences held with them (commonly known as grocers' licences), in each area as enumerated above, in England, Wales, and Ireland, distinguishing between each description of licence, and giving the maximum amount of Licence Duty charged on each, and the total sum paid in duty in each area as well as the total number of premises licensed:
"Of the number of retailers for beer, cider, wine, and sweets, distinguishing those having licences for 'on' consumption from those having licences for 'off' consumption, and giving the maximum amount of Licence Duty payable on each house and the total amount paid on such licences in each area as enumerated above in England, Wales, and Ireland, as well as the total number of premises licensed:
"Corresponding particulars for Scotland from (a) each burgh (royal, municipal, or police, as the case may be), and (b) the rural districts of each county (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 408, of Session 1903)."—[Mr. J. J. Mooney.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Port of Spain, West Indies (Municipal Council).
  Mr. BARNES (on behalf of Mr. Summerbell)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the restoration of the municipal council to Port of Spain, West Indies; and, if not, when such a statement might be expected?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Secretary of State is awaiting the recommendations which the new Governor of the Colony will make when he has had time to study the question. I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Crown Agents' System.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would say what special staff, if any, under the control of the Auditor General audited the accounts of the Crown Agents; how much this audit costs, in what Vote in the Estimates was its cost included, whether

  123
  the auditors' work was restricted to the accounts; and by whom, and by what method, was the passing of secret commissions and other illicit consideration in distant lands prevented?
  Colonel SEELY: The accounts of the Office and Reserve Funds of the Crown Agents are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General under Section 33 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1866. The ordinary staff of his office is employed for this purpose. A sum of £120 per annum is charged to the Office Fund for this audit, and brought to account under Class II., Vote 14, Appropriations in Aid. The audit, like all other audits, is ordinarily based on the accounts and documents relating thereto, submitted for audit. No case of any secret commission or other illicit consideration passing in connection with the transactions of the Crown Agents has come to the knowledge of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether invitations to tender for contracts were issued by the Crown Agents merely in compliance with form and were neither public nor competitive, but sent to selected persons and firms with whom the business had been substantially arranged in advance; and, in view of the abuses to which such a system is open in the case of a body not accounting to Parliament, if he would say why the Colonial Office allowed it, and whether genuine public tender would in future be insisted upon, as in the case of other public bodies?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. The Crown Agents' system, which is the same as that of other public Departments, was explained in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question of 20th July last.

  Uganda Railway (Cost of Construction).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a thoroughly responsible British contracting firm, at the initiation of the Uganda Railway Company, offered to construct it efficiently in accordance with specifications for £3,800 per mile, or £2,500,000 for the whole; whether its construction under the control of the Crown Agents had cost £9,504 per mile, being £6,250,000 for the whole; and whether the Crown Agents have any explanation of this cost other than a comparison with other railways
  124
  constructed under their own control on the same departmental system?
  Colonel SEELY: In 1891–2 a reconnaissance survey for the Uganda Railway was made for the Government by four officers of the Royal Engineers; and the estimated cost of the line, based on this preliminary survey, was given as £2,240,000. In a letter dated the 8th of April, 1895, Messrs. Pauling offered to construct and equip the line against a cash payment of £2,240,000, but this offer was declined, as its acceptance would have involved the complete surrender by Government of all control in regard to either materials or construction. The railway was not constructed under the control of the Crown Agents, but of a Committee consisting of representatives of the Foreign Office, Treasury, and the Crown Agents, and of a former Political Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar, with two retired Indian officials as managing member and consulting engineer respectively. The total cost of the railway has been about £5,500,000. The increased cost was due to the facts that the character of the line was entirely altered from that originally proposed, that the original estimate was only based on a reconnaissance survey, and that various unexpected difficulties, to which reference is made in Cd. 2164, arose during construction.
  Mr. J. D. REES: May I ask whether in creases in estimates of this character have not been usual in railway enterprise in Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: There have been several cases of the kind, no doubt.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether £9,504 per mile is not exclusive of interest on capital?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot say without notice.

  Crown Agents' Office Inquiry.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would say by whom were witnesses to give evidence before the Committee of Inquiry into the organisation of the Crown Agents' office selected exclusively from among persons connected with, dependent on, or recipients of money from the Crown Agents; why was no independent witness called; and, having regard to the limited value of a Report based on the ex parte statement of the Crown Agents' case, and the vast sums of money and other interests controlled by that body, without responsibility except to persons dependent on them, whether their revenue, ex-

  125
  penditure, and methods are to be made the subject of an inquiry at which independent witnesses will be called?
  Colonel SEELY: There is absolutely no foundation for any of the suggestions contained in this question.

  Hertfordshire Navy League Training Ship.
  Mr. CARLILEasked whether, in the event of the Hertfordshire branch of the Navy League undertaking to maintain a training ship for boys of good character from the age of 13 to 17, with a view of their qualifying in nautical, mechanical, and electrical training, the Board of Education would be prepared to make capitation grants; and, if so, of what amount?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The Board regard training ships conducted under proper financial and educational conditions as suitable for aid under the regulations for technical schools and other forms of provision for further education, but the amounts of grant to be paid and the precise conditions under which recognition should in future be given, especially in the case of ships provided by bodies other than local education authorities, and having objects other than educational, are now under reconsideration.

  Feeding School Children (Christmas Vacation).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education if he has seen the Report of the Gorton education committee under the Provision of Meals Act, which states that, out of 181 children examined before and after the midsummer vacation, 108 lost 275 pounds in weight, or an average of 2·594; and whether he is prepared to recommend to the various school care committees under the Provision of Meals Act that necessitous children be fed during the Christmas vacation?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, it would appear from answers recently given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to questions asked by my hon. Friend that some doubt exists as to the legality of the expenditure of money by a local education authority under Section 3 of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, in feeding school children during the holidays. Apart from the legal aspect of the case, the Board would not consider it
  126
  desirable to make recommendations as to the action to be taken under the Act by local education authorities or their committees, as it appears to them that the question is essentially one to be determined locally.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are the Board of Education prepared to advise the local authorities to feed destitute children during the Christmas holidays?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have already answered that.

  Lascars on British Ships.
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the records of his office afford any evidence that Lascars are other than capable and courageous sailors; and whether any official estimate has been made of the extent to which, if their employment was decreased or abandoned, increased employment would be provided for Europeans?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The records of the Board of Trade show that no imputations can be made against the capability or courage of Lascar seamen in general. No such official estimate as that suggested by my hon. Friend has been made.
  Mr. REES: Is there any ground for the suggestion that the abandonment of the use of Lascars would mean an increase in the use of British sailors, or whether it is not a fact that the exact contrary would be the case?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether, in regard to the deaths of Asiatic seamen upon the steamships "Queen Amelie" of Glasgow, "Clan Cunning" of Glasgow, "Arracan" of Glasgow, "Lord Kelvin" of Liverpool, "Indrani" of Liverpool, "Umlazi" of London, "Algeria" of Glasgow, "Zambesi" and "Changsha" of London, "Fultala" of Glasgow, "Visigoth" of Southampton, "Cardiganshire" of Liverpool, "Shimosa" of Liverpool, any complaints were made by the deceased seamen during their lives, or on their behalf after their death, or by or on behalf of any other seamen upon such ships; whether inquiries made by the Board prove that the heat in the engine-room is greater than Asiatic seamen are accustomed to bear, or such as to have caused or hastened their death; whether inquiries show that the owners of these vessels have not provided proper accommodation, proper food, and a proper

  127
  complement of hands; and whether Europeans can perform the duties of boilermen and stokers in the Red Sea and other tropical waters?
  Mr. TENNANT: There is no record of any complaint having been made by or on behalf of Asiatic seamen in connection with the vessels mentioned in the question during the last three years, and there is no evidence to show that the accommodation, food, or manning was defective. The evidence available does not admit of any general conclusions being formed such as those suggested by my hon. Friend. The matter was quite recently considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, which reported that "after a close examination of the available statistics on the subject they could not arrive at any common conclusion as to the existence of any one prevailing cause for these lamentable deaths." Europeans do in many cases perform the duties of firemen in the Red Sea and other tropical waters.
  Mr. J. O'GRADY: Has the Board of Trade any knowledge that any white sailors were employed in stokeholds at a temperature of 106 degrees?
  Mr. TENNANT: There have been several cases of white Europeans engaged in stokeholds at the temperature named.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Did they die?
  Mr. TENNANT: No.
  Mr. REES: Is it not a fact that larger numbers of European sailors would have to be confined at that temperature but for the fact that these Lascars were available?
  Mr. TENNANT: The question whether Europeans are able to stand high temperatures better than Lascars is under my close personal examination at the present moment. I may inform the House that up to now my advisers have not been able to come to any conclusion on that subject.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that quite recently a case has occurred in the law courts in which a man has, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, applied for and established a claim for damages because he suffered injuries through what was called by the courts a heat wave under the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady)?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

  Agricultural Instruction (Highland Counties).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that a sum of £18,000, approximately, is spent annually for the promotion of agricultural and dairy instruction, would he state what sum was spent in each of the Highland crofting counties for this purpose during each of the last three years?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): It is not possible to apportion the expenditure for the promotion of agricultural and dairy instruction as between the various counties embraced within the area served by the Aberdeen and North of Scotland College of Agriculture which includes most of the Highland crofting counties. Some particulars of the instruction given in Highland crofting counties will, however, be found on pages 53–5 of the published "Reports relating to Continuation Classes and Central Institutions for the year 1907–8."
  Mr. WEIR: Was no account taken of the amounts spent in the respective counties in the Highlands of Scotland?
  Mr. URE: It is not available.
  Mr. WEIR: No accounts were kept?
  Mr. URE: Yes.
  Mr. WEIR: An opportunity will arise later of having this matter discussed, and I will avail of it in order to have it brought forward and gone into.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech at Question time. He must limit himself to asking questions.
  Mr. WEIR: It is not my desire to make a speech. I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That should be stated at the correct time, but not at Question time. Question time is meant for questions.

  Congestion in Highlands.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board had taken any steps to ascertain to what extent landlords in the Highlands and islands of Scotland are willing to cooperate with the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of relieving congestion by the creation of new holdings; and, if so, will he state the number of landlords communicated with in each county and the result?
  Mr. URE: The Congested Districts Board issued a letter to every estate in the seven crofting counties and also advertised largely; the Board lose no opportunity of letting it be known that they are willing to consider any reasonable proposal for co-operation made to them by any estate. The result, so far, has been that out of 1,515 new holdings or enlargements made with the help of the Board, 727 have been on the estates of individual proprietors.

  Licences on Estates of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can state the number of licences granted on the estates of the Commission for the years 1883 and 1908, the amount of the total revenue, and the increase or decrease in the amount from those licences; whether these licences have increased or decreased in number; and whether any of these licences have lapsed or been forfeited, and, if so, how many?
  Mr. J. TOMKINSON: The number of fully licensed public-houses upon the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is believed to be 325 at the present time, and to have been 396 in 1883, a reduction of 71 having been effected during that period. Twenty-eight of these public-houses are rural inns let from year to year or on short terms; the remainder are held from the Commissioners for the residues of the terms of long leases at ground rents, and the reduction above mentioned has been effected upon the falling-in of such leases and the refusal of the Commissioners to allow the continued user of the premises of public-houses. The Commissioners have no means of knowing the amount of the revenue received from the licences granted in respect of these premises; they are concerned only with the ground rents which they receive, for the most part fixed many years ago, and by the Commissioners' predecessors in title, and it would be impossible to distinguish what part (if any) of the ground rent could be described as being in respect of the value of the licence in any case.

  Alleged Beri-beri (Iniskea, Co. Mayo).
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Norwegian named Obsen, employed at the whaling station on Iniskea Island, in the county of
  130
  Mayo, was recently admitted to the local hospital in Belmullet, and was certified by the hospital doctor to be suffering from beri-beri; and, if so, is he in a position to state the causes that led to the outbreak of this disease?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department have ascertained that a Norwegian sailor employed in a steamer catching whales off the Mayo coast was admitted to Belmullet Infirmary on 11th September last, and on the 12th he was transferred to the Fever Hospital. He was discharged as cured on 21st September. He was afterwards admitted to the Leith Hospital, where he died from inflammation of the heart. No traces of beri-beri were observable.

  Clerical Staff in Courts of Justice.
  Sir GEORGE KEKEWICHasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the clerical staff in the offices of the Courts of Justice are not subject to the ordinary Civil Service rules regarding retirement on account of age; whether, in consequence of those rules not being applicable, men have been and are being retained in the Service, although advanced age renders them incapable of performing their duties with full efficiency, and the promotion of more efficient men is thereby blocked; whether the difficulty arises from the operation of Section 14 of The Courts of Justice Salaries and Funds Act, 1869, which was extended to all officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature by Section 20 of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881; and, if so, whether he will bring in a short Bill to terminate this state of things?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): The subject-matter referred to in the question lies, pursuant to the Judicature Acts, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Divorce and Admiralty Division, and has been before them from time to time. They have not, however, thought fit to make any order regarding retirement on account of age. I do not think there is any substantial grounds for the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, and I can only repeat that, under the Judicature Acts, the officers of the Supreme Court are not part of the ordinary Civil Service. It is not my intention to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject.

  FINANCE BILL.

    COST OF LONDON VALUATION.
    Mr. STARKEYasked what proportion of the estimated cost of £2,000,000 for making a valuation of the land for the purpose of the Finance Bill will be incurred in the case of London, other towns, urban areas, and rural areas, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am unable to add anything to the statements made to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th and 17th August last.

  Dirien School (Kenmare).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will make inquiry into the application made on behalf of the school children attending Dirien school, Greenane, Kenmare, for assistance in providing a footbridge over the river, as, owing to the winter floods, the river cannot be forded; and, if inquiry has already been made, can he state the result of such inquiry?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The Congested Districts Board have received the application referred to, but are unable to entertain it, as the persons for whom the bridge is desired do not reside in a congested district.

  Annagloy Estate, County Louth.
  Mr. NOLANasked whether the landlord of the small estate of Annagloy, Ardee, county Louth, is willing to sell and the tenants are willing to buy the property, including about 140 acres of untenanted land; and whether the Estates Commissioners have been aproached upon the subject, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. CHERRY: No proceedings have been instituted under the Irish Land Act, 1903, before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the estate of J. W. Milling, county Louth, which would appear to be the estate to which this question refers. The owner approached the Commissioners some time ago and was informed that if he wished to sell the estate he should institute proceedings in the prescribed manner.

  Massareene Estate (Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. NOLANasked if the right hon. Gentleman can give the names of the evicted tenants of the Massareene estate not yet restored to their farms; and
  132
  whether the Estates Commissioners are able to mention a date when they will be able to complete the work of restoration now so long pending?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to put John Bellew, Patrick Mullan, C. Loughran, and Mary Daly in possession of their former or other holdings by December next.

  Military Manœuvres (Rank and File Pay).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will allow the rank and file of the British Army, when serving on future manœuvres, the same extra minimum money grant of 3s. per man per day as is granted to every commissioned officer, seeing that the commissioned officers need not be put to any more expense than the rank and file, who are least able to bear it?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state in what manner the officers of the British Army are put to extra expense whilst under canvas on manœuvres that enables them to receive a minimum extra money grant of 3s. per day, whilst the rank and file go through the same manoeuvres without any extra money grant?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The extra expenses to which an officer is put when under canvas on manoeuvres are: (1) Extra cost of food and incidentals of messing as compared with the cost of messing in barracks, etc. (2) Extra wear and tear of personal clothing and equipment. (3) Maintenance of a field kit. Practically none of this extra expense falls on the soldier when he is under canvas, as he receives a free ration, his mess and personal equipment are maintained from public funds, and the upkeep or his kit and clothing is met out of the kit and clothing allowances which are framed to cover this as one of the incidents of the soldier's service. It is not, therefore, proposed to extend the grant of field allowance to the soldier.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can explain what he means by short rations outside what are paid for by the rank and file men?
  Mr. HALDANE: The soldier's rations are found for him; the officer's rations are not.
  Mr. W. THORNE: They are part and parcel of his wages.

  Post Office (Tuberculosis).
  Mr. G. N. BARNES (for Mr. Summerbell)asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that during the past 10 years 3,286 men have been discharged from the Army, 2,673 from the Navy, and 1,057 men and women from the Post Office, in all 7,016 persons, suffering from tuberculosis; that no provision has been made by the Government for the care of such invalids or the prevention of the spread of the disease; and whether, in view of the efforts made by the Government, in the shape of legislation and other measures, to check the ravages of this disease, he is prepared to take action with a view of making provision for the proper treatment of all such cases in the future?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the figures stated in the first part of the question are correct. In answer to the remainder of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th November, 1908.

  Chinese Opium Merchant's Imprisonment.
  Mr. LAIDLAWasked if a representation was made by his Majesty's Consul-General at Canton to the Chinese authorities for the release of a Chinese opium merchant, imprisoned in connection with the new opium regulations; if so, at whose request; what was the result; and did his action have the approval of the Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received a Report stating that a representation was made by the Acting British Consul-General at Canton, pointing out that the arrest and imprisonment of a Canton dealer of the wholesale trade by the Opium Bureau contravened the assurances given by the Chinese Government that the regulations would not interfere with the opium trade. The Consul-General would appear to have acted on his own initiative. I am not yet aware of the result of these representations. The action of the Acting Consul-General at Canton has the approval of the Foreign Office. It does not imply any modification of the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the progressive reduction of the import of opium.

  Prisoners Awaiting Trial in Spain.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I repeat the question of which I gave pri-
  134
  vate notice yesterday—to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what action, if any, was taken on behalf of His Majesty's Government to prevent the shooting of Senor Ferrer by the Spanish Government without trial in a civil court?
  Mr. M. KEATING: Before the question is replied to, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any grounds for believing the allegation that the Catholic authorities in Spain influenced the courts martial to murder Senor Ferrer because he was a secularist?
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government received any representations from the Spanish Government at the time of the Denshawee executions in Egypt, and what reply was given to them; and if they did not make any representations, whether he thinks it would be prudent or would have any good result for the British Government now to interfere in the internal affairs of Spain?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer I have to give will cover both the supplementary questions and other questions, of which I have received private notice. His Majesty's Government cannot depart from the rule not to interfere or to express opinions concerning matters of internal administration in other European countries where no British subjects or Treaty rights are involved. In such cases his Majesty's Government do not possess, and have no means of acquiring special information as to circumstances, or as to the facts. This rule is one observed, so far as I am aware, by all European Governments in their dealings with each other, and to depart from it would serve no useful purpose.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the fact that a deputation waited upon him, and asked him to take this matter up, nothing has been done?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given, which is quite comprehensive.
  Mr. P. CURRAN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Foreign Office in the past has used its influence for the purpose of preventing atrocities being perpetrated by other Powers; and, if so, would not the

  135
  right hon. Gentleman be within his rights in endeavouring to prevent the judicial murder of one of Spain's most distinguished citizens?
  Mr. VICTOR GRAYSON: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer received from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance." I refer, of course, to the matter which has been the subject of the questions to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Colne Valley asks leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Foreign Secretary in not having intervened in the matter of the trial and execution of Senor Ferrer. If that is what the hon. Member means I may point out to him that it is hardly urgent.
  Mr. GRAYSON: May I explain that contingent upon this individual and personal matter in the question of those who are now being tortured in the dungeons of Spain—
  Mr. H. BELLOC: They are not—
  Mr. GRAYSON: And accused of complicity in exactly the same business. Therefore, I think the matter one of most urgent public importance, and I believe the spirit of the House will agree with that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think I can hardly recognise that as a matter of urgent public importance. This question arose with regard to the execution of Senor Ferrer. I think no urgency can arise with regard to that.
  Mr. GRAYSON: The matter under discussion, as I understand, is the action of the Spanish Government in trying by court martial and not in a fair civil court, where witnesses are allowed to be called—
  Mr. BELLOC: They were called.
  Mr. GRAYSON: If the hon. Member for South Salford has anything to add, I hope he will do it later. What I wish to point out is that prisoners are now in gaol in Spain, and practically under sentence, who will be shot as Ferrer was shot unless the matter is recognised by the House to-day as one of urgent public importance.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have put in writing the actual words on which he wants to ask leave to move the adjournment; but I will put it in this way: "The hon. Member for Colne Valley seeks to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the non-intervention by the Foreign Secretary on behalf of prisoners now in gaol in Spain, and shortly coming up for trial before courts-martial." Does that cover the intention of the hon. Member?
  Mr. GRAYSON: Might I add to those words: "Owing to the action of the Foreign Secretary in not endeavouring to induce the Spanish Government to give a fair trial in the civil courts to those now in gaol on charges similar to those against Senor Ferrer?"
  Mr. CURRAN: May I have an answer to my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member the leave of the House—has the hon. Member the support of 40 Members? (After counting the Members who had risen) Eighteen.
  Less than 40 Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the-Orders of the Day.

  Finance Bill (Revised Estimate of Revenue).
  Mr. E. A. GOULDING: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, if he will now give to the House a revised estimate of the revenue to be obtained from the several taxes during the current financial year?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The time for asking questions is passed.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended in Committee of the Whole House, read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I have a Motion on the Paper to recommit the Bill with a view to enabling the House to discuss a particular matter. I understand that there is a difficulty as to moving at this particular stage, and, therefore, with the leave of the House, I do not propose to move the Motion for recommittal at this stage; but if the Opposition find that they have not got an opportunity in the course

  137
  of the Debate on the Report stage to discuss the Tobacco Duties, I shall then propose to recommit later on, when we get through the Report stage. I find there is an insuperable difficulty in moving the Motion at this stage.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman move?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may move formally, but I could not proceed with it, and I should ask leave to withdraw.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the formal moving of the Motion from the Chair that the Bill be recommitted would prevent that being moved at a later stage if the contingency contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to arise, and whether there is any formal difficulty if the Motion is moved to-day in moving it again, say, next week?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. It is quite clear that if the Motion were withdrawn, the Motion could be renewed at a subsequent stage. If the Motion to recommit were negatived I think it could not be renewed in the middle of the Report stage, but that it might be renewed at the conclusion of the Report stage or at the beginning of the Third Reading.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then, perhaps, I may suggest that it should not be moved at this stage.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is my suggestion. I would suggest it is better it should not be put. I shall see that the Opposition are provided with an opportunity of debating the matter. They are entitled to ask of the Government such an opportunity should be taken for debating the matter. I should certainly proceed with it now, but I find the difficulty is insuperable. If the Opposition find opportunities are not satisfactorily given for Debate, then I shall move for the recommittal of the Bill.
  Mr. BALFOUR: By leave of the House I may say that in the situation it seems to me that the course proposed is the least inconvenient. I understand if he were to move it to-day in accordance with the original suggestion he made, he might find he was unable to continue the business or discussion of the Report stage to-day should the discussion of the recommittal finish before the termination of the business. That would result in a waste of Parliamentary time at a moment when
  138
  nobody desires unnecessarily to prolong the work of Parliament. Therefore, so far as I may speak for my Friends, I should assent to the suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have been listening to your ruling, and endeavouring to follow what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I find it rather difficult to apply the arguments to the position. I have no desire at all to prevent the House from proceeding later to-day with the Report stage of the Bill, and if my Motion would not have that effect then I would proceed to move it. I desire to consult the convenience of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The mere moving of the Motion will not prevent the Report stage coming on at a subsequent period to-day, but if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to get the assent of the House to it, and if a discussion were to take place in Committee on Part I., we could not then enter on the Report stage on the same day.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I shall move "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Part I."
  I am afraid if it were pressed I could hardly hope to have anything except the Motion agreed to, because there appears to be very little answer to it. We were in Committee on the land clauses, namely, Part I. of this Bill, for about three months, and we disposed of a very considerable amount of matter that was not in the original Bill. Now we find on meeting here to-day to proceed with the Report stage of the first part of the Bill that there are 139 new Amendments put down by the Government. Of course it may be at once admitted that by far the greater proportion of those 139 new Amendments are purely drafting Amendments, and another very large proportion of the 139 are matters which the Government promised to attend to when the Bill came up on Report stage. We have examined the Amendments very carefully, and we are bound to admit that almost in every case where the Government did make a promise they have in some shape or other done something towards trying to carry that promise out. But the total effect of the position is that we have 139 new Amendments now before us given notice of by the Government which were not in the Bill, either in its original state or when it left Committee. Some of these

  139
  matters are of extreme importance, the great majority, of course, of them are not. I should be out of order to discuss the merits of any of those, but I want to refer to two of the points as illustrations of my meaning and of the position. One is the position of mortgagees. The question of the mortgagee, existing and future, and his position in reference to land came before the Committee several times, and eventually on the undeveloped land part of the Bill, in reply to an Amendment of mine, a clause was drawn up by the Government draftsman and inserted as an agreed clause. I now find that that clause is to be radically altered by Government Amendments. In addition to that, the Government promised that we should have a comprehensive clause dealing with the position of the mortgagee as regards Increment Duty, Reversion Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Mineral Bights Duty; but only with regard to one of those taxes has that pledge been carried out. The other illustration is that when the Bill was in Committee it was pointed out that in assessing site value allowance must be made for the land given up by the landowner for the purpose of roads. That was fought by the Government and refused by them on several occasions. They took no less than four Divisions against our Amendments on that point, but we find to our astonishment that they now propose to put into a clause entirely new words dealing with the important question of the dedication of land for roads. Seeing that in the development of land for building 23 or 29 per cent. of the land has to be given up for roads and passages, it is a most important element whether that land is to be taken into account in estimating the price for the purpose of site value or any other of the nine different kinds of value to which we have now to refer in the Bill.
  Upon that and a number of other points the Amendments now before us constitute practically a new state of affairs which has not been considered in Committee or dealt with at all, and at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the "sandpapering" stage we find ourselves faced with a box of absolutely rough-hewn timber. It is an impossible position in which we are placed. We acknowledge to the full the skill with which the Government have attempted to carry out a large number of the promises made by them in this marvellously complicated measure; but what we complain of is that there are upwards
  140
  of 20 Amendments of which the subject-matter has not been considered in Committee at all. Unless the Bill is recommitted all these important matters, which, under the forms of the House ought to be properly investigated in Committee, will not have been so investigated, and we shall have to deal with them at the last stage, when, so far as we are concerned, anything we do is final. Having had some considerable experience of the difficulty and intricacy of these land questions, I think the addition of so much unsifted new matter is a very impolitic proceeding, and one which the House should be loath to allow. Upon these general principles I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Part I.
  Mr. G. D. FABERformally seconded the Motion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member has stated that there are 139 Amendments on Part I. That is only technically correct.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I said so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As a matter of fact, I should doubt whether there are really more than 20 or 30 Amendments. For instance, to make one Amendment it may be necessary to move the omission of "and" at one point, the insertion of "of" at another, and so on. You may-have to move out one set of words three or four times. For instance, the words "the fee simple of" have to be inserted half a dozen times, and the hon. Member counts that as six Amendments, when as a matter of fact it is only one. The Amendments are really within a very small compass. A good many are repetitions, and a large number are purely verbal. The hon. Member contends that these Amendments justify the recommittal of the Bill. As far as the vast majority are concerned, they are purely drafting Amendments, such as the insertion of the words "the fee simple of," made in deference to the criticisms of legal Members in Committee. Every Amendment of substance is the redemption of a definite pledge made by the Government during the Committee stage. The hon. Member says there are 20 Amendments containing absolutely new matter. I should like to know where they are. I am certain I could explain that they contain nothing of the kind. I cannot recall a single Amendment containing new matter introduced for the first time. The hon. Member referred particularly to the question of

  141
  mortgagees. He complained, in the first place, that the Government had conceded practically everything he asked for. Why he should complain of that I do not know. He also says that we divided four times against the proposal. We never divided against the substance of the Amendment. We objected to the form, and promised to introduce Amendments dealing with the matter. Again, on the question of roads, we divided against particular Amendments before the Committee because we could not accept them, and we have not accepted them now. I am very gratified to find that the hon. Member admits quite frankly that every pledge we gave we have made a real attempt to deal with.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Of some kind.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I take full note of what he said. A note was taken of every pledge given by the Government; we went through them all, and I think it will be found that in the vast majority of cases we have put down Amendments to deal with the points. There may be one or two cases which we promised to consider where we thought, on examination, there was no substance; but there are very few of those. I think it will be found that we have made a real attempt to redeem every pledge given. I want the House to realise we are introducing no new matter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can point out to me any case where we are introducing absolutely new matter, which is not drafting, then I agree that he, at any rate, will have taken the first step in making a case. The redemption of pledges—it may be an inadequate redemption—has been our object. I should like the House to realise that whereas there are nominally about 250 Amendments to the Bill, there are in reality only 40 or 50, the rest being component parts of the same Amendments.
  Mr. GOULDING: I think the right hon. Gentleman will not gainsay me when I say that very far-reaching Amendments and alterations of the Bill were made during the Committee stage which have entirely altered the position of the Bill, so far as its finances are concerned. The whole revenue is materially altered. The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would make a statement on the revised estimate of the revenue to be derived from the several taxes. It does really seem to me, before we go into the Report stage, that it is only common-sense, if not essential, that we should have in our possession all
  142
  these material alterations and that we equally should know how far those changes made and accepted by the Government vary from the original estimate made by the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced the Budget. I intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and I think it would be a great convenience to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make some statement in regard to the matter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I certainly proposed to make a statement showing the present financial position according to the estimates up to the moment. I hope during the present week to make that statement. I have it prepared. But I should like to make an explanatory statement before I present the accompanying document and circulate it.
  Mr. GOULDING: When will that statement be made?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the course of two or three days.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we all recognise on this side of the House—I make the acknowledgment publicly—that the Chancellor and his colleagues have made a real endeavour to carry out the various promises and undertakings which they made during the passage of the Bill through Committee by the Amendments which they have put down for consideration on the Report stage. But I am bound to say that I do not think they have quite fulfilled the expectations they aroused in respect to the particular matter alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). The Chancellor will remember that in the course of debate on more than one occasion, I think, he promised us that we should have such a statement of the revised estimate before we began the consideration of the Report stage. Some of us have been looking very anxiously for that promised statement in order to see what is the position in which we now stand. I, for one, confess that there are many points in regard to the Finance Bill as it now exists in which I am in great doubt. It is all very well for the Chancellor to say that his Amendments are mere drafting. I venture to say that anyone who will take the trouble to try and follow the Bill which he originally introduced, and to say how much of that Bill now remains, what is the effect of the changes introduced in Committee, and what will be the effect of the other changes which the Government

  143
  propose to introduce during the Report stage, will find that he has taken on an occupation of the most difficult, complicated, and vexatious kind. It is one that almost requires a skilled interpreter of the law to follow out with any prospects of success. If that be true of the Amendments, it is quite true of the Finance Bill. Laymen in the House ought to be able to understand the Finance Bill. But there is not a man in this House, except it be the Chancellor, or those in confidential touch with him, who can say what is the estimated revenue which may be fairly expected from the provisions of the Bill as the Government have amended it, or propose to amend it.
  The Budget statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made many months ago. But it is not time only that has passed over. The Bill has been affected by discussion. The Chancellor has found it impossible to maintain many of his original proposals. He has from time to time made concessions or alterations as to the financial effect of which we have but the most shadowy information, if any information has been vouchsafed at all. Again and again the Chancellor has refrained from giving any information, or has declined—quite politely, but firmly—saying that it was impossible for him to deal with each of these little details by itself. He must, of course, revise the whole of his Estimates in view of what has happened, but it would have been desirable if we could have had his statement in our hands before we were asked to enter upon the Report stage. In the course of debate the Chancellor gave a promise that these figures should be available before the Report stage. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the matter, but it is of importance to the House that the Members should know, at the earliest possible opportunity, what the total effect of the right hon. Gentleman's changes will be. While it is also very desirable that when the Chancellor has made his statement that we should have the opportunity to discuss it—if necessary. What I had in my mind was that during the short recess a White Paper would have been circulated, and that we should then have come with the information and have taken an opportunity such as the present of asking for further explanations, or to make any criticisms we had without materially delaying the proceedings of the Committee. What I
  144
  say at the present time is that we may require to discuss the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes, or, at any rate, discuss it when we have seen it in print, and had time to take in its full effect. I hope the Government will recognise that this is not an unreasonable request, and will give us the opportunity if we ask for it. As regards the Amendments, I will not travel over the ground covered by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford). I wish to take another illustration, but before I do so let me say that I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you cannot measure the substances of the changes by merely counting the number of the Amendments. But that is an observation the force of which the Government sometimes forgets. I remember the Chancellor at an earlier stage of our proceedings saying there are so many hundreds of Amendments on the Paper, and how are we ever to make progress unless we take such and such a drastic step. The right hon. Gentleman did not then wait to see whether some of them were duplicate or whether they were drafting; he merely counted the number. Times are changed, and now it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has himself put the Amendments on the Paper, and he begs us not to be misled by their number, and observes that many of them are merely drafting, and that the introduction of a particular word in one place necessitates changes in half a dozen other places, and that in fact the 150 that apply to this particular part of the Bill might, as far as substance is concerned, be reduced to 20 or 30.
  I have not gone into the exact number of the Amendments of substance, and I therefore neither pledge myself to this number nor do I dispute it; he probably has looked into them carefully, but when he goes on to say that these Amendments are all of them put down in order to meet objections raised from this side of the House, and are almost all of them in the nature of concessions to objections raised by us, I then begin to wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has really gone over the White Paper which shows what the Bill will be if the Government Amendments are accepted. Has he even looked at his new Clause 25, which is the Definition Clause defining the values of land? We had previously in the old Definition Clause, which was Clause 14 and has now become Clause 25, the total value of the land and the site value of the land. We had site value at the time when the tax

  145
  became payable, and original site value, but we have something quite different now in the amended Clause. We have gross value and full value and full site value, two things never mentioned before. We have got total value, which is now something quite different from what it was when the Bill passed out of Committee; and last we have assessable site value—for what reason I do not know. Now that Clause, Which is the basis Clause of the whole of this part of the Bill, is profoundly altered by the Amendments which the Government have put down, and these Amendments are not concessions to us, and what their objects are I do not pretend to say.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There was a speech by the Leader of the Opposition on that very point, and if the right hon. Gentleman only looks it up he will see the passage. The Leader of the Opposition criticised the number of site values we had, and pointed out their number. We simply met the complaint by giving distinctive names to what were already in existence.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could we have a more interesting comment on the way this Government attempt to legislate? They bring in a Bill into Committee which says there are to be two kinds of value—gross value and site value—and carry through the Committee on that assumption.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Total value and site value."]—Yes, I beg pardon, it is awfully difficult to follow through the windings of the Government. They bring in a Bill which deals with total value and site value, and when we say that these things are not plain they say we are wilfully complaining, we are making mountains out of molehills, and we are wasting the time of the House in attempting to clear the matter up, and having carried their Bill through Committee on the basis of total value and site value they then bring in on Report a series of new proposals, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now says that under the head of total values we included a series of values which were quite different, and under the head of site values there are included a series of values which never would have occurred to the Government to specify but for the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
  After refusing to confess themselves converted by my right hon. Friend they bring down a series of new terminology in order to distinguish between entirely different things, which they previously lumped together under the same head. Never before
  146
  has this House seen such a confused, ill-considered, unworkable piece of legislation as that which the Government presented when the Finance Bill was brought before us. I daresay, when we find exactly what the Government now mean, why total value is now entirely different in meaning to what it was in the Committee stage of the Bill, and why other things were introduced, we may find that they are changes for the better, and not for the worse, but it is absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that these are not changes of substance, or that they are merely concessions to points urged by the Opposition.
  I do not care very much whether the Bill is recommitted or not. I suppose any of us, if we consulted our personal convenience after a Session which has now lasted into the middle of October, would be desirous of getting rid of this Bill as quickly as possible, but I am bound to say if the Government think they can turn out a workmanlike measure by amending this Bill as it now stands upon Report stage, I profoundly differ from them. I do not believe that anything short of the recommittal of the Bill would enable the Government, even with the goodwill of the whole House, to make this a watertight Bill or to make it legislation of the kind which ought to emanate from this House; above all when, in respect of such legislation, very high claims are made for the sole authority of this House to deal with it or to amend it. I make that observation for myself; I do not much care whether the Government recommit the Bill or not. If they recommit it, it may be made a rather less bad Bill and a more easily workable Bill than if we were to deal with these Amendments on Report. All I say is that to pretend that the changes which the Government are proposing to make are not changes of vast substance, and that they are not changes at any rate which make it extremely difficult to follow the intentions of the Government or the history of the Bill, is to ask the House to believe something which no Member who has taken the trouble to compare the Bill and the Amendments would for one moment accept.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that all the points have been met upon which assurances were given during the Committee stage. In one respect that statement is inaccurate. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman

  147
  for it, because he was not in the House at the time. The point I allude to is an appeal under what was originally Clause 11, which is now Clause 17. The words appear at the bottom of page 14 of the new draft of the Bill. The matter was debated at some length, and I remember that there was a general concensus of opinion on both sides of the House that there should be some form of appeal. We were not quite agreed as to what form it should take, and the point
  was not pressed because there was a general agreement upon it. That point the Government have not met. The only Amendment proposed by the Government on this point is a purely drafting one. I do not press my point further, but I am quite certain there was a distinct understanding in regard to this appeal, and it has not been met by the Government.
  Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Part I."
  The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 180.

  Division No. 805.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Renton, Leslie

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Renwick, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison Broadley, H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clark, George Smith

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

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  M' Arthur, Charles

  Wilicughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. G. D. Faber.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Fell, Arthur

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cox, Harold

  Hazleton, Richard

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boland, John

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hodge, John

  Brace, William

  Essex, R. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Branch, James

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Brigg, John

  Evans. Sir S. T.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bright, J. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ginnell, L.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Keating, M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cameron, Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gulland, John W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Steadman, W. C

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Massie, J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walters, John Tudor

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Richardson, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Myer, Horatio

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wiles, Thomas

  Napier, T. B.

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  O'Grady, J.

  Seely, Colonel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved to insert the following new Clause:—
  Provision for Case of Ecclesiastical Persons.
  (1) Where any land or interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty on the occasion of any transfer on sale or Reversion Duty is charged is part of the endowment of, or belongs to, a see, deanery, canonry, or benefice, and the archbishop, bishop, dean, canon, or incumbent (as the case may be) is the person who is liable to pay any sum on account of either of these duties, it shall be lawful for the archbishop, bishop, dean, canon, or incumbent (as the case may be) to borrow and for Queen Anne's Bounty, if they shall think fit, upon his request, to lend upon the security of the possessions of the see, deanery, canonry, or benefice, for a term not exceeding twenty years, any amount paid by him, or which he may then be liable to pay in respect of either of these duties, and the amount of any expenditure which he may have reasonably incurred in connection with the valuation, or any part of such respective amounts; and where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty hold any funds for such see, deanery, canonry, or benefice it shall be lawful for them, if they shall think fit, to pay thereout all or any part of such amounts as aforesaid.
  (2) The term "benefice" in this Section shall have the same meaning as in the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871. A security made under the provisions of this
  150
  Section shall be in such form as Queen Anne's Bounty may approve, and Queen Anne's Bounty shall, as regards the recovery of the sums due upon the said security, have the same remedies against the dean, canon, or incumbent, and their respective successors, and against the property comprised in the security, as if the advance had been made for repairing or rebuilding under the provisions of the Acts contained in the Second Schedule to the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, and the Acts referring to or amending the same, and the provisions of the said Acts with respect to the registration of mortgages and to the proportioning of payments in the case of death or avoidance, and to stamps and fees of offices, and to the priority of sequestrations, shall apply to securities made under the authority of this Section as if the said provisions had, mutatis mutandis, been repeated herein. This proposal is to enable the Church to make domestic arrangements itself for the purpose of preventing the incidence of this tax falling upon the income of persons who are very little fit to bear such a sudden and a heavy charge. This Amendment has been drawn by a skilled adviser of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the best interests of the Church itself, and I believe it to be absolutely necessary. The House understands that the incumbents of these various ecclesiastical dignitaries are in the position of tenants for life, who have no remainder man or trustee in whom is invested the inheritance which could be charged to

  151
  meet these expenses out of capital. In Clause 39 of the revised Bill there is a provision enabling tenants for life to charge this kind of sudden charges arising where there is an increment upon a sale by deed upon the land or interest in land under the Settled Land Act of 1882. I think, however, the Attorney-General will scan the Settled Land Act of 1882 in vain to bring in the case of the incumbent of an ecclesiastical benefice of any ecclesiastical dignity which is only held for life subject to very serious liabilities for dilapidations and charges for upkeep. Some such clause as this must be inserted in this Bill, otherwise a great hardship will be inflicted. For these reasons I hope the Government will give my proposal favourable consideration.
  Question proposed: "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think this Amendment must have been drafted before the adviser of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners saw the Amendments put down by the Government, which place these charges in the same position as other charges. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will find that his proposal is quite unnecessary. If a clergyman had to pay the Corporation Duty once every 15 years I can quite understand he might be placed in a difficulty, and it might be necessary to go through the process suggested, but now he is only charged where he sells or leases. Where he sells, the money will come under the proceeds, and when he leases the money will still come out of the proceeds. For these reasons the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is quite unnecessary. But for the Amendments which the Government have put down there might have been some doubt on this point.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Can you refer me to the Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the old Clause 25 and new Clause 37, and it includes any corporation sole. Therefore, all these ecclesiastical gentlemen enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman in his new Clause would be safeguarded by the insertion of those words. I quite agree that if they were charged the duty every 15 years there might be very good reason for inserting a provision of this kind, but now it is quite unnecessary.
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I do not quite understand how it will cover the case of a lease. Where the land is actually sold, the purchase money would be available out of which to pay the tax, but where a building lease is granted in respect of glebe land, and where payment for that is an annual payment over a term of 99 years, there would be a considerable capital sum to pay, and there would be no available sum out of which it could be paid. The same would apply to the capital increment on minerals before the minerals are worked. In both cases Increment Value Duty will be payable by a corporation sole, and by a clergyman, or by an incumbent of any benefice, and there will be no capital fund from which the duty can be paid. It, therefore, does seem to me that the Clause moved is desirable.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that case is provided for. We inserted an Amendment in order to deal with that special case, so that when a lease is granted, although the increment is capitalised upon the basis of the rent, still the amount is calculated by instalments. The hon. Member for Brighton raised that very point, and we met him by providing that the lessors in those cases should be in a position to pay by instalments. That is exactly what would happen with regard to the incumbent. He would not pay at the time of the granting of the lease. The provision inserted providing for collection by instalments in the case of a lease would cover the case of an incumbent. By putting the incumbent in the position of an ordinary corporation, his case is amply safeguarded in all these matters. The same thing would apply in the case of mineral rights. There he would pay by instalments. The proviso, which I think amply safeguards the incumbent, is to be found in Clause 4, Sub-section (5), and it reads as follows:—
  "Regulations may be made by the Commissioners with respect to the mode in which any instrument is to be presented to them in order to be dealt with under this Section, and for the payment of any Increment Value Duty by instalments in the case of any lease or transfer on sale where the consideration is in the form of a periodical payment."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will that cover Reversion Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That would be a very unusual case. I should doubt very

  153
  much whether there will be any oases of that kind. They would be so exceptional that they are hardly worth dealing with.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think if my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford) wanted any justification for the Motion just rejected it would be afforded by this discussion. This is a discussion of a point which ought to have been dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not our fault it was not raised.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question was raised in Committee.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It is now raised for the very first time, and I might complain that it was not raised in Committee. I think it was the duty of those who speak on behalf of the gentleman whose interests are involved to have raised it in Committee. I do not complain of it, but it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to complain of the Government.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will put it that our recollections differ. I do not think it is pure imagination on my part when I say that I heard the position of the incumbent in respect of his glebe land raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) confirms my recollection. He says it was raised once or twice.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): We have dealt with it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point. Have you dealt with it? You have dealt with a portion, but not with the rest. It was pointed out by interjection that you had not dealt with the case of the Reversion Duty. The Clause, if amended in accordance with the Government's intentions, will not touch the question of the Reversion Duty at all.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think there are any of those cases.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who has more acquaintance with this matter than either I or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have, tells me that the cases are very numerous. I did have one case brought before me by a correspondent, whose name I have forgotten, during the Committee stage, and my right hon. Friend gives me a case close to Birmingham—the case of Sutton Coldfield. There must be numberless
  154
  cases already existing where a portion of glebe land has been let on a building lease, and, if the Government's contention is correct that the steady development of building land must go on, those cases will multiply. As this steady increment goes on, and as more land comes to be built upon, the number of such cases will increase. How is an incumbent in that case to meet the liability the Government is putting on him? He has some addition to his annual revenue, but he is required to make a sudden capital payment. He cannot do it in some cases, and in cases in which he can do it it is a gross injustice to ask it of him, because you are asking him to pay for a benefit of which only a small portion will come to him. I accept for the purpose of this argument that a man should pay a tax of this kind on the benefit he receives, but the case of the incumbent is exceptional in the way in which the Government treats it, because they are going to ask of him what may be a greater payment than the whole benefit he receives. Their intention is that he should only pay a percentage on that benefit, but the effect may be to make him pay more, because he has under the Reversion Duty to pay a capital sum, whilst he himself receives no capital mm, and may not live long enough or continue incumbent long enough to recoup himself the money he has paid. You intend to take away from him only a percentage, but you may be taking away more than the whole. If there are only six cases of that kind, or even if there is only one case, surely every rule of justice and equity makes it necessary that the Government should meet it, and if, as I believe, the cases will be numerous, then, though it does not strengthen the moral claim for relief which would be attached to any individual placed in that position, it does strengthen the practical need of dealing with the matter. I admit the extreme difficulty of the Government, if they have not considered the matter before, finding words on the emergency to exactly cover the case, but that is a thing we must ask them to do if they will not take the Clause put down, which, whilst perhaps drawn unnecessarily wide, would prevent a gross hardship which no man can defend for a moment, which is not less gross if there are only a few people who will be affected, and which is really absolutely contradictory to the whole purpose of the Bill and the whole arguments by which it is supported.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the point raised with regard to a corporation sole during the Debate in Committee was a simple point, and, so far as it was raised, I think it has been fully met. I do not think the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was explicitly put forward in Committee, though it might have been involved in some of the arguments used. The point raised by the proposed new Clause is one which, I think, was not suggested It is that a corporation sole called upon to pay Increment Value Duty should be allowed to borrow the money. I do not think that point was raised at all in Committee, but, at all events, we tried to secure that a clergyman in possession of glebe land should not be put in a worse position than other ministers of religion who derive their income from other sources. We had for that purpose to consider whether he was a corporation sole. At first some doubt was expressed as to whether a clergyman is a corporate body. He is certainly a corporation sole, and I think he must be treated as a corporate body. Therefore we have exempted clergymen from the payment of a capital sum. With regard to Reversion Duty we say it shall only be charged in respect of land held by the governing body and occupied or used by that body for a particular purpose. But what about the clergyman who has granted a building lease, and is called upon to pay Reversion Duty at the termination of the lease? It may be a capital sum, and one conceivably in excess of the benefit he may derive from it. It is that which causes the present difficulty. But may I say it is news to me that an ordinary corporation sole grants building leases. It is nearly always done through the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: With their consent.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes, it may be with their consent, but my own impression is that the grant of a building lease by a clergyman is very rare; indeed, it is an unknown thing; it is nearly always done through the instrumentality of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Supposing, however, that the somewhat rare case should arise of a clergyman granting a building lease on his glebe I cannot help thinking there would be no difficulty in paying the reversion. Take the case of a building lease, at the shortest period of 60 years. Originally the land was a mere field, but it returns to the clergyman with
  156
  a house upon it, and, consequently, it represents a very considerable increase of revenue. Then there is the provision for the payment of the duty by instalments, and that certainly would constitute a very material mitigation of any difficulty that might attach to paying the duty.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the whole point. Does that particular provision apply to the payment of a reversion?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it does, so that the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman is justified. The real answer of the Government to the Clause is that really it deals with a case which is negligible. There is no occasion for making special provision for such cases. Of course, it might have been taken into fuller consideration if we had had earlier notice of this. But the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining his new Clause, did not give any definite or concrete cases in which this particular mischief is likely to arise, and he said he had such very short time to make inquiry for them. Neither have we any knowledge of such cases, but should any exist, I do not think there would be any difficulty whatever, in any part of the United Kingdom, in dealing with them. Under these circumstances it does not seem to me to be necessary to introduce this Clause, with the probability of very considerable Debate on nearly every word of it. If such cases should arise, they can be easily dealt with by subsequent legislation. After all, we are here dealing with a duty which will run a very long time before it becomes actually due. Nobody has suggested the case of a clergyman in possession of glebe land which was made subject, 60 years ago, to a building covenant which is going to fall in within the next year or two. As I have said, these cases are rare. We want concrete instances, and, so far, none have been provided. The Reversion Duty is a duty of not very frequent occurrence. It only comes into force at the end of a building lease, and if it should appear in the next year or two that there are many such cases, they can, I think, easily be dealt with, long before the payment may become due. There does not, therefore, seem to be any necessity for accepting this Clause.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I cannot of my own knowledge give any cases such as have been asked for by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, but I have in my mind one case which would certainly

  157
  come within the mischief contemplated by this Clause. It is the case of an incumbent who has got, as part of his glebe, land under which there is a considerable bed of coal. That coal is leased, and new leases are given of it from time to time. I take it that these minerals would become subject to Capital Increment Duty. Of course, the difficulty that arises in this case is this: the incumbent is simply entitled, so long as he remains incumbent, to the income, but assuming the events of the last two or three years could be projected into the next seven or eight years—for what has happened within the last two or three years may again happen—such a case as this might arise. The Increment Value Duty would become payable in respect of the new lease of minerals granted by the incumbent, and that Increment Duty would represent a considerable capital sum. It is quite true that the consideration for that lease would be payable by periodical instalments, namely, royalties and rents arising from the lease. Therefore it would come within the advantage of Section 4, Sub-section (5), which says that the Commissioners may make arrangements in that case to receive that particular Increment Duty by instalments. I have read very carefully indeed the Clause which gives power to the Commissioners to receive this duty by instalments. I do not find that case which we are now discussing is provided for at all. That is a criticism which applies to the whole of that Clause. The case we had to work out would be this: The incumbent has £250 or £300 to pay as Increment Value Duty on the renewal of an improved mining lease underneath his glebe. That increment has arisen in consequence of those minerals never having been worked before, and a comparatively small value, or no value at all, having been put on them in the year 1909. When, according to this Bill, they have to be valued, the result is that the increment is based on the capitalised amount of the whole consideration of the lease. That is a very serious item. The incumbent is suddenly called upon to pay 20 per cent. of the whole of that increment. But he simply enjoys a life interest in the property, yet he is called upon to pay 20 per cent. of what is practically almost its total value. It is quite true, as the Attorney-General pointed out, that under Section 4, Sub-section (5), the Commissioners have power to receive that duty by instalments. But suppose the incumbent should die before all the instalments are paid! Who is going to pay the
  158
  remainder? Must the new incumbent pay duty in respect of something which arose before he entered upon the incumbency. I take it there is no provision in the Bill to cover a case of that kind.
  The whole of Sub-section (5) is left, if I may respectfully say so, in the greatest possible confusion and difficulty, not only with regard to the case now before the House but with regard to cases generally that may happen under it. This is really a very serious matter. When we are imposing new taxes on land, taxes that have never been heard of before, and when we apply them to the ordinary landlord we have in mind the position of that landlord, whether he be tenant for life, or the holder of the fee simple, or the leaseholder, we have his position before our eyes, and up to the present we have done our best to deal with difficulties that may arise but which were not foreseen by the Government when they drafted the original Bill. But here is a new difficulty. It is the case of unfortunate clergymen of the Church of England. These men all over the country-derive their income—almost the whole of their income—from glebe lands. If the Government are going to deal equitably with them they must be protected against being dropped upon at some moment to pay out of their slender means a capital sum for Increment Value Duty. We all know that clergymen of the Church of England, and indeed ministers of other religious bodies, are not in a position to pay out capital sums. They cannot find a lump sum to pay these duties or anything else. The Legislature has acknowledged that, because the House of Commons has passed Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament to help the incumbent to drain his glebe, and to provide him with money, the repayment of which is stretched over a long period and is made a charge on the land, in order that he may carry out necessary improvements and put upon the land the requisite buildings. That is the difficulty which my right hon. Friend had in view in bringing forward this Clause. It is, at all events, an attempt to meet the difficulty. The answer, I might almost say the excuses, which the Government have given are totally inadequate to meet the point. It is not an answer for the Government to say that we ought to have found out about these cases beforehand—that ecclesiastical gentlemen who have followed the intricacies of this Bill in all its different stages should have come forward with appropriate clauses to protect their own

  159
  interests. I say it is the duty of the Government to do that. It is their duty, when they are imposing new taxes, to impose them under conditions calculated to meet difficulties that may arise all over the country, and to meet them in a reasonable way. To suggest that, because some people have been endeavouring to look after the interests of the Church of England at some earlier stages of the Bill, they should therefore come forward now with proposals having for their object the mitigation of injustices inflicted upon the Church by the Government is an absurd proposition. I think the least the Government could do is to accept a clause which has been put before it which would, at all events, on the face of it, meet the difficulty. I cannot say that I quite agree with the whole Clause, because it is a very difficult and exceedingly complicated matter, but it does, I believe, meet the difficulty to a certain extent, and, in my opinion, the answer that the Government has given to the case which has been put forward is entirely inadequate.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: It is perfectly evident, in my humble opinion, that this matter cannot be left where it is. The Government have evidently not foreseen the case which my right hon. Friend put forward in the new Clause, though the Budget has been under discussion for six months. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the simplest way was to pooh-pooh the Clause and try to establish the case that it was not required. How did he try to establish that this new Clause was not required? First of all, he groped about in Clause 3 to find a provision which would meet the case, but discovering that there was no provision in Clause 3 ultimately he discovered, or somebody for him, Sub-section (5) of Clause 4, and that became his sheet anchor, and to that he hung like grim death. But when you look at it, it does not meet the case at all, because it provides that regulations may be made by the Commissioners in respect to the mode in which any instrument may be presented to them under this Section, and for the payment of any Increment Value Duty by instalments. Therefore the first objection that I venture to take is that there is no necessity for the Commissioners to do anything of the kind, they can do it or not, according to their own sweet will and pleasure, and there is nothing obligatory upon them at all. But supposing it were obligatory upon them,
  160
  as has already been pointed out, that Sub-section only deals with Increment Value Duty, and does not deal at all with the cases of reversions on leases. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not meet the case, or at any rate he did not exhaust the arguments which showed that the provision is necessary which is made by the new Clause.
  What did the Attorney-General do? He took refuge in the language of the lawyer and said, "It is only a little one"—de minimis non curat lex. That may be good argument for a lawyer, but is it good argument in this House? In this House I always imagined in my sublime innocence that an Act of Parliament tried to do justice, and that in the forging of an Act of Parliament it was essential that no patent injustice should be allowed to go unprovided for. Here there is a patent injustice; you admit it, you acknowledge it; and therefore it cannot be seriously argued by the Government or put forward as an answer that it is only a little one, and that it is negligible. Above all that, I deny it is a little matter or that it is negligible, because my right hon. Friend below me tells me, and he has already told the House, that there are many cases of benefices where building leases have been granted and reversions will arise. Not sixty years bence—building leases have already been granted long ago, and may be falling in almost at once. Therefore we cannot put off the evil day, because these cases may be arising forthwith in Clapham, in St. Martin-in-the-Fields, at Sutton Cold-field, and elsewhere. There may be a score of them, and the matter cannot be left where it is. It is not for me to say "aye" or "no" whether my right hon. Friend has put his new Clause in a proper shape or in a shape which should be accepted by the Government; but I do say without any real fear of contradiction that the Government have got to provide some way out of the difficulty. They cannot let this matter go on, because there is a patent inadequacy and want of equity on the face of the Bill.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure the Government must feel that on this point they will have to make a concession, and I hold that view because they have not attempted to defend their Bill as it stands. They have told us that we ought to have brought this matter up on the Committee stage, and, of course, if they think we did not spend a sufficient time on the Committee stage, it is not for us to differ from that opinion. But it is the first time that

  161
  I have heard it expressed from the other side of the House. They have also told us that if there is anything wrong in the Bill subsequent legislation can put it right; it might have done hardship here and hardship there, and if that is true then the Government proposed to bring forward another Bill in which this evil which they cannot remedy now can be finally remedied. That is not the spirit, I venture to say, in which they should approach the very important Amendment of my right hon. Friend. Nor do I really think that it is an attitude which they mean to maintain. They have acknowledged that in the case of a person being a minister of religion having this kind of property while he is in a particular place and carrying on particular duties, that it is a case which requires special treatment, but they have only admitted it per incuriam with regard to one of their answers. But if you admit it with regard to one your whole case has gone, and you admit it in regard to all. I do not think the Government can pretend that they have any answer with regard to the cases put forward from this side of the House. They have only said the cases are few, but they have not said and cannot say that when these cases occur they are not ones of extreme hardship.
  It is not a case of a man paying a little more than he ought to pay, but it is a case of ruining him, and I ask the Government whether they do not think that the whole of this legislation will be brought into greater discredit than it is likely to be if such cases occur? Take beneficed persons enjoying, as many of them do, very small and inadequate incomes on which they are bringing up their families and giving them an education and, it may be, making great sacrifices in order to give them a perfect education, and perhaps a university education. Suddenly the Government or the Inland Revenue come down upon one of these incumbents and say, "Although you do not get any benefit whatever—not a shilling of benefit—from the sudden change which has taken place in the value of minerals under your land, you have got to pay a lump sum to the Government at once." The man says, "I have no money to pay with. I have a small annual income which lasts as long as I am incumbent of this parish. I have no permanent interest, my family has no permanent interest in the value of the glebe; I have no resources of my own from which I can pay this sudden demand in regard to which the tax is levied." He will further say, "I under-
  162
  stand because the owner of the minerals gets a windfall, although I get no windfall, you want me to pay a lump sum, which I cannot give you on account of a windfall which I do not get." He has the choice of abandoning the education of his children, taking his son away from the university perhaps, or refusing to pay and becoming a passive resister.
  I venture to think that the Government scheme of taxation is rather likely to increase the number of passive resistors by a hardship of this kind, which is quite indefensible, which the Government will not be able to say has not been pointed out to them, and which they were perfectly conscious of while they were carrying the Bill through, which they do not attempt to defend, and which they do not attempt to deal with. That does seem to me to be an impossible position for a responsible Government to take up, and I am confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his heart feels that it is so. I do not blame him, having regard to the complexities of this Bill, for having failed to consider these matters. The Land Clauses as they originally stood were enough to destroy the equanimity and the sanity of those who had to consider them, and really they are much more complicated now; and that the authors themselves should be puzzled by the complications of their offspring is not a matter upon which I am inclined to express surprise or condemnation upon the Government; but now when the grievance is admitted, and has been brought to the attention of the Government, I do ask them in the interest of the credit of this House to sec that this great hardship is redressed. They do not deny the hardship, and where it falls they do not deny the magnitude of it, but they deny the extent of it, and under these circumstances I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do his best to remedy what he must feel is a very serious gap in the legislative proposals which he has laid before us in regard to these Land Taxes.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Both the Attorney-General and myself have exhausted our right to speak, and any observations which I make must be by the permission of the Houses; but I feel bound to answer the direct appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me. The right hon. Gentleman was not present during the earlier part of the Debate, and I do not think, if I may say so, that he had given him a strictly impartial account of

  163
  what transpired. I will not say it was inaccurate. It was accurate as far as it went, but there are some very important matters omitted. First of all, this Amendment is founded on the basis of increment. That was the first proposal I got up to answer, and I pointed out that as far as increment was concerned the corporation is taxed, the incumbent is completely exempt. The only tax is in the case of sale or in the case of leases, and I pointed out in the case of sales he would have cash in hand, and he pays 20 per cent. out of that. In the case of a lease I pointed out that there was a proviso in the Bill—I could not remember in which clause it was—a special provision in the Bill for the case of a lease. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then interposed, and said, "What about the case of the minerals?" and I dealt with the minerals, and I think that also is covered by a provision with regard to a payment by instalments. Then, at the last moment, somebody said, "What about reversions?" I asked what, I think, was a very pertinent question: "Can any one supply me with a case?" I think it is rather late, I must say, to submit a case to the Government, and, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I still say that it is a case which ought to have been submitted to the Committee in the first instance, because, after all, we are dealing with powerful bodies like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have at their command a large array of legal talent. They have, no doubt, subjected this Bill to the closest scrutiny, and clauses of this kind might very well have been submitted in the course of the Committee stage. I cannot pretend, nor can any Government pretend, to be omniscient, and you cannot see every case of hardship which may arise in any Bill even with the assistance which is forthcoming from an able staff of permanent officials. You cannot see cases of this kind which were put on the Paper only this morning. The only case that remains to be dealt with is the case of the reversioner, and, as to him, the right hon. Gentleman may have got cases where the incumbent has let land for building purposes, and where the lease will probably fall in in the course of only a few years. If there are cases of that kind, I do not know of them. Although I have made some inquiries, I have not had much time to investigate, but still I am told
  164
  that there are no cases of that kind. But supposing there are, what happens? I agree that if an incumbent has to pay 10 per cent. on the total value it might be a hard case. He would only enjoy the profit for a year. He might die. He would have to pay 10 per cent., which would come out of his estate. But is that really what would happen? If you get building property of that kind falling in, what does he do? He knows he has to pay his 10 per cent., and he instantly applies to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for power to sell or to lease. Does anyone imagine that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would refuse sanction to an incumbent placed in this position to sell a sufficient portion of the property to meet the case, or to lease the property again, or to get a premium which would enable him to pay the reversion. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that is absurd. I should have thought it was a very proper business arrangement.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I expressed was my astonishment at the right hon. Gentleman recommending to the incumbents of the country generally that they should exact fines in regard to leases.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I suggested was that he should pay the duty imposed upon him by the State, and I say it might be a very proper way of doing it to sell part of the property to begin with. There are two methods by which he can do it at the present moment. One undoubtedly is the method of exacting a premium to pay the duty. That is a very different case from the case which I mentioned. That is the case of £50,000. That is not exacting a sum of money in order to pay the duty to the State. But these are the two methods by which they could at the present moment, if they fell in next year, raise a sufficient sum of money without its falling upon the incumbent. Where is the hardship on the incumbent? It would be a hard case if it did fall on him, but there are methods by which it could be dealt with, and it is admitted that the Clause would require very careful consideration, and that it would probably not fit in. The case is covered by the law as it stands, and I still say there is no hardship to be met.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Perhaps the House will allow me to get rid of one or two very grave misconceptions. In the first place, it is undoubtedly the fact that this case has occurred and will occur again. There are old urban glebes in many places,

  165
  examples of which I may cite in such old cases as St. Martin-in-the-Fields and the Rectory of Clapham. There is the case of the Mineral Duty, which is completely untouched. The new Clause 4, Sub-section (5), only applies to the case where the consideration money is itself to be paid in the form of instalments. It is quite, true that the new lease might be granted subject to a premium, or parts of the property might be sold for the purpose of paying the duty, but the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice that under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts any purchase money for that part of the glebe will at once vest in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and cannot be liberated by them without a statutory provision, and here I am asking for a statutory provision. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman objects to an arrangement which is purely domestic to the Church, which does not touch or endanger his revenue in the smallest degree.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in a case of that kind the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
  could not pay the Stamp Duty to the State?
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He suggested that part of the property should be sold for the purpose of paying the duty on another part of the same property. That money could not be liberated without something being put into this Bill to enable it to be done. We propose that it should be done by the simple process of borrowing within the resources of the living or the dignity itself, and I cannot see why he does not consent to the insertion of a clause which is prepared by those who know far better than anyone at present how it ought to be prepared, which does not endanger and does not touch the revenue in the slightest degree, and is only an arrangement purely domestic to the Church itself, and, I believe, absolutely necessary.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 806.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 p.m.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Renton, Leslie

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

  Gordon, J.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bertram, Julius

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Whitbread, S. Howard

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M' Arthur, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Branch, James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brodle, H. C.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brooke, Stopford

  Clough, William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cameron, Robert

  Crossley, William J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Brace, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robinson, S.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Colonel

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ginnell, L.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Marcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  O' Grady, J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Hodge, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Keating, Matthew

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richardson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  PART I.—DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.
  INCREMENT VALUE DUTY.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Duty on Increment Value.)
  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 complete five pounds of that value accruing after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, 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, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, or the grant, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, of any lease (not
  168
  being a lease for a term of years not exceeding fourteen 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, Sub-section (1) (a), (b), and (c), and Sub-section three, of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment: Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, marriage shall, for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be valuable consideration; and

  169

  (c) where the land or any interest in the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as defined by Section twelve 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, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: I rise to move the omission of Clause 1, in order to make very briefly a protest against the imposition of a special duty on unearned increment. I do that because to many Members of this House, I believe, this is the most attractive of all the various land clauses in the Bill. Some of them, I believe, are not generally attractive. This is a very attractive principle, and it has been put before the country in many very attractive ways. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in more than one speech commented on his own modesty. He says, "This is an enormous profit accruing. I only propose to take 20 per cent., and I give to the owners 80 per cent." I think he has been unnecessarily modest. I can suggest a way in which he might have got the whole 100 per cent. without raising any political difficulty at all. He could have got it by the simple expedient of going into the market and buying up any land which he thought was going to rise in value. Then the whole of the 100 per cent. would have accrued to the public Exchequer. Why has he not done this? Because he has distinctly stated that he was not convinced that the land which he bought in anticipation of a rise in value necessarily would rise. He knew that he would have to run the risk of loss as well as the hope of gain, and he declined the proposition, just as most business men decline the proposition of buying land when they can put their money into concerns which yield a better return. I submit that it is an injustice to pick out this particular form of property and say, "We will subject it to this penal tax." The Prime Minister when defending the tax quoted Adam Smith. I have not the exact words here, but they were to the effect that land was a form of property which was a peculiarly fit subject for taxation, because revenue accrued without the exertion of the owner. But is land the only form of property of which that proposition is true? Is not that proposition
  170
  equally true of railway shares, either in this country or in foreign countries? If that is true, by what justice does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to separate land from those other forms of property which have the same characteristic that they yield revenue without any exertion on the part of the owner? Some hon. Members opposite will not hesitate to call themselves Socialists, and I think they will agree, at any rate, that there is no distinction from their point of view between these two kinds of property. They regard capitalists as just as much the enemies of society as landowners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps they do not call them enemies of society; they always use the most delicate language when speaking of their opponents. They would say that capitalists are just as much a burden on the community as landowners. That is the belief which they express in the writings, and some of them have expressed it in their speeches. Is it quite fair of them, in order to get these Land Taxes through as the thin end of the wedge, to nominally assent to a proposition which they believe to be untrue? They know it is untrue from their point of view, and yet they are combined with certain Gentlemen on this side of the House who assert that there is a distinction. Hon. Members opposite say that this is the thin end of the wedge, and I contend that it is not quite a fair manner of conducting political controversy. If they came forward boldly and said: "We do not believe in your distinction," I could understand them, but they are accepting a distinction which they do not believe in simply because they think it will be a means towards an ultimate end.
  I go further and say that there is in this matter no essential distinction even between unearned increment derived from land and unearned increment which men of exceptional professional ability are able to earn. I contend that no man can earn a large income except from the fact that there is a wealthy community around him. It is the existence of that wealthy community that makes possible the incomes of my hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench, and but for the existence of that community—[An HON. MEMBER-. "Of which we are all part."] Yes, of which we are all part—but for the existence of that community, I will not say my hon. Friends would be penniless, but they might be earning only 20s. a week. If that is admitted, I can see no reason

  171
  why their unearned increment should not be taxed, as well as all other unearned increment. I have often seen it answered in the Press that the distinction is that they have to work for their income—they have to give work in return for what they earn. That is true, but what is the result of pressing that argument to its logical conclusion? It is that nobody is entitled to anything unless he gives work in return. In other words, property qua property is not entitled to any return at all. That must be the result of pressing the argument to its logical conclusion. In other words, if you accept the doctrine of specially taxing unearned increment, you are driven to the conclusion that there ought to be no income accruing to anybody except as the result of daily earnings. That is a very broad proposition. If you adopt that proposition as your working principle, it means that you will destroy the sources of national wealth, because unless people can get a return from invested property they will not trouble to accumulate property in order to invest. Everybody will live up to the full extent of his earnings, and there can be no progressive increase in the wealth of the community.
  After all, what is the origin of the wealth of the nation to-day, and not only of the nation, but of the world? We are richer to-day than we were a thousand years ago solely because individuals in the past have laid aside a certain portion of their wealth instead of spending the whole every day on daily consumption. They have done that because the community in its own interest has recognised the desirability of giving a return to wealth qua wealth and to property qua property. If you cease to give that return, then property will cease to be accumulated, because there will be no motive to accumulate it. The consequence will be that we will gradually go back to the position of our primitive ancestors—a position from which they could not have escaped except by recognising private property. If you once accept the doctrine of unearned increment, you are cutting at the very roots of property, and I want to make this protest against the acceptance of that principle. I admit that it is only introduced here to a moderate extent. When we come to examine the Bill, and especially the draft Bill which the Government have prepared for our better information, we see the enormous number of exceptions which they have been obliged to introduce in order to make this new principle palatable I do not think many
  172
  Members of the House have any conception of the extraordinary complexity which has now been introduced into the Bill solely because the Government have started on a false principle which could not be logically applied without producing glaring injustice. Let me take one illustration. They have now introduced an exemption for glasshouses and greenhouses, but they have been careful not to say whether a gardener is to be allowed to use any of the land alongside his glasshouse. Another illustration is to be found in the Definition Clause. They have got no less than four different definitions of "land value." They do not say which applies to this Unearned Increment Tax. I will not quote the words, but they are to the effect that wherever the words "site value" are used they are to be taken to mean assessable value except in the case of the Unearned Increment Tax. Then when we come back to the Unearned Increment Tax, we find that site value is the value minus whatever deductions are provided for in the rest of the Bill. I defy the Attorney-General to say what is the site value which is to be taxed under this Clause. There is no definition in the Bill. I mention these points incidentally, because they are points which prove the difficulty in which the Government get themselves involved when they start on a false principle.
  I contend that this is a false principle, because it is picking out a particular form of property for penal taxation. We have in this country, as in all other countries, for centuries recognised land as commercially interchangeable with other forms of property. We are now for the first time saying that land alone shall be subject to special taxation, and that other property is not to be subject to it. It is true that by this Clause the tax is confined nominally to future increment. That is deceptive, for this reason. If you say to a man. "If your property rises in value we will take a proportion of the increase," and if you do not say, "If it sinks in value we will bear a portion of the loss," you are by that means depriving him of a portion of the present value, because the present value depends necessarily upon the future value. You deprive him of part of his hope of gain, and therefore of part of the present value. What does that mean? It means that up to this date you have treated these two forms of property as interchangeable. I shall show how injustice is done to particular individuals. I have not possessed land myself, but it might happen that I

  173
  had sold land to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should then have the value and he should have the land, but the State steps in and says he is to pay the tax, although I have the value, and I get off scot free. That injustice must occur directly you depart from the principle of treating all legally-acquired property as equally subject to an equal scale of taxation.
  Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: My hon. Friend (Mr. Cox) has surpassed himself in the feelings of terror which he sought to conjure with regard to this tax. He warns us that if the policy of which this tax is merely an illustration be logically pursued we shall be reduced to the condition of our primitive ancestors. Even Socialism is a paler terror by the side of that which my hon. Friend has conjured up. He intimates to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might and ought logically in pursuance of his own principle not stop at taking 20 per cent. of increment, but ought boldly to go on and take not merely the whole increment, but practically the whole property.
  Mr. COX: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was there was a very simple method by which you could get the whole increment without anybody complaining, namely, by going into the market.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Why does not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt that simple method? Why does he not go into the market and buy the land and take his chance of increment or his chance of decrement? I will tell you why. It is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a Socialist. If he were a Socialist that is precisely the method which he would be advised to adopt. Hon. Members who have said so much about Socialism have not taken the trouble to read Socialist writers. I recommend them before they use the word Socialism, as they now so freely use it, to make some little investigation into the meaning given to that word by those who profess that creed. My right hon. Friend does not profess, and does not believe that it would be of great advantage to the State if it were to proceed to undertake the duties of a land agent or a land speculator. He is out for taxation, and not for land nationalisation. My hon. Friend says that this is a very bad subject
  174
  of taxation; and that we are doing something dreadful, putting a tax upon land and upon property. I ask my hon. Friend what is the effect of that? The effect is to deprive that property of some portion of its present capital value. The House will very easily see why. The putting of additional burdens upon land is an element which will be taken into account by future purchasers. Therefore, future purchasers will give less, and, therefore, there is a diminution of the existing capital value of the land. I am not in the least quarrelling with my hon. Friend's argument to that effect, but I ask him where it leads him to? He is very fond of asking where our arguments lead us. I ask him where his argument leads him? He says that it is unjust to put a burden on the whole of the property, which will have the effect of depriving that property of part of its capital value. On his own argument he ought never to put a tax on property at all. That is the argument not merely of my hon. Friend, but it is the argument of the Front Opposition Bench, and of other Members who have not considered the consequences involved in it.
  If they would consider it they would see that, if the argument means anything, it means that he must not put a tax on realised property, because the effect of even an annual tax upon realised property is to diminish its existing capital value, and they say that that is wrong and that that is confiscation. I say that an argument like that only needs to be fairly regarded in order that its absurdity may be made manifest; because it means simply that we must not tax property. Is that the argument on which hon. Gentlemen opposite proceeded when they introduced the Agricultural Rates Act in 1896? Because if it is true that the addition of a burden lessens existing capital value it must be equally true that the diminution of a burden increases existing capital value. Therefore on their own showing the Agricultural Rates Act added a present of a capital value of millions to the landowners of England. Why was this argument not forthcoming then? [An HON. MEMBER: "It was."] It was not forthcoming from the other side. Why did they not use this argument then? It is equally applicable to cases of relief as it is to cases of additional burden, yet they only appear to apply it to cases of additional burden. But no responsible statesman would get up on either side of this House and say that property ought to be relieved of taxation. Nobody dare say it. It would be

  175
  a monstrous proposition to say with regard to all future taxes that may be required in this great community that they may be laid on trade or anything you like but never on property.
  Mr. COX: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that I put forward any such proposition.
  Sir W. ROBSON: My hon. Friend did not put forward any such propostion, but he put forward a proposition which involved that consequence. I am asking my hon. Friend to consider how far his own argument leads him and where it leads him?
  Mr. COX: My real objection was to picking out one particular form of property for special treatment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The result of this tax was to be a diminution of existing capital value, and he went on to denounce the depreciation of capital value as an act of confiscation. Therefore, I say in that case the burden which you are putting on this property will have the same effect if he puts it on to any other forms of property or on all property. That argument equally applies, and would equally become confiscation. Therefore, when he comes to think about his argument, and see what logical consequences it involves it means no taxation of property. I want nothing but that the logical consequences of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend should be frankly and plainly raised. If property is not to be taxed and is never to have any burden laid on it which may affect its existng capital value, let that proposition be clearly laid down and let us be shown what we have got to deal with. My hon. Friend again put the question, I suppose by way of challenge, why is land different from any other form of property? We have heard the question very often in the course of the Debates, and in order to give an answer I need scarcely go beyond an illustration that can be gathered from our own proceedings concurrently with the passage of this Bill. Is land never to be treated differently from other forms of property? Then why have hon. Members opposite been supporting so many clauses of the Irish Land Bill? The Irish Land Bill is absolutely without justification unless it can be shown that land may well be treated differently from other forms of property. Why are we in the case of Ireland risking Imperial money to such
  176
  gigantic amounts unless there is something about this form of property which there is not about the ordinary easily transferable form of commercial property? There is a difference between land and other forms of property. I wonder whether my hon. Friend voted for the Irish Land Bill.
  Mr. COX: I should certainly have voted against it.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Perhaps on this small Bill he did not vote at all. Perhaps he did not notice the Irish Land Bill. Perhaps this small contemporaneous legislative event did not attract his philosophic attention. I am bound to say that if he had seen fit to apply his philosophic principles to Irish land legislation as he has done to the Budget I should have expected to have heard more of him on the occasion of the passing of that Bill. But he objects to the taxation of increment which is unearned or is described as unearned. What is the alternative? We cannot put everything on Income Tax. To put everything on Income Tax would be very unjust to the classes—and, after all, they are not the whole of the community by any means—who have to pay it. I wonder, then, what my hon. Friend will tax? Nothing unearned. He draws the most dreadful consequences from the taxation of property which is unearned.
  Mr. COX: No.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes, he does. He forgets now what he said a few minutes ago, and it is desirable to extend what he said in order to make it clear. He said that if we were to tax income on property which came under the classification of unearned property the most dreadful results would ensue: people would not trouble to save money, and the more tax you put on unearned property the less would be the trouble to earn money. But I gather that my hon. Friend is in favour of a Supertax. Why is he in favour of a Super-tax? Why should he tax a man because he has got more than £5,000 a year? Why should he put an extra tax on that person? Is it not on the principle that the income which that person enjoys is unearned to a larger extent than of the person who is merely receiving £200 or £300 a year? Is not that the very principle on which he is proceeding without knowing it? Let him give a little further cogitation to the support of the Super-tax, and see whether it does not lead him along this path which my right

  177
  hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been compelled to tread, looking out for property specifically unearned, and making it pay some contribution to the public needs. Because, after all, we have got to get the taxes from somewhere. Do not let us waste time arguing about these taxes. The question of particular taxes is all a matter of comparison. Personally, I would lay down a proposition which, I believe, would be strenuously resisted by the Opposition, and probably by some of my old friends, that all taxes are bad. There are some taxes which hive collateral good effects. For instance, the taxes on drink are said to favour temperance. I believe they do. As an illustration of the truth of that I might observe that in the course of the present Session the taxes on drink certainly have had up to the present some effect in reducing the consumption. I do not know whether habits of long standing will not reassert themselves a little later on, so that the revenue will be recouped, but for the time being there is some reduction in the amount consumed. Whether moderate drinkers have been cutting down or whether extreme persons have become moderate drinkers I do not know, but there you get undoubtedly a collateral benefit from the imposition of a tax.
  But with that exception, or a few rare exceptions of the same character, all taxes are bad. They take money from the pocket of an individual, giving in return undoubtedly that which is well worth the expenditure in regard to common security and many other benefits which he shares in general with the rest of the community; but still, as regards a particular person, you are taking out of his pocket something which inflicts a sacrifice on him, and very frequently indeed it means that the sums of money raised are withdrawn from the profitable employment which he can find for it, and are appropriated by the State to expenditure which is frequently wasteful and nearly always very uneconomically conducted, but which, none the less, is absolutely necessary in some degree. You cannot keep the nation safe unless the Government have the means. You cannot have a peaceful and well-ordered industrial society, where men may look forward to some kind of comfort and consolation in their old age, without some provision such as that which we have been trying to make in the case of old age pensions. We are dealing, therefore, with expenditure that must be met, and must be raised by some hardship upon the whole community. You
  178
  cannot devise a tax—nobody can—which shall fall with absolute equality of incidence so as to impose no more than absolute equality of sacrifice upon the whole community. It passes the wit of man to devise anything of the kind. The nearest approach to it is the Income Tax, which, of course, is partial. You certainly make no approach to it in the matter of indirect taxation, which falls as a crushing burden upon those least able to bear it. Where do you find a better tax than that which we have selected—a better type of tax which falls on a man's luck? Because that is the very tax which my right hon. Friend has now devised. Where will you find a tax that inflicts less hardship than this? I do not think anyone can indicate any such tax. The Motion before us now is to omit the Income Tax, under which the owner of property has to value his land on a particular date, and he can omit all prospective increase. If the owner values his property this year, on 30th April, he puts a value before the Commissioners, and he will take into account not merely the use to which he is now putting the land, but the whole prospective future value and prospective user will be considered by him, and all that is now to be exempt. I want to know where in the whole range of taxation you will find a tax which inflicts less in the sense of sacrifice than that. So far from its being a had tax, the only reason why it is feared by my hon. Friend and others is that it is too good; it is so good, it is so just, the case for it is so unanswerable, that everybody thinks that we shall go on with it until there is no property left. It is the excellence of this tax which excites the alarm and terror. If we have found out the right kind of tax at last, why should we stop? I dare say there may be some reason for thinking that when a tax once proves to be good, it is one very easily to be increased; but, on the other hand, I think hon. Members opposite will remember that it is not a very agreeable work laying on any tax, especially laying on any direct tax. I myself believe that as long as you keep to a direct tax there is not any great danger of an indiscriminate extension of it, or an unjust extension of it. Everybody knows a direct tax when they see it, and everybody whom it affects rises to oppose it. As to indirect taxation, which I suppose my hon. Friend would like to substitute—
  Mr. COX: No.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I know my hon. Friend is a very good Free Trader, but I am afraid his line of policy will again lead him into a kind of track which I will not mention. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It would be out of order, nor is there any occasion to mention it; everybody sees what it is. What other kind of tax could we substitute for this tax? I quite agree that among the many distinctions between direct and indirect taxation direct taxation is difficult to impose, and still more difficult to extend, whereas indirect taxation is easy to impose, and is even more easy to extend. Therefore, I think the fear that this tax is going to grow to any great degree, as some hon. Members appear to apprehend, is a mistake. The arguments which I have addressed to the House in reply to hon. Members have not been unheard of; still, I thought it necessary to advance them in response to what has been stated.
  Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: As far as my memory carries me back the sum which this fluty is going to bring in is about £50,000, of which £25,000 is to be given to the municipalities, and really to talk about the extraordinarily high tax on increment when so small a sum is to be brought in to the Exchequer appears to be rather out of place in discussing finance, for, after all, this is a Finance Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this tax might depreciate the capital value of property, but, as I understand him, that does not so much matter, because that result is common to all taxation imposed on capital value. I think, however, he omitted to tell the House what amount of depreciation might be expected from this tax. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking what was the value of the land which would be affected by this tax, but I could not get any answer. Surely, in a Finance Bill, one of the most important things one requires to know is not only the amount of money the tax is going to bring in, but the effect which the tax may have. If the capital value of land is going to be affected by this tax, I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that it is perfectly impossible to take away the whole fifth of the future increment value of a thing without making anybody who contemplates buying it say to himself—"If the fifth of increment value is going to be taken away I am not going to give so much for it." Not only is the whole of the fifth of the increment value to be taken away for the purposes of the State in the
  180
  case of land, but you are going to take Estate Duty, Settlement Duty, and Succession Duty, so that the taxes on this form of property, land, will be that one-fifth of the increment value will be taken, and you may take 15 per cent. Estate Duty, 2 per cent. Settlement Duty, and, in the case of a stranger, 10 per cent. Succession Duty—altogether 47 per cent., or nearly half the value. My hon. Friends opposite complain that the Government have not taken enough. I wonder how much they want for the first bite? Surely 47 per cent. is fairly good for a start.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It only brings in £50,000 a year.
  Mr. RIDSDALE: It only brings in £50,000 in this first year. Of course, I quite agree that in future years it is anticipated that it may bring in a great deal more; but, as I understand, we are now-engaged in discussing the Finance Bill, and ostensibly the finance of the year 1909, though what we really have to look forward to is what will be the result some five or ten years hence. I want to point out that all you get is £25,000 of the £50,000; the other £25,000 is going to the municipalities; and you are going to depreciate capital value to an unknown amount, and on that unknown amount of capital you are going to levy increased taxation, though you have not worked out what will be its effect. You do not know how it is going to result. I remember reading the speech of my hon. Friend now the Under-Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. Masterman), in which he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an idealist. It seems to me that this taxation is literally idealistic taxation; it is not finance, and, as far as my humble experience goes, if idealists have anything to do with money it is really unfortunate. The idealist who is placed in the position of trustee finds himself occasionally in a rather awkward position, while those for whom he is trustee go into the workhouse. The result of this taxation ought to be worked out in figures. We know we are going to get £25,000, but we have no earthly means of ascertaining what is going to be the eventual result of these taxes on land.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Attorney-General began his statement by saying that he did not know whether the speech of the hon. Member for Preston was going to lead. We were wondering where it was going to lead the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, for it led him into strange regions. When I heard his speech it sug-

  181
  gested to me that it was one which might have been delivered on this side of the House when the hon. and learned Gentle man was in Opposition, for it rather appeared as if he desired to delay as much as he could rather than further the progress of this Bill. As far as his arguments and his statement are concerned, I do not think anything has been said on this side of the House that could possibly bear the interpretation that has been put upon it, namely, that we object to any tax upon property. I have heard nothing of the kind said. What we do object to is the picking out of one particular kind of property for penal taxation. That is the point to which we have the greatest objection. In regard to the question of this tax, it is defended by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground that a tax on increment value is an ideal tax. I agree that it is in principle and theory an attractive tax, and if you impose theoretical taxes upon theoretical people there would be nothing whatever to say against it. But this Bill as it now stands amended, with 139 Amendments put into it and with this extraordinary new Clause 25, is an attempt to put your ideal theory of the taxation of increment value into practical form, and I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has entirely failed in his attempt, and that this is not a practical tax. The Government have attempted in this Bill to put an idealist theory into practice, and they have absolutely failed. This Bill is not a practicable Bill. The whole Bill lies in this Clause, which practically covers, as the hon. Member opposite says, any attempt to tax increment value in one form or
  another. This Bill nominally imposes various complicated taxes on increment value, but I say it is a totally unworkable measure. It may be forced through Parliament, and it may be enacted, but no lawyer, as far as I am aware, has yet been able to interpret it or judge of its effect. As a practical attempt at taxation, it is a miserable failure now, and it will be a miserable failure in the future, discrediting the Government who introduced it. Therefore, I support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. T. HART-DAVIES: The hon. Member for Preston has asked wherein does land differ from any other form of property? I was rather disappointed that the Attorney-General did not give us any answer to that question, and that he only referred to the Irish Land Bill. I would like to answer the hon. Member for Preston. Land differs from other property in this way: It is a thing absolutely essential to human existence, it is a thing limited in extent, and it is a thing which is in private hands. It cannot be said of any other property, as it can be said of land, that it is essential to human existence. That is the difference between land and all other forms of property, and I hope the hon. Member, when he thinks it over, will see the truth of what I have stated. I hope we shall not hear again the question asked why land is different from all other forms of property.
  Question put, "That the words, 'Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the,' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 89.

  Division No. 807.]

  AYES.

  [6.2 p.m.

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Crossley, William J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Alden, Percy

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinurgh, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Armitage, R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duckworth, Sir James.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Erskine, David C.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Essex, R. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cameron, Robert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Falconer, James

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beale, W. P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clough, William

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ginnell, L.

  Boland, John

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Brace, William

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Branch, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Brodle, H. C.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gulland, John W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M' Micking, Major G.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Massie, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Summerbell, T.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hodge, John

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O' Grady, J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Keating, Matthew

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richardson, A.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robinson, S.

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Lynch, H. B.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  NOES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, P. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bertram, Julius

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stanier, Beville

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clark, George Smith

  Keswick, William

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M' Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cox and Mr. Ridsdale.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, after the word "the" ["paid on the increment
  184
  value"], to insert the word "unearned."
  The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear at the start that the charge is to be on the unearned increment value and not upon the increment value. I venture to think if it were adopted, and it was urged on the Government in Committee, it would help to put an end to a great deal of difficulty and misapprehension with regard to the rest of the Clauses on the Paper. In making speeches on the platform those Members of the Government or representatives of the Government who have spoken have asked for public support on the ground that this was a tax on the unearned increment. When we come to the Bill itself we find that it is not. At all events, the Government declined in Committee, and I presume they will do so again now, to make it clear in unequivocal language that the charge is upon unearned increment. What do they do on the other hand? They make a charge on the increment value; that is to say, practically on the gross profit, the difference between what the property is worth on a given date and what it is worth at a later date. I am not going to analyse all the extraordinary things that have got to be assumed with regard to those values. That is not the point. The point is the insertion of the word "unearned." In all these Clauses that relate to increment, and they are the first seven or eight, and a considerable portion of Clause 35, all kinds of exemptions and qualifications are introduced with the object of getting at what is supposed to be the unearned increment, but they do not achieve that object. They leave this practically a tax upon a man's profit, that he receives, or that he ought to have received, owing to the increased value of his property from all sources, and then, by a series of whittlings away, it is supposed to be brought down to the unearned increment, but it is not. That is not effectually done; it is impossible to do it effectually.
  If the Bill had been put round the other way altogether, and if it had been stated that when the State or some official body had been formed and could prove what the unearned part of the increment was, that 20 per cent. was to be handed over, of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that, instead of getting very much money under those circumstances, he would get very little. They take exactly the opposite course, and say, "We are going to take 20 per cent. of all the profit unless you can prove that you, the owner, have caused those advices in price, have laid out this sum of
  186
  money—in other words, if there is going to be a profit in the land we are going to take 20 per cent. of it, unless you can prove that within the four corners of the different sections of this Bill you have directly made that profit yourself, and that the State and the community had nothing whatever to do with it." That is the unfairness of the proposition, and it is to call attention to that and the unfair way in which it is carried out that this Amendment is put down. The Government have been challenged in Committee, and are challenged now, to make it quite clear at the very beginning of this Bill that they are going to take 20 per cent. of the unearned increment. The Bill does not do so, and it is in order to get more they have all the exemptions and clauses which come up later on, and therefore the way they are putting it is not honest. They are seeking to get a great deal more than 20 per cent. of the unearned increment, and they will refuse now to make it clear that they are not going to do that particular thing. It seems to me on studying the whole of these very difficult Clauses that the State will even tually, if they are carried out, get a great deal more than 20 per cent. of the unearned increment. The State will get 20 per cent. of the profit which a man makes owing to his own enterprise or expenditure in many directions which are not provided for in the Bill. In view of the claim that this is only a tax of 20 per cent. on unearned increment, we now challenge the Government at the outset of this stage of the Ball to show whether they are bonâ fide with regard to unearned increment.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANTformally seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Amendment was moved and very fully debated in Committee. The Government did not see their way then to accept it for reasons which were stated several times, not merely by myself, but also, I think, by the Attorney-General, and after listening very carefully to the speech just made I cannot see that the hon. Member has advanced any fresh arguments which should cause the Government to change their mind. I do not agree with him that the effect of the Bill is to tax increment which is in any sense of the term unearned; but, even if it were, the insertion of this word would make no difference. It does not depend at all on the classifying adjective, but on the subsequent provisions of the Bill, notably those with regard to deductions and

  187
  the method of valuation, whether increment can be classified as unearned. It is no use inserting words of this kind in an Act of Parliament, and therefore I regret I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think there is this amount of force in the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says in effect that it is no use putting in this word, because if the Bill is unjust it remains as unjust after the insertion of the word as it was before; and if the Bill is just why put in the word "unearned"? But I entirely agree with the idea of my hon. Friend in proposing the Amendment. The professions of the Government on the platform have been that the Bill does not touch anything but unearned increment, but my hon. Friend says that when you come to examine the provisions of the Clause it does touch earned increment. If that be true, and it is true, obviously my hon. Friend's Amendment is only of the smallest value if he introduces a series of consequential Amendments which will really confine the Bill strictly and truly to unearned increment. By itself the word means nothing but an empty and, I fear, a mendacious profession of the effect of the Bill. The Bill will announce on the face of it that it only means to touch unearned increment, but when people turn to the Clauses those who are clever enough to understand them—perhaps a very small minority of the population—will discover that it does touch earned increment. In that case I should say that, at all events, we need not add to the many crimes of the Bill that of bearing in the forefront of its Clauses a profession which it does not carry out in its subsequent parts. Let us leave that solitary virtue of consistency to the proposals of the Government, and not destroy the artistic unity of this wonderful performance by making a sort of display of financial virtue—if it be a financial virtue to tax unearned increment—which is not carried out by the subsequent Clauses of the Bill.
  There is perhaps another objection which may be urged against my hon. Friends pressing the Amendment. If the House inserted the word "unearned" the conclusion would be even more obvious than at present that the principle of the Government ought consistently to be applied to every form of property that has unearned increment. I am not aware of any kind of property which increases in value where
  188
  a part of the increment is not unearned, or of any kind of property which diminishes in value which would not diminish more if some part of the return were not due to the "community," as it is called. I should be very sorry myself to be a consenting party to any suggestion that if ever property increases in value the State has a right to take a percentage of it unless the owner of the property can prove that the increase in value is the direct result of his own individual action. I always myself cherish a hope, usually an illusory hope, that any such small investments that I make may increase in value. If they do, it is clearly not due to any exertions of my own, and though somebody may have earned that increment it clearly is not the shareholder—in this instance myself. Under these circumstances I rather hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I do not think it makes the Bill more honest; in fact, it makes it somewhat less honest; and it seems to endorse a general proposition of taxation to which I individually cannot give my assent.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved to leave out the word "nine" ["the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine "], and insert instead thereof the word "ten."
  This point was debated in Committee, but it was four months ago, and if we are to start these duties it is quite clear that we ought to have a fixed date upon which they should start. In addition to the fact that four months have elapsed since we studied the question of the date, there has been a complete alteration in the Bill with regard to the method of valuation. In the original Bill every owner of property was to send in by a fixed date, which is now nearly reached, his own valuation of his property. But that was abandoned in Committee, and new Clauses were proposed by the Government under which a body of officials is to be constituted, by whom there is to be a valuation of the whole of the land of the country, and it is essential that that valuation should be carried out before these taxes can be justly or adequately laid. I submit, not from any political or controversial point of view, but entirely as a matter of business and common-sense, that if there is to be a valuation of the whole of the land of the country, it

  189
  cannot be made before these officials are appointed, and they cannot be appointed until the Budget is passed. Why then should we go back to 30th April, 1909? It would be unjust in a great many cases for valuers arriving about 18 months hence to attempt to value a given piece of property as it stood on 30th April, 1909. The taxes cannot have any effect until that valuation is made, or until the different lands have been classified, and it is seen whether they are liable to any of the taxes, and if so, which. All that will depend on the valuation to be made by these officials who have not yet been appointed. I submit this Amendment in order to simplify the matter, and make the valuation more just, and to enable it to be made a great deal more accurate from the point of view of getting at the real value of the land. To go back to 30th April, 1909, and impose the tax when there is no machinery in existence, or can possibly be in existence, is an absurd proposition from a business point of view. I would have liked to have proposed 1911 or 1912, which I believe will be far nearer the date when the machinery will really begin to work; but that would have been met at once by the reply that this is the Finance Bill of the present year, or some equally ridiculous proposition. Therefore, I content myself with moving to substitute the word "ten" for the word "nine."
  Mr. REMNANTformally seconded the Amendment.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I do not think the fact that the proceedings on the Finance Bill have been delayed a little longer than was anticipated really justifies the change which the hon. Member desires. We have been accused of budgetting for the future instead of for the present, and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) just now accused me of making allusions to idealistic tendencies; but certainly the adoption of this Amendment would mean that the whole of this years finance would remain utterly unaffected by the Increment Duty. We should deliberately transfer the whole thing to next year. We do not anticipate that. Figures have been presented showing that there is an anticipation of a certain amount of Increment Duty this year, and to transfer it from 1909 to 1910 would mean the abandonment of a whole year's increment, which may in many cases be small, but which may be a very appreciable amount.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) had been a little more explicit. He complains that the acceptance of this Amendment would mean the sacrifice of all prospect of revenue from this tax during the present year. That is quite true. But what would be the amount of sacrifice to the Exchequer? It is not merely that we have reached a much later point in the year than when we last discussed the matter, but the Government have, I will not say wholly, but half changed the objects to which the tax is to be applied. When we discussed the matter before the tax was to be for national purposes paid into the Treasury and applied by them to any of the Votes granted in Committee of Supply. But now only one-half of the tax is to go to those purposes, the Government having promised that the other half, under some system to be hereafter explained in this or some other Parliament, shall go to the local authorities. When you make allowance for that, and for the time at which we have arrived, what sum of money is really involved in the proposition of my hon. Friend? I know why the hon. Gentleman opposite did not mention the amount. The amount involved is so ridiculously small that his contention would have been seen to be absurd at once. This tax may have many virtues or it may have many faults, according to whether you view it from one point or another. But its worst enemy would not say against it, and its best friend cannot claim for it that it is going to make any material addition to meeting the deficit of the present year or paying for the "Dreadnoughts," which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so reluctant to provide, and which he is so fond of talking about. It is perfectly ridiculous to treat this tax as if it had any material connection with the finances of the present year. Under these circumstances that objection, at any rate, cannot be urged as a material one against the Motion of my hon. Friend. But I should really like to know from the Government how they are going to collect a tax on a valuation which is not made? They cannot collect any tax until the valuation is made. They would not be fortunate enough, I imagine, even then to be able to lay their hands on exactly those properties which will become liable to duties this year in order to begin with them. They cannot tell what the occasions may be in which the duty may arise, or when these occasions may arise. Under these circumstances, quite apart from the merits of the

  191
  tax, and merely from a practical standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how the Government think that they can apply it within the limits of the present year.
  Question put, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 87.

  Division No. 808.]

  AYES.

  [6.35 p.m.

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Alden, Percy

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Phillips, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Armitage, R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Rees, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Richardson, A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Branch, James

  Hodge, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bright, J. A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

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

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Sears, J. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Seely, Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Keating, M.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cleland, J. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Summerbell, T.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, Levy, (Essex, Harwich)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lynch, H. B.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duckworth, Sir James

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M' Micking, Major G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Erskine, David C.

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Massie, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Falconer, J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, J. Lioyd (Carmarthen)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morse, L. L.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Winfrey, R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Gulland, John W.

  O' Grady, J.

  NOES.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, P. S.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Gerdon, J.

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hamilton, Marquess of

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M' Arthur, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Remnant.

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

  Oddy, John James

  Sir W. ROBSONmoved to leave out the words immediately preceding paragraph (a), "the duty or a proportionate part thereof shall become due."
  The Amendment which I propose to omit here is of a verbal character, as I am afraid are the great bulk of the Amendments which it will be my duty to propose. These words are unnecessary as the Clause stands now. It says that Increment Value Duty shall be charged, levied, and paid, and it then says that it shall become due on the occasions mentioned. It next gives the occasions on which the tax shall be collected. It is quite sufficient to say that the tax shall be charged—as at the beginning—and that on the occasions specified it shall be collected. Therefore we have shortened the Clause. There is another reason. If I explain it now it will facilitate my task on later Amendments. In the words proposed to be omitted we have used the expression "due." The word "due" is quite clear enough, but throughout every Clause where the word "due" is used it has given rise to ambiguity. "Due" has, of course, two meanings. It may mean "payable." It is sometimes used—I do not say that is its proper meaning, but it has been used once in the course of this Bill—in the sense of "accrue," though not collected. It was desirable that this sort of ambiguity in the phraseology of the Bill should be removed, so we have substituted for the word "due" the words "to be collected." When we are dealing with the amount of duty which has
  194
  accrued, but is not yet payable, we have in later Amendments substituted the words "unsatisfied."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Bill read with the Amendment? Is the word "and," that precedes the words proposed to be omitted by the Attorney-General, required?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think it reads this way: The governing words are at the beginning of the Clause, "subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid" an Increment Value Duty. Then the principal sentence—the framework of the sentence—goes on "and"—which the right hon. Gentleman thinks unnecessary—"and"—(a) on the occasion of any transfer, (b) on the occasion of the death of any person, (c) where the land or any interest in the land; and in the next paragraph proportionate duty shall be collected. So it makes a complete sentence.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert after the word "sale," in paragraph (a) ["on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land"], the following words, "other than a sale by a mortgagee," but I do not propose to move it in this place. I understand that on Clause 39, in reference to

  195
  which the Government have some Amendment of their own, an opportunity will be given for the purpose of discussing the position of the mortgagee in reference to the whole of the taxes—the Increment Taxes included—and if that is the case then I agree that it will be far better to have a discussion on the question, which is a very serious and a very important question, of the mortgagee with regard to property. Under these circumstances, I will not now move this Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I beg to move, after the second "the" in paragraph (a) to insert the following words, "fee simple of the."
  This is really a verbal Amendment. Instead of saying "on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land," we say, "on the occasion of any transfer on the sale of the fee simple of the land." We think that makes the matter much clearer, and then I have to define fee simple in the way that includes certain interest. This occurs very frequently throughout the Bill, so that on future occasions I will simply move it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir WILLIAM ROBSONmoved to insert after "or" in paragraph (a) the word "of."
  Amendment made.
  Lord ROBERT CECILmoved after the word "land" in paragraph (a) ["any interest in the land "], to insert the words "other than land required for the purpose of being so sold or leased."
  This Amendment raises a point which, I am quite aware, was discussed in Committee, but not under very favourable conditions. My recollection is it was raised for the first time at half-past one in the morning. There was a brief discussion, and at the end of that discussion it became impossible to raise it again in Committee at a more seasonable hour. The object of the Amendment is quite simple, and I venture to think is one which ought to receive the attention of anyone who desires that this Bill should be at least tolerably just. The general theory of Increment Duty is, as I understand it, that a man in possession of land ought not to take the whole of the profits that accrue to him by reason of the sale of that land if a certain portion of the profits have been due not to his own exertions, but to the action of other people, sometimes described as communal action. But there
  196
  is a very important case where, though it cannot be said that any part of the profit is due to a man's own exertion, yet the profit is the result of intellectual exertion on his part, and intellectual exertion of an exceedingly valuable character in the interest of the State. Practically the whole, or almost the whole, of the development in modern times takes place by reason of builders buying land on the outskirts of towns, developing that land, and reselling it at a profit. A great portion of that profit, of course, is due to the works they have executed upon that land, and no part, as I understand, of that profit is hit by the Government proposals, but a certain proportion of that profit is due merely to the fact that they have brought the land into building; that it has become valuable for building, and therefore that what the Government call communal action has increased its value and the profit derived from that is profit hit by the Government. But these people do not live entirely by that kind of transaction. They deal with land in exactly and precisely the same way as you deal in any other commodity, and the process is exactly the same. The wholesale dealer in any commodity—tea, or corn, or wood, or anything else—buys the article wholesale, divides it into small proportions, sells it retail, and makes a profit, partly by the fact that he is paid for his service in dividing it up and partly also because he looks to buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which is taking advantage of the communal value of the article.
  The builder acts in precisely the same way; there is no distinction whatever. He buys land in the gross, divides it up into small parcels and sells it, and he makes his profit partly by dividing it up and partly by his acuteness in being able to see where the land is going to be of the greatest value. Now you propose to tax that man 20 per cent. on every profit he makes in that way. That is to say, you are going to put upon those who gain an income derived in this particular way—an Income Tax Duty which cannot be lower than 20 per cent. It may be very much higher, because such a man will have to pay upon every profitable transaction this Income Tax, and for every transaction that turns out not to be profitable he will not get anything back He will have to pay, therefore, not 20 per cent. only, but 20 per cent. upon profitable transactions in which he indulges—a very much larger amount than 20 per cent. upon the balance

  197
  of his profits in land. I do not understand how the Government can possibly defend that proposal. They never have defended it or advanced a scintilla of argument in defence of it. It was put before them more than once not only in this House, but by deputations. I am utterly unable to see how it can be defended except in this way, that the moment you begin to exempt builders or people who deal in land you find yourself in very great difficulty as to the way you should treat other land. I agree in that, but it only shows how utterly unsound this tax is in the very essence of its being. I still think, even if it is impossible to deal with other injustices raised by this taxation—and I may incidentally observe it has nothing to do with dukes at all, but deals with a very deserving class of this country—this particular injustice ought to be removed from the Bill, if nothing else is done. I beg therefore to move the Amendment.
  Mr. REMNANT: I second the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord, and I agree entirely with everything he has said upon the question. Surely the Government, who have professed themselves to be so anxious to facilitate the distribution of land among the people of this country, ought to accept the Amendment, which is intended to protect companies or private people who deal in land as a commodity and as the object of their work. I fail to see why in this case land should be treated in any different way from other commodities, such, for instance, as those of the baker who deals in bread, or the tailor who deals in clothes, or the banker, and so on. It seems to me there is no reason at all for taxing the trade profits of certain people, without making any allowances for trade losses, and for dealing in a different way from other people with this deserving class of the community. The dealer and traders in land represent with their employés a very considerable number of people, and, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, land is suffering under a very severe depression at the present time. I will not say whether it is due to the Budget or to other causes, but I do say that land of this kind is in a very depressed condition, and is likely to remain so. Unless the Government see their way to treat those people indicated in the Amendment more fairly they will be inflicting on a very large number of people connected with this particular trade and industry an injury which I do not think they deserve in any way, and they will be
  198
  depriving them of the protection of equal laws given to all other traders. I hope the Government will even at this late hour really act up to their professions by making the exemption asked for in the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, submitted as a justification for raising a second Debate upon it that the first Amendment was moved at half-past one in the morning. Well, if every other Amendment moved at half-past one in the morning is to be proposed again, and another Debate raised upon it, I am afraid the Report stage would last for a very long time indeed. I do not think the Noble Lord himself was to blame that the discussion was a very inadequate one. I find there were at least 15 speeches upon that occasion, and the Debate lasted a very long time.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It depends upon what you call a speech.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not mean to put myself up as a censor or to express an opinion as to what should claim to be a speech or not. All I know is the Noble Lord delivered two speeches upon the occasion, and I know there were two or three from the Front Bench opposite, and there were speeches from the Government Front Bench. But, apart from that, I object in the first place to the words of the Noble Lord's Amendment, and I am quite sure that they would not confine the privileges he proposes to extend by these words to the particular class he has in view. It would be open to every man to say, "I bought land with a view of leasing or selling it." Every man who invested in land could say so. Every man who bought land, either for the purpose of occupying or cultivating it himself, or for the purpose of leasing or selling it, could claim that he bought it for purposes which would give him exemption under the Amendment of the Noble Lord. That is not the object which the Noble Lord has in view, but his speech is not at all consistent with his Amendment. Assuming for the moment, and it is necessary for the purposes of this Amendment to assume that it is desirable to tax the unearned increment in land, why should you exempt those who buy land for the purpose of leasing or selling it? The Noble Lord says that that is their business, but is that really sufficient answer? If it is, then it ought to be a sufficient answer against

  199
  rating as well. Take the case of a builder who builds a row of houses. He might say, "Why rate me at the same rate as the man over the road? This is my business. If you put 5s. or 10s. on this property you are taking away from my profits, and to that extent I should suffer." I think it is the first time a principle of this kind has been suggested in taxation, and I do not think the Noble Lord can seriously justify the introduction of an idea into our fiscal arrangements to the effect that you should say to a man, "If you buy merely for investment we will tax you, but if you are buying for speculation we will let you off." That is the proposition put forward by the Noble Lord. [An HON. MEMBER: "it is not a speculation."] Then what else is it? It is purely buying land to sell at a higher price, and surely that is a speculation, or, at any rate, that is what a builder would call it. The man is speculating in land and buying it in order to sell at a higher price. Why tax the man who invests in land and let off the man who speculates in land? There is absolutely no principle in this proposal, and it is really a thoroughly wild notion which has no precedent; it has no precedent and no justification in logic or common-sense or in any business arrangement I know of. The Noble Lord says we are taxing a man on his profits, but you are no more taxing him on his profits than you are rating him on his profits. Rates affect the profits of the man very considerably. In fact every tax upon property of that kind, whether it is a rate or a tax, must affect the profits. Let the Noble Lord see exactly what we are doing. In the first place, we are only starting from the valuation this year. If a man has paid a certain sum of money last year for land and it has gone up in value that increment belongs to him, because we are only beginning with the present value. We are allowing a margin of 10 per cent. for all these charges and for profits before we touch the increment.
  Lord R. CECIL: No; the 10 per cent. might be considered as 10 per cent. per annum.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly not, because 10 per cent. per annum would be so irrational a proposal that I do not think anyone imagined I meant that. There is an allowance of 10 per cent. upon the profit he makes upon the land before you begin taxing him. You afterwards take one-fifth of the profit after allowing not
  200
  what he spends upon the property, because you do not deduct merely what he spends, you deduct the value which he creates by means of the money he has spent, which is a very different thing.
  Lord R. CECIL: That is what I said.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very often a builder creates a value which is much greater than the actual amount of money spent, but he nevertheless gets his 10 percent., and he gets in addition all profit attributable to the money he spends and the skill and brains and enterprise he puts into it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in the habit of saying that the mere fact that you have got a 20 per cent. charge on increment is going to affect the value of land. Now you cannot have it both ways. If it is going to affect the value of the land then the builder must have discounted that when he bought the land. Therefore, it is something which he has already discounted in the price he has paid. It is something he has already got an allowance for from the person from whom he has bought. That is the argument which is always used on the other side. I do not think the Noble Lord would make himself responsible for a proposal that you should adopt this perfectly novel, irrational, and imperfect principle of discriminating between the man who buys merely for speculation and the man who buys merely for investment. If you do you could not carry it out because every man would say that he bought his land for the purpose of leasing it, or selling it, and therefore, you would get no tax at all. For these reasons I submit that the decision arrived at in Committee is one which the House would do well to adhere to.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has criticised me for not taking any share in the earlier discussion of this proposition. I propose now very briefly to remedy that omission in order to put myself right with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the defence of the right hon. Gentleman? He says, "How utterly irrational it is to distinguish between the man who speculates in land and the man who invests in land." I would ask why is it more irrational to distinguish between a man who lives on his property and one who does not live on his property? What is a speculator in land? He is a man who does business for the community at considerable risk to himself. Why is a distinction drawn in this case as against the investor who does nothing?

  201
  The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of logic and a great many other things, and he asks how can the Noble Lord be so irrational and even so wild as to suppose that we can distinguish between the man whose property exists in land, for which he does nothing but take the rent, and the man who takes a great risk to meet a public need? When my Noble Friend made his suggestion he was doing his best really to carry out the intentions of the Government. That he should have thrown at his head all these hard words, such as want of logic and principle, really fills me with astonishment. Of course, the Government have refused to accept the Amendment, and it is not much use having a discussion upon it much longer. It is, however, interesting because it throws light upon the way the Government are proceeding. I understand now that this is the first of a long series of subjects in regard to which these principles are to be gradually extended in order to deal with all the interests in the community. What my Noble Friend desires to save from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's grip is that increase in the value of the land which exactly corresponds with the increase in the value of a commodity when it is sold retail instead of wholesale. When, for instance, tea is sold retail there is an increase in the value, and it fetches more money because it is being sold retail instead of wholesale. That is unearned increment, I understand, in the view of the Government, in the value of tea. Apparently the man who buys wholesale and sells retail is a speculator. His gains are
  analogous to the case mentioned by my Noble Friend. The dominant principle of the Government appears to be this: It is quite proper to regard as unearned increment that increase in the value of any commodity due to being dealt with retail instead of wholesale. The right hon. Gentleman defends that proposition by arguments which would apply to every commodity sold at a higher price retail than it is bought wholesale. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say if you do not hold that view you throw over the principle of rating, because people are rated on the profits which they make in shops, and all the rest of it. Are we to understand that this method of dealing with commercial transactions in land is only the beginning of a system in which all retail profits are to be attacked on the ground that there is in them an element of the unearned increment? It is to that conclusion, and no other, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech points. My Noble Friend distinctly made it clear to the House that he was dealing exactly with the case I put of a man who buys land and gains on the transaction, because he is carrying out with regard to transactions in land precisely what the retail dealer in tea does in regard to transactions in tea. That is my Noble Friend's point, and it has not been met by the Government. I hope the tea dealers will take notice of this.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 221.

  Division No. 809.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Moore, William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, P. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Oddy, John James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bertram, Julius

  Gordon, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renton, Leslie

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Stanier, Beville

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Starkey, John R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Remnant.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  NOES.

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Alden, Percy

  Gulland, John W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Armitage, R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, G. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richardson, A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hazieton, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brace, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hodge, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Sears, J. E

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Seely, Colonel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Tennant, H, J. (Berwickshire)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Massie, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Erskine, David

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Essex, R. W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Williams J. (Glamorgan)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Falconer, J.

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Winfrey, B.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Amendment made: In paragraph (b), after the word "the" ["where the land"], to insert the words "fee simple of the."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words: "Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos,whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, marriage shall, for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be valuable consideration; and."
  This is an Amendment to omit certain words which we insert elsewhere in the form of a new Clause more beneficial to the subject, and, I think, more satisfactory to the House. The words here merely say that marriage shall be deemed to be a valuable consideration. It was very doubtful whether words thus framed would have had any effect. Anyhow, we have carefully considered the matter, and have gone much further. We have, in Clause 59, third paragraph, amended the principal Finance Act so that all gifts inter vivos made in consideration of marriage shall be free of the duty.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (c), after the word "the" ["where the land"], to insert the words "fee simple of the."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved, in paragraph (c), after the figures "1885" ["Ireland Revenue Act, 1885"], to insert the words "in such a manner or on such permanent trusts that the land or interest is not liable to Death Duties."
  This is an Amendment to insert words to prevent an anticipated but a not very likely danger. One of the occasions upon which the duty is made payable is where the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as defined by Section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885. It was pointed out during the Debate that a body corporate might hold land as a mortgagee or trustee, and that it would be advisable to provide against that case. We propose, therefore, to insert the words mentioned in this Amendment.
  Amendment made: After paragraph (c) to leave out the words "and on each of those occasions."—[Sir W. Robson.]

  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 as 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 be attributable to buildings, structures, or other things 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 the expenditure of money on any redemption of land tax or of any rentcharge as defined in this Act effected after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, or to goodwill or any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land, and, in the case of agricultural land the value of which is

  207
  due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes, also, in respect of any part of that value which is proved to the Commissioners to be attributable to works of a permanent character, executed by or on behalf or at the expense of any person interested in the land, or to the good husbandry of any person in occupation of or interested in the land.
  (3) The Commissioners shall record all allowances and deductions made under this Section.
  (4) 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 determine. On the application at any time of any person entitled to the fee simple of or to an interest in any land, the Commissioners shall apportion or reapportion the original site value of the land amongst such parts of the land as may be specified in the application in such proportions as they think just, and shall give a certificate of any apportionment or reapportionment so made. The value attributed on any such apportionment or reapportionment 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.
  (5) Where the owner of the fee simple of any land, or any person entitled to an interest in the land, proves to the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has acquired for a consideration, being money or money's worth, the fee simple of or interest in the land within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, and that the total value of the fee simple of the land, as calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration then given, exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this Part of this Act, after deducting any part of that value which is attributable to works of a permanent character executed since the purchase or acquisition, or where the mortgagee of any land proves that he or any of his predecessors in title has advanced upon mortgage on the land an amount which exceeds that total value, such sum shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty for the original site
  208
  value of the land as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the total value as so calculated of the fee simple or the amount advanced on mortgage as the case requires, was at the time the site value of the land.
  Mr. B. STANIERmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["the increment value of any land"], to insert the words "exclusive of the minerals comprised therein."
  I move this Amendment to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is absolutely clear that minerals are not included in this Clause. We want them excluded, because they are already subject to the Mineral Rights Duty, and they are of an unknown quantity. You cannot define them, and you cannot get any reliable information even from the Government offices. There are no maps or surveys that give absolutely definite information. According to the Government's survey, a railway made in Staffordshire; should have cost £150,000, but the actual cost was £200,000. The geological survey was wrong, the subsoils were wrong, and even the minerals below were wrong. I can go further than that. I can tell you of an ironstone estate in Staffordshire where the seams started at two feet and gradually worked out until nothing at all was obtained, yet they were shown on the Survey as being of uniform thickness. Now, minerals are often also under the land, but are not owned by the surface owner, and cannot be either sold or worked by him. On these three points I think I can show that they are of unknown quantity, and I move this Amendment so that the matter may be finally cleared up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where the minerals are being worked, as the hon. Member knows very well, there are special provisions in the Bill dealing with cases of that kind. But he is referring, I take it, to the case of unworked minerals, and he asks that the mineral value in land shall be excluded for the purposes of Increment Duty. We cannot possibly agree to that, and I think he will see the reason why. Suppose he has a farm in a mineral district. Its value to-day may be £2,000. But if a colliery is opened anywhere in the neighbourhood the value of the land, it being on the coal measure, would probably go up, and it might be worth, in five or ten years, as much as £10,000. That increased value is attributable to the fact that it is a farm on the coal measure. Its position

  209
  gives it that special value, and there is no reason why it should be exempted from the Increment Duty. We cannot, therefore, possibly agree to this Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know that this point has been fully debated, because an alteration in the method of the collection of Mineral Duty has been introduced since the Clause was originally debated; therefore, these points have never been discussed in their new relation to each other. But I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the effect of this tax now is. Where minerals are not worked they are liable, under the conditions which he has stated, to pay on a capital value which is entirely problematical. I admit there are districts where it is pretty certain what amount of minerals underlie the land, but there are other districts where the amount is extremely uncertain. I admit further that the value is to some extent affected by that uncertainty, and therefore the value is not so high where the uncertainty obtains. If the Increment Duty were only collected after sale there would be no great hardship, assuming the tax is to be imposed in this form. If it were taken only on sale or realisation there could be no hardship on the seller, because he would realise the value, and would only have to pay the tax out of that realised value when he sold. But the tax is not only payable on realisation. It is leviable on death. Minerals are not now, unless they are being worked, taxed for Death Duties.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly wrong. I stated explicitly that unworked minerals were valued for the purpose of Death Duties. In consequence of questions which were asked, I made further inquiries, and I found that, as a matter of fact, all mineral property, whether worked or unworked, is valued at the present moment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That only makes the matter worse. You have a 20 per cent. tax on the problematical value levied at death. At present, as the matter now stands, with the new Mineral Tax imposed, you have an annual Increment Tax of 4s. in the £. From the moment the minerals began to be worked 4s. in the £ will be received by the State. Surely it would only be reasonable to defer making your claim until that moment arrives. You first claim the problematical increment on death, and afterwards you claim 4s. in the £ as increment on sale. That seems to be a most unreasonable proposition. I
  210
  suggest that this Amendment is absolutely reasonable. It may require some modification, because, as the words actually stand upon the Paper, they would affect the method of the collection of the annual Increment Tax. But that difficulty can easily be dealt with if the right hon. Gentleman will only agree to accept this reasonable proposal, instead of imposing what we consider to be an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship as between the State and the individual.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Surely the example given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounts to double taxation. It may not be the intention of the Government, but, in my opinion, it is a case of double taxation. The right hon. Gentleman gave as an illustration a farm valued at £2,000, and said that because it happened to be on the coal measure its value rose to £10,000. If he is taxing that increased value he is actually taxing the coal which is underneath the farm, but when that coal comes to be worked, and the fact that it can be worked is the only element which gives it increased value, then you tax it again by imposing the Minerals Bights Duty.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the Noble Lord suggest when it comes to be charged the Minerals Rights Duty and the Increment Duty, under Clauses 22 and 23, that it reverts to the original site value? That is not the ease. The comparison then is between the amount of the lease and the amount of the duty chargeable at death. It is not charged in both cases.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What I understand my hon. Friend to ask was not in regard to the Increment Duty, as to which the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is perfectly correct, but as to the residue which exists. The Mineral Rights Duty is charged on the whole in the case where the Increment Value Duty is payable annually. The increment value is claimed on the capital value before the minerals are worked. It is taken over the whole area, and the Mineral Rights Duty is also claimed on the minerals again when they are worked. Therefore I say the tax is imposed twice over.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Mineral Rights Duty of 5 per cent. has nothing whatever to do with the Increment Value Duty. It only refers to existing contracts and with regard to existing contracts no duty is charged at all with respect to minerals. Take first of all the valuation

  211
  of a mineral property this year at £2,000. Ten years hence that property may have gone up in value by £8,000, purely because of the minerals in it. If the owner dies the Death Duties are paid on the basis of the £10,000—that is, on the increment of £8,000. A year after a lease may be granted. The duty is then charged not in comparison with the £2,000 but in comparison with the £10,000. There is no increment in reference to the £8,000; as far as that increment is concerned there is absolutely no charge at all in respect of it. I understood the Noble Lord to complain that we were charging increment twice over. The 5 per cent. duty is purely a duty on royalties; as far as increment goes we are not charging twice over, for the reason that there is no increment in comparison with the last date.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: All this confusion arises entirely from the fact that when we considered this Clause in Committee the Mineral Rights Duty did not exist at all. Nobody dreamt of it. The present Mineral Rights Duty is altogether a different thing. What is complained of now is this: That, supposing minerals are still to be calculated, this Amendment is not going to be accepted. The effect is that upon the same minerals the Government will proceed to get not merely the Increment Duty, but also a duty upon royalties and rents received, which are really the purchase price of those minerals when they come to be sold. That is the point of which we, on this side of the House, are complaining. The illustration given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is a very apt one. It is capable of being put, I venture to think, from an arithmetical point of view, very strongly to the conscience of the House. Here is a farm worth £2,000 That is the value put on it, because everybody is under the impression that there are no valuable minerals under it. A few years after it turns out that there are valuable minerals under the property, and its value is suddenly increased by £8,000, giving a total value of £10,000. The owner dies without having worked or opened up these minerals. What then is the position? He has not only got to pay a Death Duty on £10,000, the present value of the property, but, if we pass this Clause in this shape without amendment, he has to pay one-fifth of £8,000, that being the increment which has been discovered to be the
  212
  additional value of this property, and then, having paid duty with money out of his cash—of course he had to get it somewhere else—he has perhaps to part with the coal—I do not know whether the Government is going to buy coal as well as land—he has to part with part of the property to pay this impost upon something for which he is getting nothing more. Then two years later or three years later—this is the case which is put—this property is leased. It really is not a lease, however, at all. It is a sale of £8,000 worth of coal to be taken out of that property over a period of years and paid for as it is got, but when that bargain is made the Government will come forward with the Mineral Rights Duty, about which we did not know anything when we were discussing this present Clause, and take a big toll out of these royalties in the form of a big slice out of the purchase price of the coal which is being sold. Our complaint and the ground of the Amendment is this, as I understand it, that if this Amendment is not accepted the Government seek, and will in effect get, two cumulative duties out of property, and in respect of one of them those who pay will actually pay upon the amount of the duty which was collected before. We consider that a very hard case. We consider it a monstrous case for those portions of the country which happen to have minerals to have the burden of paying duty at death upon minerals discovered prior to the death, but not worked, and then to be faced with another duty immediately those minerals are turned to some good account for the benefit of the community. It is not only an unbusinesslike but a very objectionable form of taxation, and it is unjust because it takes two taxes out of the same subject-matter, which, on the original drafting of the Bill, we were not informed would be taken. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see really that he has not quite met the point. Take the simple case of a mineral property of the kind which is instanced. The owner of that property dies before the lease is given; in that case the property pays an Increment Duty of 20 per cent. in a lump sum. Immediately after the death of the owner and the payment of this 20 per cent. in a lump sum the property is leased. His successors then have to pay the Mineral Rights Duty at 5 per cent. That property

  213
  has paid a lump sum on an increase of value, and there is no subsequent increase of value, but there is 5 per cent. duty placed upon it. Take the same property in which the death of the owner takes place after, and not before, the lease has been made. Before his death he has leased, and thereafter the property pays not only the Mineral Duty, but the Increment Duty, which run together—one is merged in the other. It does seem to me, in the case of the property where the two taxs are merged, it pays a less amount than in the case of the property in which a big capital sum is taken and there is a big Mineral Duty. I may be wrong, but I think I put my point at all events quite plainly, and I should like a reply from the Government upon it. It is the case of property identically situated. In one case the owner dies before the Mineral Duty is chargeable and before the minerals are being worked, and he has had to pay Increment Duty in a capital sum. In the other case, where the property is similar, before the lump sum is paid there is a lease and an annual charge subsequently made under the Mineral Rights Duty with which is merged, failing accommodation, anything in the nature of the Increment Value Duty. It does seem to me that these two properties do pay contributions to the Exchequer on different principles and in different amounts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not quite so. Take the two cases he has given, and he very fairly stated the dilemma. The first is the case where the owner of the mineral rights dies before the lease, and the second is the case of the owner of the mineral rights leasing and then dying. In the first case his successor would pay upon £8,000, 20 per cent. upon which amount would be £1,600. But if the lease came subsequently, he would pay 20 per cent. on increment over and above the annual value of the £10,000. I think it may be assumed in the vast majority of the cases that property, once it is opened up, the money which is spent upon it will produce an annual equivalent, that is, an annual equivalent of the property before it is opened up. That really is rather a theoretical point. It is true he pays the 5 per cent., but it is merged in the increment, and in that case he gets the full benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Certainly he would. I am taking the case of the property after death having an increment,
  214
  the increment which would be paid would be an annual increment value and the 5 per cent. Mineral Rights Duty would be merged in that, so that the successor would get the full benefit of the merging exactly as the other does. Secondly, the case is made that immediately before his death the owner leases—the lease is granted before the death of the owner. In that case the increment becomes an annual increment from the moment the property is worked, and the owner gets the benefit of the merger, and he only pays on exactly the same value as the other one. There is the same increment in both cases, the same charge, and the same merger, and I fail to see why one pays more than another. They both get the benefit of the same provisions and the same charges are made. There is the same increment, the same Mineral Rights Duty, and the same merger in both cases, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he worked it out, would find that it is exactly the same in both cases.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not exactly interpreted the effect of the Bill in the two cases. Of course, he is right about the second case, that is the one in which the death occurs after the lease. In that case the Increment Value Duty accrues upon the death, and is payable in instalments, and it is quite true that the Mineral Rights Duty merges in these instalments. In that case nothing is paid except the Increment Value Duty. But I think he is wrong about the first case, in which the owner dies before the lease is granted. In that case, upon the death of the owner, the full increment value duty is paid in a lump sum, and, therefore, the owner has paid 20 per cent. of the value of the minerals discovered since the original valuation. He has, therefore, paid one-fifth of the whole of the capital value of the minerals. Then comes the lease, and the minerals axe got, and then in a later Clause there is another tax in addition to his 20 per cent., and that is 5 per cent. on the value of the minerals as they are got. While in the one case the man has paid 20 per cent. in all, in the other case he has paid 25 per cent., and he has therefore paid a double duty upon the minerals, and all that is of course in addition to the Death Duties and the Income Tax, so you are piling upon these wretched mineral owners tax upon tax, and making the industry of getting minerals less and less profitable. I may be right or wrong

  215
  in what I have said. I think I am right, although I do not claim to be quite sure about this Bill, because it has been so greatly complicated since it was brought in, that one is not quite certain whether he has perfectly collated one Clause with another. We must not forget, however, that when Clause 2, which we are discussing, was brought in the Bill contained the Un-gotten Mineral Duty, and that I think is
  the reason for the confusion and want of adequate understanding of the effect of the two clauses. I am convinced, however, that unless this Amendment is accepted you will get an additional duty in one case which you will not get in the other.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 195.

  Division No. 810.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clark, George Smith

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Stanier and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  NOES.

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

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Alden, Percy

  Clough, William

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Armitage, R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Erskine, David C.

  Hodge, John

  Bell, Richard

  Essex, R. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Falconer, James

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bright, J. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jenkins, J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Keating, M.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Grove, Archibald

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Gulland, John W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Tomkinson, James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richardson, A.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Weir James Galloway

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Napier, T. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kinkenny)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Amendments made: To leave out the words "become due" ["on which increment value becomes due"], and to insert the words, "is to be collected as ascertained in accordance with this Section."
  At the end of Sub-section 1, to insert the words, "as ascertained in accordance with the general provisions of this part of this Act as to valuation."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, after the words last added, to insert the words "and is proved by the Commissioners to be attributable to any public expenditure"
  It is obvious that the adoption of an Amendment like this throws the responsibility upon the Commissioners of proving that the rise in value had been caused either by the State or by the municipality—in fact, by something done by the community. The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that in getting this duty on increment value the Commissioners have got to make out that the increased value, for the purpose of the duty, is attributable to public expenditure or public works generally. There is no doubt at all that if the public utterances of the President of the Board of Trade or of any other advocates of this Bill, who have taken no part whatever in the discussions in the House, for obvious reasons, but who have of late been so exceedingly prolific of speeches in the country, were to be paid the smallest attention to as giving any guide to the real provisions of the Bill,
  218
  there ought not to be the slightest difficulty in accepting the Amendment. But I have no hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I know, from what they have said on previous Amendments, that they intend to see that it is rejected, but I feel myself bound to insist upon moving it, if not in order to correct the obvious shortcomings of the Clause itself, at all events to put the Government to the test of common honesty. If they are honest in what they have been saying in the leading articles which their newspapers have produced and in the speeches which their representatives have made, that all they intend to ask for is a tax upon increment brought about by the public, they will accept the Amendment. But what they intend to get is 20 per cent. of the increased value which has arisen from all kinds of other causes, and the principal cause, as we all know, is the operation of the law of supply and demand. Under these circumstances, what the Government are seeking to do by this Clause, if un-amended, is to take advantage of that increase in the population, that general demand for more land for all sorts of public and other purposes and general amenities, and to get out of the landlords not merely 20 per cent. upon the increase which has arisen while men slept, and the increment which arises from public expenditure and public enterprise generally, but to take out of the owner of the land 20 per cent. upon any increment which arises from any source whatever unless the owner can prove that it arises from his own individual outlay.
  Mr. FELLseconded.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am rather surprised, seeing the acute and vigilant attention which the hon. Member has given to the course of the Debates on this Bill, that he should state with such inaccuracy the object of the Government. He says if the Government are honest in what they have said, i.e., that all they want is a tax on the income arising from public expenditure, they will accept his Amendment. But the Government have not said that is all they want. The Government say if there is an increment arising from a communal demand due to communal necessities they think that is an increment which may fairly be made a subject of taxation, but they have not by any means intimated that they desire to limit the subject-matter of that taxation purely to public expenditure in the sense of expenditure by the State. That is not their object, and I do not think any such intention can be ascribed to them from anything they have said. Then the hon. Member puts upon the Commissioners the onus of proof as to the origin of the increment. That is an impossible task. He puts upon them the burden of showing that it is attributable to public expenditure. That indicates the impossibility of accepting any such limitation of the scope of the tax as the hon. Member suggests. We could not accept it—first, because it is, in our opinion, an improper limitation; and, secondly, because even if it were a limitation that we desire, it is certainly one to which we could not give effect by means of the words which the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know whether it is necessary to divide upon this. I know we are bound to be outvoted. I would only say that the attitude which the Government take up is that a man has got to prove his title twice to his own property. That is really what it comes to. I should have said that if a man has got an indefeasible title to property under the ordinary law, and if the State comes and says that part of the property does not really belong to him but to the State as unearned increment, the onus should be thrown on the State to prove what part he is entitled to. Instead of that, the State asks him to make good his title to his own property. It appears to me that that is a very unsound method of approaching this question and taking the property. My contention is that if there is unearned increment due to the growth
  220
  of population or to the action of the community, then surely the burden of proving how much of the unearned increment is to be taken by the State should rest on the State. It should not be thrown on the owner to prove how much of his own property belongs to him. That seems to me to invert the ordinary course of law and justice, but if the Government persist in this method, of course, we have no course but to submit.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a division.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. REMNANT: I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "subject to deduction of the amount of any decrement in the same period in the value of any other land in the same ownership."
  I move this Amendment for the reason that the Bill as it stands ignores the fact that while there will be an increase in the market value of some land there will, on the other hand, be a serious decline in the market value of other land. I am reminded of a distinguished man who long before the introduction of the Budget had considerable weight in the counsels of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House. I refer to the late Professor Therold Rodgers. In the Select Committee in 1890 on Town Holdings a question was put to the Professor on these lines: "You do not advocate, do you, the imposition of a tax upon real property on the ground of what is called unearned increment?" He replied, "Oh, no; I do not know what it means." If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would refer to the proceedings of that Committee with special reference to this particular Clause, they will see that Professor Thorold Rodgers went on to say that if the State is to appropriate part of any unearned increment it might fairly be expected that it ought also to give some compensation in the case of unforeseen decrement. My Amendment does not ask so much as that. It will be content with much less. It only wants the Government to recognise that when the same owner has some land which has increased in value and other land which has decreased in value, he should be allowed to deduct any loss which he sustains on his property from any gain he realises before he is subjected to the special taxation on account of the gain. Instances are constantly happening in this Metropolis to show the fairness of that pro-

  221
  posal. The diversion of traffic from one particular street to another causes loss or gain. It is common knowledge that increment is changed to serious decrement by this diversion in the traffic. On the principle of right and justice, I do not see how the Government can refuse to allow this Amendment to be carried. It seeks to remedy an obvious injustice. The Government have prided themselves all through in seeking to be just in all their dealings, and not to press hardly on any particular interest. If they allow this Clause to pass into law without remedying this injustice, they will not be acting up to their professions in the Debates which have taken place in the House.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: I beg to second the Amendment. I had an Amendment somewhat in this form on the Paper during the Committee stage, but I was not able to move it. In my opinion, unless some such Amendment is included, there will be a heavy blow struck at the building companies around London and other large towns; and not only at the building companies, but at those builders who are engaged in the development of estates. They will find business so unprofitable when they have to pay this tax, in addition to running the risk which they must always run, that unless something of this kind is done they will have to give up the business by means of which they obtain their livelihood. Companies which have estates in different parts of the country may be able to set off the losses in one place against the profits in another, and so be able to make a fair profit. The Attorney-General is aware that one of the largest of these companies is the British Land Company. I believe it had for one of its founders Richard Cobden. That company, which has estates near London, was considered to be doing well, but unless something of the kind proposed in the Amendment is done they will not be able to keep up the very moderate rate of dividend which they have been paying. Their dividend has now come down to something like 3 or 4 per cent., and no one can call that an excessive rate for a business of this kind. If they have to share their profits with the State their chances of future dividends are small. I happen to know a case of a comparatively large building company which has within the last month decided to discontinue its operations. The directors state that since this Budget was brought in they have not succeeded in selling a single plot of land, nor
  222
  have they had an order for the erection of a house. They have employed up to now a brick-field in which they gave work to about 70 men, and they have closed that brick-field in consequence of the Budget. That company is one of those which will be particularly hit unless such an Amendment as this is passed. I can quote one other case which is familiar to all Members of the House, that of an undertaking which is viewed with great partiality and interest by Members on both sides. I refer to Letchworth, the First Garden City. I believe among the directors of that are represented the two sets of opinion which we represent here. That company has issued a circular which shows with more certainty than any of us could claim, as it comes from gentlemen actually engaged in the business of developing the estate, how they will be affected by these Land Tax proposals. They state in the circular that they have unanimously agreed that the Budget as at present drawn will tax the First Garden City, Limited, and, indeed, many other land developments, very heavily, not on unearned increment but on the results of their own working expenditure. The Budget, it is stated, will tax the company to the extent of about £8,000 during the next five years, making it extremely unlikely that the company can show a profit.
  It is difficult to sec how Letchworth or any other garden city can ever pay its way if heavy taxes are to be levied upon what are practically gross earnings. The directors ask the shareholders to urge their representatives in Parliament to support an Amendment to the Finance Bill exempting garden city undertakings from the new taxes. I hope that the directors' words will have some influence with Members who hold their views, and that they will support such Amendments as will help to give them a fair share in the future profits of their undertakings. And when they ask you to exempt garden city undertakings from the new taxes I quite agree that not only garden cities, but any developers of land are equally entitled to be exempted from this tax. We are not now seeking to have them exempted, but rather that they should have the decrement allowed as well as the increment. There is no distinction between builders who are developing an estate and those who are developing it as limited liability companies or garden cities, or under any other such name. Possibly one may think that he is developing estates in a more picturesque manner than the other and giving larger gardens and a

  223
  better class of houses; but that they are all doing substantially the same work will be allowed by all. I strongly urge the acceptance of this Amendment, which will give some help to these people who are doing good work in the country, and who, if they are crushed out by this tax, will abandon the business, in which case building will largely cease in the suburbs of large cities until a rent is reached which, notwithstanding the Clauses of this Budget, will make it attractive for people to invest their money. It will not do that until rents have gone up considerably. I am sure that is not the wish of the Gentlemen who favour these clauses.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): The hon. Member is dealing with the question far too generally. He should confine himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. FELL: I will close with the hope that the Amendment may be accepted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sure that hon. Members will not desire to press this particular Amendment to a Division. This proposal which touches one of the essential portions of the Bill was discussed at great length in a crowded House an incredible number of years ago, and now reappears in a sort of phantom form in a House not particularly crowded, and with but a very condensed and a rightly condensed repetition of the arguments advanced before. I may be allowed to allude to one subject brought up by the hon. Member, though I would say that it was not strictly relevant to the Amendment at all, and that is the question of Letchworth Garden City. We have been in negotiation with promoters of garden cities, but we never had any of them ask for such an Amendment as this, nor did they deal with the question of decrement of the land on which they are engaged. The whole point was to obtain a somewhat larger amount of reduction than was attributable to them. Nor is this Amendment limited to land-developing companies. It applies just as much to private owners. It will give the larger owner a very considerable advantage in comparison with the small owner. It would mean that the big owner could set say a loss in Caithness against a gain in Cornwall which a small owner could not do. It would mean also that the whole principle on which the tax is based would have to be abandoned. That is the principle that wherever there
  224
  is only an increment the State takes a proportion. The State takes no consideration where there is no increment. For these reasons I hope that the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to divide the House.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The principle on which this tax is established seems to be from the Government point of view "heads I win and tails you lose." If they can show a profit Anywhere they can come down on them. Take the case of a builder who buys five acres for development. If he has a quarter of an acre on some corner of that piece of land in separate occupation, and you can show that he has made a profit which is not directly attributable to his exertions, by a rise in the price of land, you swoop down upon him and take that profit. But, on the whole of his operations he may have made a loss, yet you do not take account of that. The essential point is that you are putting a tax upon what is not a pure profit at all. You might just as well say in the case of farming operations that you are going to take the profit whenever a particular piece of land is profitable, but you are not to take account of the whole of the operations of the farm. The one substantial point made against the Amendment is of setting Caithness against Cornwall. I admit that; but I would suggest that that could be met by putting in some words, such as "subject to deduction of the amount of any decrement in the same period in the value of any other contingent or adjacent land in the same ownership." If the Government accept that they would have made a considerable concession, and you would have a tax that was to operate on the whole of the one plot of land, and that would be fair, because it may very well happen that a small portion of the land may satisfy the market conditions of the moment, and that the rest of the land has to wait many years before it can be parted with. During that time the landowner has to stay out of his interest. But if those words are added you would get the one unit—the fair, natural unit—where any profit was made. But under the Bill as it stands you tax on a profit which is perfectly fictitious and never made at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I would like to put this case to the Attorney-General. This is a point which presses very much upon the public mind. There is no doubt whatever that it does appeal to the public mind as an injustice that the duty shall be

  225
  claimed upon increment when there is really no increment. This particular case Appears to me to embody the greatest amount of hardship, and I should like the Attorney-General to tell us whether this is what will really happen: A man buys a piece of building land, a certain number of acres. He pays £10,000 for it. Five years afterwards he dies. Increment Duty is to be collected on any increment which has accrued to that property. The land is divided into 20 parts. Three or four of those plots have increased in value, and are valued at a higher figure than at the time the property was purchased. Remember, there is a separate value on every Separate occupation, and therefore those plots have been separately valued and have been purchased subject to that existing valuation. I am speaking as if the Bill had become an Act, and was in operation. But, on the death of the owner, other plots of his estate have diminished in value. The total value of the property was £10,000 at the time of purchase, and at the man's death it was £9,000. On some portions there had been an increase of value, and on others a decrease. Is it really the intention of the Government, when a man has paid £10,000 for an estate which is only worth £9,000 at the time of his death, that Increment Duty is to be paid on those parts that have appreciated in value without any regard to the other parts which have depreciated? I want a straight answer to that question, Which is one exercising very largely the public mind, and it will greatly relieve people if we are given to understand that in such a case as I have mentioned the tax shall not be payable, though under the Bill I think the tax will have to be paid. I want the Attorney-General to say whether or not the tax will be payable in the circumstances I have described.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think I can add anything to what has already been said, and so often said, on the subject-matter of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman puts a hard case—that of an owner of property, parts of which have depreciated in value, while other portions have appreciated. He said, "Can it be that the Government intend, or is it the effect of the Bill, that the property-should pay Increment Duty and receive no compensation in account?" I suppose what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests is that there should be some sort of Compensation in account before the tax is collected. The hon. and gallant Member
  226
  said that decrement should be in some way set off against increment. We have stated that this is not by any means our intention. We collect the Increment Duty where it occurs, and we ignore the decrement where that also occurs. It may be a hardship which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say is involved in the nature of the tax. However, you have got the fact, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not find, I think, that the Government have shirked, or are likely to shirk, the proposition that an owner may have property divided into different plots, some of which may show increment while others may have diminished in value. It is quite true that the tax is on the unearned increment, without any reference to decrement, and I think my answer, if not satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is sufficiently clear.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General's answer is perfectly clear, and give my hon. and gallant Friend all he wishes. What is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman says the Government intend to do? A man enters upon a speculation and buys certain land. He divides it into plots. It is assessed according to the number of occupations, which may be according to the whim of the previous possessor or according to the requirements of the Commissioners, who have a discretion to assess land as they please. It is not at the discretion of the purchaser; it is broken up into plots at the discretion of somebody else. The purchaser buys the property for the purpose of developing it, and he develops it as fast as he can. Before he has finished, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, he dies, and therefore the payment of Increment Duty becomes due. Then the Government, wherever they find that the value; of a particular plot is greater than it was at the time of purchase, say, "Here is unearned increment; we take a percentage of it." I leave on one side the question of deductions, which are not affected one way or the other by the proposition we are now taking. I am bound to say that, in order that I may not represent the Government as taking a toll on increment which is proved to be directly due to the expenditure of the man himself. For the sake of my argument, I leave that on one side, because it only complicates the matter. Subject to that condition, wherever the Government finds any particular plot has an increased value not produced in that particular way, they say:

  227
  "Here is a windfall, here is unearned increment, on which we take our 20 per cent." The development of land in this way is a business like any other business, and no business man could afford to treat his account or speculations as the Government are going to treat the land in regard to increment value. The business man cannot look at the profits he makes on one corner of his land without regard to other parts of his land. He has to set off the losses on one part against the profits on another—a good transaction here against a bad transaction there. That is the way in which a man must keep his accounts, unless he is to go into the Bankruptcy Court. But for the purpose of taxation the Government will not allow him to set off an unfortunate transaction against a good transaction. Wherever he has done well they say that is unearned increment, and they take a fifth.
  Wherever it is a loss, they say: "We do not care one halfpenny how that loss came about; we do not care whether it is avoidable or not avoidable; you cannot set that against the gain." But it does not rest there. The portion gained on the one part may be due to a cause which in itself is a reason for the loss on another. Let me take such a case as this: Local authorities have from time to time to provide burial grounds. They serve notice and proceed to acquire land compulsorily, with the consent of the Local Government Board, for the purposes of a cemetery. Suppose they pick out land which is suitable, the Local Government Board approving, and they take a portion of an estate in that way. A higher ground value would be paid for it because it reduces the value of the surrounding land. People do not care to live where funerals are constantly passing under their eyes. The portion of land sold for a cemetery obtains a higher price because the other land henceforth would fetch a lower price, and because, in selling the portion of land for that particular purpose the value of the other land is reduced. Then the Government will come in and say, "Oh, no; the whole of that is unearned increment or windfall, of which we take one-fifth, and we refuse to look at the effect of the transaction upon your property as a whole." There is the same kind of case if you sell land for a factory. It may or may not be the case, it depends on individual circumstances; but undoubtedly in some cases the erection of a factory will diminish, while producing an apparent
  228
  greater increment in value, and depreciate the value of the land not taken by the factory. Take the case of gasworks or any trade of a noxious character. Of course, you ask a higher price if they want to plant those in the middle of an estate which you are developing or may develop, because they injure the prospects of the rest of the property. Surely it would only be just that the injury done should be allowed for. I have heard the Attorney-General in a remark to an hon. Member behind him give an answer which he made in the Committee stage, but which I rather think he thought better of since then. He says he is compensated for that in price. That is only repeating in a sentence what I have been elaborating at much greater length. He charges, in the price which he takes from the gas works or sanitary company, or local authority, the depreciation which takes place in the rest of the property. Yes, but what he gets from the gas works or local authority or sanitary company is not all unearned increment. It is compensation for the depreciation of his other property, and yet you charge on it as if it were unearned increment, and you insist it shall be so treated for the purpose of taxation. I quite agree with the Attorney-General he does charge for that depreciation. That is what makes the price. You make that to be unearned increment, but, of course, it is not unearned increment. You may treat it as unearned increment for the purpose of taxation, but it is only one of the many points which show, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, to have introduced the adjective unearned in the first lines of the Bill, if it were not followed by a series of Amendments throughout the Bill, would only have been putting in the front of the Bill an expression which was not true. It is not in the Bill but in the speeches of the Government supporters all over the country, that all they are taxing is the unearned increment and the windfall. Here is one of the many cases which we have brought before them in which you are not taxing a windfall, but in which, by the admission of the Attorney-General, you are taxing the compensation which a man gets for the depreciation of the rest of his property, and yet with that knowledge in his own mind, and so clearly in his own mind that he uses it as an answer to me the Attorney-General refuses to give any relief. My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) said that the country was a good deal interested in this matter and would be anxious to know the Attorney-

  229
  General's answer. I think my hon. and gallant Friend should find some satisfaction in giving that answer the widest circulation in the country that he can.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: It seems to me that unnecessary elaboration has got into the simple question which has arisen. He (Mr. Pretyman) puts the question that a man buys a plot of land for a thousand pounds and divides it into four plots. Two of those plots rise in value and two sink in value, or they do not rise in value, and the whole would not realise more than the thousand pounds even though the two lots have risen considerably. I think that is a fair representation of the proposition put by the hon. Member. He asks the question: Do the Government mean to take into account the rise in value of the two plots and to claim on that alone? How are you going to show that they have risen in value? For the reason because each of them is a fourth and you only gave £250 for each. The answer of the man would be, "No, you cannot do that; you cannot divide the price; you must take the whole as it was. I gave a thousand pounds for the whole, and you must charge me increment on the fact that I gave a thousand pounds." I think that is precisely what would happen in the course of the valuation, and it seems to me no sensible man would take its value in inches. If it bore the construction that you could go behind the bargain and say to the man who gave a thousand pounds, "You gave so much per yard or per rood," then injustice might arise. I am aware Clause 29 says you may assess in respect of any piece of land, whether under separate occupation or not, but that does not seem to affect the question. When you come to look at the increment you must see the real bargain the man made when he bought the land and nothing else. If it were otherwise, I could quite understand the elaborate stucture of objections which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamber-Iain) has built up upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not so in the Bill."] Nobody would take the gasworks alone; they would take the whole; they would see what you gave for the whole of it, and include the piece of land gone waste.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I make the point clear? The point was not exactly as the hon. Member stated it, where the owner had subsequently divided the land. My point was that the man buys a piece of land which is already divided into small,
  230
  separate holdings, and each of which is separately valued. It is all one property, but each of those occupations is separately valued, and becomes a separate unit of valuation, and is separately taxed. One of those plots or units of valuation is sold for a gasworks, and thereby depreciates enormously the two adjoining plots, and the price, as my right hon. Friend says, is largely due to that depreciation. The whole of that increment will be charged with duty, while the depreciation of the others will not be taken into account, and if the whole of the property at the man's death is worth a thousand pounds less than what he gave for it increment value will be charged on the whole of the price which he obtained for the gasworks, and no allowance will be made for the depreciation.
  Mr. BEALE: That will serve my purpose as well. Suppose a man is the owner of four plots. Unless he is an absolutely foolish individual, he will not put works upon one part of it which will depreciate the rest of the property. If you imagine such a state of things as that you can make out that the Bill will work out unfairly or whimsically, but in that case it would be the man's own doing, and it would not be a reasonable development of the property.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: It is a remarkable fact that, although we have had six months' discussion, the Government and their supporters do not yet understand the scope of the Bill. The separate occupations are in the Bill. The case put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Chamberlain) was where a part of a plot is used by the owner or his friends for some industrial purpose. Perhaps the owner sets us a useful new industry by his own enterprise, and thereby raises the value of that part of the ground. That is not the action of the community, it is the action of the individual. The community perhaps starts a destructor—an obvious nuisance—on another part of the ground, and thereby lowers the value of that part. The Government, which professes to be a fair, logical, and honest Government, actually proposes to charge that man for the increase due directly or indirectly to his own foresight and industry, while they allow nothing whatever for the depreciation due directly to the action of the community. Could anything be more grotesque? The country has only to understand this proposal to reject it and its authors.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: If you deal with particular plots and particular occupations, I do not see how you can help what is now being discussed. If certain plots go up in value, you must pay; but if some plots go down, you cannot reckon them against the others. Each plot must be dealt with according to its merits. I had some land in the neighbourhood of a Canadian town. Some plots went up, and others down. On those that went up I naturally had to pay
  taxation, but I could not claim any rebate in respect of the plots which went down, even though they were adjacent to the others. I do not see how by any possibility you can set one plot against another. It would introduce endless complication, and really defeat the whole purport of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 184.

  Division No. 811.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. R. Duncan.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Jackson, R. S.

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Jenkins, J.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Armitage, R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwick)

  Beale, W. P.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beauchamp, E.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bell, Richard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bright, J. A.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Brooke Stopford

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, H.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Radford, G. H.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams. Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rees, J. D.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Richardson, A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Winfrey, R.

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (for Mr. James Mason)moved, at the end of Subsection (1) to insert the words, "subject to deduction of such a sum as will recompense the owner for loss of income with compound interest at 4 per cent. thereon for the period or periods during which he is unable to sell or let the land for such consideration as in view of the character and surroundings of the neghbourhood would have been reasonable."
  I think, perhaps, this is as good a place as any in which to raise this important question. I think the Government will agree that upon the Report stage this important question of interest should at all events be raised and dealt with. The Amendment is designed to deal with the ordinary case of the development of land for building purposes. I take it that this is a most important question—in which Increment Value Duty requires to be considered—because of the great public land of the country, agricultural land is already in a good many respects provided for, for this duty is not to be compelled. With regard to property that is fully developed in urban districts, with houses built upon it, we all know to our cost who have been at all interested in house property erected in the suburbs of a city that it has a tendency not to go up in value, but as years go on to decline. Therefore I am one of those that consider that this Increment Duty will primarily fall, for the greater portion of its yield, upon those belts of country which surround most of our large cities, including, of course, London, and which are in the neighbourhood of mineral and other developments, and newly made places of that sort. It is there, then, where land is changing from agricultural usages to building value, and under those circumstances, that this incre-
  234
  ment is looked for. It is a fact to-day that the private owner does not as a rule develop his own land. Those whom I have known that have embarked upon that exceedingly dangerous business have almost invariably lost their money. Developing the land and laying it out for building, which is so essential for the growth of every large town, has become a business, and that business is carried on to-day by people who understand it, and who have experience in it, and who make money as a rule because they understand the business, and because they carry it out on businesslike lines. I venture to think that that business has become so general, and is carried on now in almost every place where there is development of land for building purposes, that, under present I conditions, it has practically become the only reasonable and proper way for unbuilt upon and undeveloped land to become part of a built-up city or an urban district. Under these circumstances we have got to look at the position of the people who are engaged in the business. We ought not to do anything to penalise them. We ought not, even to raise temporary revenue, or, as the right hon. Gentleman now and then takes the opportunity of reminding us, for the purposes of "Dreadnoughts," old age pensions, and so on, to inflict a gross injustice on a certain class of people. If we do, if we make this business of developing land commercially impossible, which I am afraid lest this Amendment or something of the kind is adopted may happen, two immediately important consequences will ensue. The first, and one greatly to be deprecated, is that bricklayers, joiners, slaters, plasterers, and the whole of the building trade are damaged in their employment. Perhaps that most sensitive of all trades—the build-

  235
  ing trade—will, if it gets a blow of that sort—react upon other employment, and the total amount of unemployment that results will be very disheartening to those who have the interests of the working-classes at heart. A second consequence, and even perhaps, in the long run, a more important consequence, is this: that our cities and towns which are dependent to-day for the relief of their centres which are overcrowded upon the operations of these firms and companies—that those centres will continue to suffer from that overcrowding which is so bad for the morals and the general welfare of those urban districts. I propose to show in a very few words how the absence of allowing for this question of interest will do this injustice. I will put the most ordinary case which suggests itself to my mind. I am aware that this point has on several occasions been referred to in Committee, but, of course, that does not prevent it from being raised now. I perhaps may be excused for raising it, for this reason: that personally I consider this to be the greatest blot, if left, upon these Land Clauses. Let us take the most simple case, in order that the facts may be brought home to the minds of anybody who will take the trouble to look at the figures. Suppose a land company gives £10,000 for an estate in order to lay it out for building.
  Supposing that the building company proceeds to spend £5,000 upon laying out the estate, upon levelling the sites, upon making roads, and upon making sewers, and many things besides that require to be done or partially made before the building takes place. The experience of people connected with these things is this. That upon the average it takes in the majority of cases from five to six years to work an estate round and to sell it out in building plots. That means that a man or a company having paid £10,000 for a property on the average have to wait five years before getting back anything on their money. If the interest is 4 per cent. that will mean 20 per cent., and they have had to spend £5,000 upon the property; and if you take 4 per cent. of that for two years you get the total amount that that property represents in the firm's books. I contend you have got to look at this subject exactly in the same way as any business man would look at it and would treat it in his books. If a business man spent £10,000 in buying a property he carries the £10,000 over at the end of the year
  236
  against the property with interest on it. In the next year there is an amount spent on developing the property, and that expenditure on that he duly enters in his books against the property. There was £10,000 for the property, £5,000 spent upon development, and £3,000 to be added at the end of the five years for loss of income, making £18,000 in all which the company have got to get back before it comes by its own. How does the Bill stand with regard to that? The Bill would treat the £5,000 spent on development as money laid out, and every penny realised over the £15,000 would be treated as increment. Supposing the property sold for £20,000, the State would step in and say there is £5,000 increment, and of that we must secure £1,000. But is that the real state of affairs? The real state of affairs is that £18,000, without having regard to law costs and surveyors' fees, and things of that kind, which would amount to another £1,000, would have been spent upon the property, and that instead of there being a supposed £5,000 increment of profit, the company would be only making £1,000, which is the exact sum which the State has taken away.
  In moving this Amendment I am not moving anything of a technical kind dealing with an imaginary grievance. I am putting before the House for the last time this Amendment with the object of securing that people who develop land shall be allowed to treat their accounts in a businesslike way, and shall have only to pay taxes upon real profit. These people do not make any real profit at all until interest is allowed upon capital expenditure. I shall perhaps be told that there is the income from the land; but this is just the occasion where there is no income from the land. The agricultural tenants have been got rid of, the land has been levelled, sewers have been made, sometimes cut down to great depths and driven through rock before they have been certified by the local authority and before a single house has been allowed to be built. All this outlay has taken place, and interest upon it ought, as a matter of business, to be allowed. This is all we ask by this Amendment. If this is not the most convenient place to allow this to be put into the Bill, I shall be quite content, if the right hon. Gentleman will be only willing to admit the principle, to immediately withdraw this Amendment and move it in any other place which the Government think fit; but I do contend, on

  237
  behalf of the whole building fraternity and of the men whose livelihoods are depending upon the building trade, that this question of interest is the most important and vital one, and goes to the whole question of there being any increment at all. If provision is not made for this, and if once more the Government turn their back upon it and decline to consider anything in the shape of the principle for which I am contending, they will have left a blot from a practical point of view which no amount of regulations or anything of that sort afterwards can possibly enable them to meet. I do assure the House, putting aside all questions of politics, all questions of being for or against these taxes, either in principle or otherwise, that from the practical point of view, if the Government reject the chance of allowing for this interest, they will be doing this Bill irreparable injury and making it unworkable and unjust, and they will be bound themselves next year or the year after, if the Bill passes into law, to come back to Parliament to try to do something to remedy a state of affairs which they will have brought about, not in ignorance, because their attention has been frequently called to it on several occasions, but by their neglect and indifference.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEseconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has already informed the House, this proposition, or rather the principle involved in it, was frequently discussed during the Committee stage. I am not complaining that the hon. Member thought it necessary to make a final protest on behalf of this principle. There is, however, one difference between this and any Amendment moved in Committee, and it is a difference which I think is rather to the detriment of this Amendment. I am not prepared to adopt the very remarkable principle laid down by hon. Members opposite that the Commissioners are to decide what value the consideration is to be, in view of the character of the surroundings of the neighbourhood, which it would be reasonable for the owner to accept. That introduces a very important element and a very important principle, and I confess I am very surprised that it should have been introduced upon the initiation of the Noble Lord sitting opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to forget that we did meet the case of the interest by an allowance of 10 per cent. I agree that perhaps 10 per cent. is too rigid in its
  238
  interpretation, and that in some cases it may be too large, and in other cases too small, an allowance, but on the whole I think it will work out fairly. If interest is allowed it is rather a premium on the person who holds up the land, whereas when you give a uniform allowance of 10 per cent. I think in the majority of cases you cover those instances where a man buys land and gets rid of it at the earliest possible moment. Men engaged in that kind of business do not hold up the land such a number of years as to make the interest run to more than the allowance provided for in the Bill, and for that reason I think by the provision already made in the Bill we have quite adequately met the justice of the case. I agree that 10 percent. is not merely intended to cover the interest, but is supposed to cover other charges as well; but there will be an ample margin left for interest. I do not think the Government can give any other answer than the one which I have already given.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true that we discussed this matter in Committee, but I think it is one of quite sufficient importance to justify my hon. and learned Friend in raising it. It is a fact that it has been raised in a different form to that in which it was presented in Committee. There is a great deal to be said to the objection to the new form, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be too hard upon us in this matter. We tried this Amendment in a form which was not open to the objection which he has just taken to it. We do not feel greatly distressed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rebukes us in this way. Coming to the more solid point, what has the Chancellor of the Exchequer got to say for making no allowance for loss of interest and loss of revenue? His answer is that it is not true to say he makes no allowance, because he says he gives 10 per cent. That is true, but the 10 per cent. has to cover a great many things besides interest. It is a single 10 per cent. on the original valuation deducted from the increment before the Increment Duty is charged. Supposing the valuation you start with is £10,000 and you sell for £20,000. In that case you charge increment on £9,000 instead of £10,000, because you allow 10 per cent. on the last valuation. Therefore, it has to cover a great many other things beside interest. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that is generous. Let us take for

  239
  a moment the case put by my hon. Friend, which was one of a very practical character. In that case it would only cover about half of the cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that 10 per cent. is too rigid, and he says it is perfectly true that in some cases 10 per cent. may be too much, whilst in others it may be too little, but he argues from that that on the whole justice will be done. That is a poor consolation to the individuals who have to pay too much, and that is not quite the way in which we ought to arrange our taxes.
  I rather wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel it necessary to justify himself by any reference to foreign precedents. Up to a certain stage hon. Members will remember we were constantly referred to foreign precedents by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and particularly to the case of Frankfort, as a model for this tax. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not say a few words about Frankfort to-night? Simply because the White Paper he published in the course of the discussion puts Frankfort out of court altogether. Since the right hon. Gentleman laid upon the Table of the House the paper which showed what the Frankfort tax was, it has never been thought worth while to refer to Frankfort. As a matter of fact, Frankfort allows interest at the rate of 4 per cent. Is it really fair or true to say that when a man invests money in land with a view to developing it, and has to lie out of his money for a certain time while that land
  is being developed before he can dispose of it, you should count as unearned increment everything he receives in excess of the price he paid for the land without regard to the time his land has been lying idle or the interest he has lost? It is obvious that here again you are taxing as unearned increment something which is not unearned increment at all, but is really the man's due, counted on by him, expected by him, and without which he would not have gone into this business any more than men will go into any other, business without any hope of profit. I am not wedded to the particular form of the Amendment as it now stands on the Paper, but that form is given to it merely to placate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if he will take it in any other form, and give an allowance for interest specifically as such, I do not care in what form of words he puts it. I know he will not, because in Committee he gave a much better answer to this Amendment than that which he has offered to the House to-night. He then gave an answer which from the point of view of himself and hon. Gentlemen who support him was really conclusive. He said it was perhaps sufficient to say that, if he allowed anything for interest he would get nothing by his tax. I think that is possibly a slight exaggeration, but there is a great deal of truth in it, and it shows how very unjust the tax is.
  Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 812.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire).

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M' Arthur, Charles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

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

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Armitage, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barker, Sir John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rees, J. D.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Richards, Thomas (West Monmouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richardson, A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Robinson, S.

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Seely, Colonel

  Byles, William Pollard

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cameron, Robert

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Shipman, Dr John G.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Steadman, W. C.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cleland, J. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clough, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M' Micking, Major G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crossley, William J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Essex, R. W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fenwick, Charles

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Grove, Archibald

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gulland, John W.

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L, (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Amendments made: In sub-section (2), to leave out the words "becomes due" ["Increment Value Duty becomes due"], and to insert instead thereof the words "is to be collected."
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (d), to leave out the word "due" ["on which the duty is due"], and to insert instead thereof the words "to be collected."
  In same paragraph, after the word "of" ["duty is due in respect of"], to insert the
  242
  words "the fee simple of any land or of any interest in any."
  After the word "the" ["the value"], to insert the word "total."
  To leave out the words "the fee simple of."
  In same paragraph, to leave out the words "as ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "on that occasion to be estimated in

  243
  accordance with the general provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSONproposed in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words, "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 be attributable to buildings, structures, or other things 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 the expenditure of money on any redemption of land tax or of any rent charge as defined in this Act effected after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, or to goodwill or any other matter which is personal to the owner, 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 Commissioners to be attributable to works of a permanent character, executed by or on behalf or at the expense of any person interested in the land, or to the good husbandry of any person in occupation of or interested in the land.
  (3) The Commissioners shall record all allowances and deductions made under this Section." And to insert instead thereof the words, "in each case to the like deductions as are made, under the general provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation, for the purpose of arriving at the site value of land from the total value."
  Although this is merely a drafting Amendment, I think I ought to accompany that by some explanation. The word "subject" occurs at the beginning of the list of deductions that are to be made for the site value for the purposes of assessment after dealing with the occasions on which the tax is to be collected. The House will remember that under the Bill as it stood Clause 2 gave the occasions upon which the tax was to be collected, and it set out in the succeeding words the deductions that were to be made for the site value. There was another provision which set forth the means of ascertaining the original site value. Clause 2 was not very logical, perhaps. It gave us the occasional value, but in order to find out the original site value we had to turn to another Clause—Clause 14. It is the difference between the original site value and
  244
  the occasional value that gives us the amount which the duty is to be charged. In order to make the two Clauses agree we incorporated into Clause 2, Section (2) the deductions which were to be allowed for the purposes of the site value. Now we propose to put all those deductions into one clause, hence the simpler words we are inserting in this Clause. They make no difference whatever after careful consideration of the new Clause. I say they make no change in the burden on the subject or in the deductions.
  If the House will permit me I will go through the various deductions in the omitted words. It is provided first that all deductions are to be such as the Commissioners allow in each case in respect of any part of the value proved to be attributable to buildings, structures, and other things of which the land is deemed to be divested for the purpose of ascertaining the site value. In Clause 25 of the new Bill in the form which I think best—although I admit it needs a little explanation, I would draw attention to the first deduction to be made under the assessable site value. The assessable site value means the total value after deducting the amount which is to be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the first site value or gross value. What are the deductions which are to be made for the purpose of arriving at the total site value? The total value of land is defined by Clause 25, Sub-section (1), to be the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller in its then condition, might be expected to realise. It is to be deemed to be sold free from in-cumbrances. That, of course, gives its hypothetical value. But, in order to get at the full site value, you treat the laud as being divested of buildings, so that the difference between the gross value and the site value is to be found in the divestiture of buildings. The buildings are, in fact, swept away altogether, with any value which they may have given to the estate. I need not trouble about the timber. Therefore we see that assessible site value has to be reached after deducting from the total value the same amount that has to be deducted for the purpose of securing site value from gross value. That gives us the first deduction, that is the value attributable to buildings; that is the first deduction for the purpose of getting the assessible site value. That gives us the deduction which we had in the old Clause 2 in regard to any part of the value which is

  245
  proved to be attributable to buildings, structures, or other erections. Therefore we have incorporated the first deduction. The next deduction was to be made in respect of the amount to be allowed under this Act in estimating that site value; there we have repeated all the old deductions under Clause 14. These were as they stood in the Bill, and were the deductions allowed under the old Clause 14, and there is no deduction allowed under the old Clause 14 which we have not re-enacted in our new Clause 25. And, moreover, we have extended our deductions to make them more favourable to the subject, but we have been careful not to alter or omit any deduction which was available to the subject. That is the first thing I am anxious to make clear to the House.
  10.0 P.M.
  The next has reference to the expenditure of money on any redemption of any Land Tax, or rent charge as defined in this Act. That deduction we have repeated in the assessible site value, Sub-section (4) of Clause 25, paragraph (a), where we state that there is to be a deduction of any part of the total site value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to the expenditure of money in the redemption of any land tax or fixed charge, or the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, and so on. That is a new deduction which we have inserted, but, at any rate, all I am concerned now is to show that we have not omitted any of the old ones. The next deduction is goodwill or any improvement. In this paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) we have given effect to a deduction for goodwill or any other matter which is personal to the owner or occupier or other person interested for the time being in the land. That brings in everything that we had in Clause 2 except the reference there to agricultural land. Our particular mode of dealing with agricultural land was thought inadequate, and therefore the words became unnecessary, because we have exempted agricultural value altogether and there is a complete exemption in regard to it. We have done rather better than the old provisions. Hon. Members contend that we have not given such great deductions as we gave before, but I contend that every deduction that we had in Clause 2 we have repeated in some other part of the Bill. Now the Commissioners, in Sub-section (2), are empowered to cause the deductions to be made in all these cases, and we have formulated them, and we desire that a record should be kept not merely for the purpose of increment
  246
  value but for the purposes of other taxes, and therefore we have made a general Clause which imposes this very important duty upon the Commissioners. I think that justifies the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I ought to raise a point of Order before or after, but it is really wrapped up in these two Clauses, 25 and 2, and it really is very difficult to arrive at the real facts in regard to these deductions. It is perfectly clear, I entirely agree, that all the deductions that were made in the old Clause 2 are now repeated.
  Sir W. ROBSON: And a good deal more.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They are repeated to the full, and to some extent improved, but that does not constitute the whole case, and it is impossible to discuss this particular point, which is the whole point here, as to whether all the deductions that were allowed before are allowed again without referring also, as the Attorney-General has done, to Clause 25. These two Clauses have to be taken together as the whole foundation of the tax, and Clause 25 is really the primary foundation of the tax—that is, the original valuation is based upon Clause. 25. I would rather put it in this way: The taxes are arrived at by deducting the original valuation under-Clause 25 from the occasional valuation under Clause 2, and therefore, in order to arrive at the point at issue, whether these deductions are repeated or not, so far as their effect upon the tax is concerned, you have not only to ascertain whether all the deductions are still continued which were contained in Clause 2, but whether the original site value remains as it was before, because if the original site value was increased that would have the effect of reducing the tax. The original site value has to be deducted from the other, and therefore the more you increase the original site value the more you reduce the tax. If you reduce the original site value you increase the tax. I put this point with very great diffidence, because I am bound to say, and I think the House will agree, that it is extraordinarily difficult to follow the tax under this new terminology. We have now four values instead of two. We have got what the Attorney-General correctly described as the hypothetical value called the gross value, and then from that-hypothetical value you make an imaginary deduction. By that imaginary deduction

  247
  from that hypothetical value you arrive at what is now called the full site value. It is clearly an imaginary deduction, because I think no one has ever seen land Absolutely divested of everything upon it. You have to imagine the land divested of everything that is upon it, and then you have to subtract that imaginary divestiture from the hypothetical value of land which has no burden upon it. That is the beginning. Why that is necessary I do not know. There is an algebraic formula which covers it very accurately: x—(x—y) = y. Why you cannot say y instead of turning it into x—(x—y) I cannot understand, but that is what it comes to. It is most complicated and very hard to follow. As Clause 25 left the Committee it contained less deductions than it does now in regard to the value of agricultural land, and in regard to that the Chancellor of the Exhequer used these words. He was asked in Committee to explain why a deduction in regard to the value of agricultural land was allowed under Clause 2 which was not allowed under Clause 25, and this was his answer:—
  "The real object of that was to confer a special boon upon agriculture and that undoubtedly is the effect of it. The effect of it is that, whereas in every other case permanent improvements are deducted from the original value, in the case of agriculture they are not deducted from the original site value, but they are deducted when you Come to the increment, and there-fore it is to that extent a boon to agriculture."
  A deduction was made in Clause 2, which is not made in Clause 25. Now the same deduction is made in both Clauses, and, therefore, in the former case, the deduction being made in the case of the occasional collection and not being made in the case of the original collection, when the subtraction came to be made that produced a reduction of the increment value, and, therefore, of the tax. But now the deduction is similar in both cases, and is only made by reference. The deduction is the same on the two occasions, and there is no diminution of the tax, as there was before. Clause 7, which deals with agricultural land, deals only with land which has a purely agricultural value, and so long as it has a purely agricultural value. When once that land obtains a further value it becomes liable to the tax, and the tax is thus levied not only upon the increment, which is outside agricultural value, but upon the increment which is agricultural. So far as I can see, the claim which the right hon. Gentleman made distinctly indicates that there was a deduction, an indirect deduction, from the
  248
  tax. That has now disappeared, and to that extent there is an increase in the burden of the tax, which, if it be so, will, of course, be out of order on the Report stage.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I shall be able to clear up quite satisfactorily the point which may appear, perhaps, from the quotation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given to be obscure. It is perfectly clear that every deduction, leaving agricultural land out for the moment, made originally under Clause 2, is repeated now in the new Clause 25. Not only that, but we have added other very considerable deductions. There is paragraph (c) of Sub-section (4), which is quite a new deduction, which is added for the first time, and there is the other with regard to the enfranchisement of copyhold or the expense of effecting the release of any covenant restricting the use of land These are two very substantial deductions. Now comes the question of agriculture. What is the position there? The method originally adopted by the Government for protecting agricultural land was the method indicated in Clause 2 as it stood originally, which was to give what I call a boon to agriculture, which meant that where the increment did not go beyond 40 per cent. there agricultural land was-exempted. That is what it amounts to. There were certain deductions which we did not make in the original site value for agricultural land which we made for the purpose of calculating the increment. We considered that that made a difference of about 40 per cent. in the case of agricultural land. That meant that in the case of agricultural land increased in value by over 40 per cent. it was exempt from Increment Duty altogether. That was regarded by many Members on both sides of the House as an inadequate protection for agricultural land, and we were pressed to give a fuller protection which did not depend upon such a complicated calculation as that, and to exempt agricultural land by clear and explicit phrases which would make it absolutely free from increment value altogether. That we did. We put down a new Clause, which was added. We could not then take out these words in Sub-section (2), although they were quite unnecessary, and therefore we moved a new Clause, which now stands as Clause 7.
  "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only."

  249
  That means this. Under the old provision, which still remains in Clause 2, if the increment on agricultural land got beyond that 40 per cent.—for instance, if it got doubled or trebled in value—it would be liable to Increment Duty. That is how it originally stood. But the moment that new Clause was inserted, it does not matter what the increment value of agricultural land may be, if it is purely agricultural it is exempted altogether. Therefore these words became quite unnecessary, and I made it perfectly clear that I should have to move their excision if a new Clause were added, and it is certainly preferable, as far as agricultural land is concerned. What agricultural land wants, naturally, is a Clause which explicitly declares that it is exempt altogether from the operation of Increment Duty, and it does not want to depend upon any such complicated arrangement as we originally intended for its protection. Therefore it will be absolutely necessary to leave these words out. It does not remove any protection which agricultural land enjoys, because it is exempt altogether.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think that there is a certain class of agricultural land which will not be exempted. That is not the case. As a matter of fact, there is a class of agricultural land which will be protected under our new Clause which was not protected before. That is as the new Clause is interpreted by us. I agree that that is a matter to be settled later on. If the words are not perfectly clear I will make them still clearer. I agree that there is a dispute as to the interpretation, but there is no dispute as to the intention. There is no dispute that we are quite willing to introduce any words to make it quite clear that agricultural land is to be exempted altogether. The words in Clause 2 are: "and in the case of agricultural land the value of which is due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes." These words are not nearly so strong as the words we have in Clause 7, because these seem to bear upon the interpretation that if there is a value in the land other than agricultural, then you could not claim the exemption, whereas owing to our interpretation of the words in Clause 7 agricultural land would be entitled to that protection, although there might be other value so long as that value was not higher than the agricultural value. Therefore the protection given to agriculture under Clause 7 is much more ample than by the words in Clause 2. I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if
  250
  we leave these words in they will really have an injurious and damaging effect upon agricultural land. They might introduce ambiguity, and it may be imagined that they are introduced for some purpose which may have quite a different effect from the one which we intend. Therefore I submit it is far better that these words should be eliminated, and that agriculture should depend entirely on Clause 7, with some words introduced later on, if necessary, to make it still clearer. I am not prejudging that point. I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others interested in agriculture that it would be far better to depend on making Clause 7 quite clear than that these words should be retained at this stage.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whether you, Sir, are prepared to rule upon the point of Order which all Members who have given attention to it admit is one of the most important questions we have to consider. I think a great deal of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said really has no reference to the point at all. It is very important, and I do not in the least criticise the right hon. Gentleman for having said it. But it is not relevant to the exact question whether the effect of the Government proposal is to increase the burden in certain cases.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the whole of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was relevant to that point. Part of it was, but so far an I could follow him there is a case for the view that the effect of the Government Amendment will be to increase the charge, and that that is not a thing which the House can deal with on the Report stage. It can only be done in Committee. Let me assume for the purpose of my point of Order that all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims for Clause 7 is fully done, and that it does entirely exempt purely agricultural land. I do not think that settles the point of Order, because we have to deal not merely with purely agricultural land, but with land which at the time of the original valuation is agricultural, but which subsequently obtains a non-agricultural value—a building, or other value. I think this arises under Clause 2. When the land was agricultural for the purpose of arriving at what we then spoke of as agricultural value you did not divest the land of its buildings. You only divested

  251
  it of buildings if they were buildings put up for purposes other than agricultural. Therefore, the datum line from which you started to calculate increment was increased by the value of any agricultural buildings on the land. When you come to Clause 2 you deduct the value of those buildings. It is now proposed that the deductions should be exactly the same in the two cases. It is difficult to make it clear, but I may put it this way. Agricultural land was subject to an original valuation like everything else, but the original valuation of agricultural land was higher than that of any other land of the same kind, and that was claimed as an advantage for agricultural land, because naturally, the higher the valuation from which you start, the less will be the growth on which they will have to pay taxes. But that original valuation having been made on the land which was then agricultural, that is the datum line from which you calculate increment, whether the land continues agricultural or becomes industrial. The Government claims that if it continues agricultural, they have protected it under Clause 7, and, for the purpose of the point of Order, I accept that statement; and I desire to direct your attention only to the case of land which, having been originally valued as agricultural land, has now become industrial. The effect of the Government Amendments is to put both valuations, the original and the new one, on exactly the same footing, to make, as the Attorney-General pointed out, the deductions the same in each case. That is to say that the advantage which the land got by the higher datum given to it under the original valuations proposal is now destroyed. The margin of difference, when the difference comes to be calculated, will be greater; the apparent growth in value will be greater, and, therefore, the tax levied will be greater. If I have made my point clear, I shall be very grateful to have your ruling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This matter is new to me. I have not been through the Committee stage, and therefore I am not so well qualified as other hon. Members who have had to deal with this matter. The matter is very confused to me, I admit; I feel bound to accept the view which the Government have announced, that the Amendments will not introduce any new charge. I have not been entirely persuaded by the arguments used by the Front Oppo-
  252
  sition Bench. I will say this: if I have made a mistake in the matter it is always open to the Government to recommit in order to insert these Amendments. Therefore, if I am wrong in saying that no new charge is imposed by the Amendments of the Government no great harm is done, except the saving of a day's delay. It always would be open to the Government at the conclusion of the Report stage to move to recommit in order to insert these Amendments. Therefore, I conceive that no injury is done to the public or to the House by my accepting these Amendments. I conclude as I began, by saying that I wish to be perfectly frank with the House, and to admit that I did not entirely grasp all the arguments that were used.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to speak on the point of Order, but I want the Government to meet the argument. The narrow issue of the particular case which I have raised of land which was originally valued as agricultural land, which would have had the advantage of the higher datum level of the original value—of which it will now be deprived—and which will be valued exactly in the same way on the new occasion as on the original occasion, when, having ceased to be agricultural land, it becomes liable to-duty. I have stated the case, and I would like to hear the defence of the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At the time I felt that it was a question really arising on Clause 25 and not on Clause 2. The only point to decide on Clause 2 is whether all the deductions were made on the second occasion and not upon the first. I agree that when we come to Clause 25 that is a point which may or may not arise. I do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case. I am quite prepared when we come to Clause 25 to demonstrate that, but it is quite clear that we cannot have the Debate twice over. I do not mind having the Debate on Clause 25 at this stage, but I rather deprecate having the Debate twice. There are very considerable drafting alterations to Clause 25, and it will be quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to say that they go beyond pure drafting, and may even go to the merits, though I do not believe they will. At any rate, I deprecate a discussion twice over. The only point we are now discussing is whether all the deductions in the second valuation are included in the Amendments of the Atorney-General. If the right hon. Gentleman the

  253
  Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would prefer having a Debate upon the whole of the alterations of Clause 25 at this stage, it is well worth considering, but I think it is quite impossible to have the Debate twice over.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not quite my point. The point I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address himself to is this, that formerly deductions in Clause 2 differed from the deductions in Clause 5. By striking out these words you are asking that the deductions shall be exactly the same in both cases.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks carefully through the Bill as it left the Committee, and compares it with the deductions made now, he will find that there is not a single deduction which is not identical, and the whole operation of Sub-section (2) as originally drawn has reference to the first occasion, rather than the second. There are no new deductions; there is no deduction which was originally in the second occasion which is not in now. That is all we are doing at present. It is the first the right hon. Gentleman is really complaining of, and that is a matter for Clause 25. I think I shall be able to point out when we come to that that we are making no difference, except as a matter of drafting.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We are in this case more or less in the hands of the Government. I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says it would be extremely inconvenient to have the same discussion twice over. To that I assent. The Government are strongly of opinion that the proper place to take it is on Clause 25. If that be so, anything we gain from the discussion will be gained in larger measure on Clause 25 than now. Under those circumstances—and I am speaking for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), as he cannot speak again—I am prepared, so far as we on this bench are concerned, to say that the discussion had better take place on Clause 25. The point is very difficult and also extremely important, because it does touch some vital issues.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'in each case to the like deductions as are made, under the general provisions of this Part
  254
  of this Act as to valuation, for the purpose of arriving at the site value of land from the total value' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved to leave out Sub-section (4).
  This is a Sub-section that related to apportionment. We have now transferred the words there dealing with apportionment to Clause 29, so as to give them more general application to the other taxes.
  Amendment made.
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved to leave out-Sub-section (5), and to insert instead thereof:—
  "(3) Where it is proved to the Commissioners on an application made for the purpose within the time fixed by this Section that the site value of any land at the time of any transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land or of any interest in the land, which took place at any time within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, exceeded the original site value of the land as ascertained under this Act, the site value at that time shall be substituted, for the purposes of Increment Value Duty, for the original site value as so ascertained, and the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply accordingly.
  Site value shall be estimated for the purposes of this provision by reference to the consideration given on the transfer in the same manner as it is estimated by reference to the consideration given on a transfer where Increment Value Duty is to be collected on the occasion of such a transfer after the passing of this Act.
  This provision shall apply to a mortgage of the fee simple of the land or any interest in land in the same manner as it applies to a transfer, with the substitution of the amount secured by the mortgage for the consideration.
  An application for the purpose of this Section must be made within two months after the original site value of the land has been finally settled under this Part of this Act."
  This is an Amendment which extends slightly the exemption in favour of the subject. The original Sub-section was, as the House will remember, to give a benefit to the landowner who had acquired his property within the preceding 20 years at a higher value than it had on 30th April, 1909. Of course, it is the owner's interest, so far as Increment Value Duty is concerned, that it should have a high value on

  255
  30th April, 1909, because the duty is to be collected on the amount in excess of that value. It was pointed out that there were cases in which the landowner had given a larger sum previously, and that the land had depreciated in value. Therefore it was asked on his behalf that the larger price he had given before 30th April, 1909, should be substituted as the original site value and as the dividing line above which Increment Value Duty would be charged. We have kept that object in mind, but extended it in this way, not merely where the owner has purchased but wherever it is proved to the Commissioners that the higher value was given. The original words were "where the owner of a fee simple of any land….acquired within twenty years" and so on, and the new words are "where it is proved to the Commissioners on an application made for the purpose…that the site value of any land at the time of any transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land…which took place within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, 1909 exceeded the original site value….the site value at that time shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty…" By those words we retain and extend the existing provision. The next paragraph follows on that, and secures to the landowner the benefit of all deductions. The next words repeat the other part of the original Subsection as to mortgages. The last paragraph, however, is fresh.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I entirely concur with the Attorney-General that all the general provisions are repeated; but the last paragraph is clearly a new limitation. I do not complain of that. It is perhaps desirable to have some limitation, but I think three months would probably be better than two. There was no limitation before. There is not a great deal in it, but it might be safer to say three months. A man might be abroad, for instance.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We will make it three months.
  Question, "That the Sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the proposed words (the word 'three' being substituted for the word 'two' in the last paragraph) be there inserted."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is proposed, in valuing a mortgage, to take the amount secured by the mortgage. Is that quite a sound way of valuing a mortgage? At first sight it is certainly startling to me that you should, under any circumstances, estimate the value of land by the amount secured by the mortgage.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is entirely for the mortgage's benefit.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I ask the learned Attorney-General what is the effect of this Amendment in calculating the site value for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty? It seems to me to have an advantage so far as the Increment Tax is concerned. Yet if the same method of calculation is pursued when you come to collect the Undeveloped Land Duty on the same land, it has a great disadvantage; and, moreover, an unfair disadvantage, for although the reason for this Amendment is that the land in the meantime may have deteriorated, therefore when increment is due it is merely assuming the former value, yet that argument would not apply in the case of Undeveloped Land Duty. Here, if the land was at the time at low ebb it would be a disadvantage to have it calculated as to its site value on the period when it was at the higher level. It appears to me, reading the Amendment and the Clause in regard to Undeveloped Land Duty, that the effect of it may be that when Undeveloped Land Duty comes to be charged the site value on which it was charged would be the higher and not the lower site value.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The objection taken by the Noble Lord comes not so much on this particular Amendment as on the original exemption. The answer to that is this: No doubt a higher original site value may be used against the owner for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty, but the owner in that case would not claim the exemption.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I point out that the two cases are not the same, because in the Increment Tax the land is not charged increment, because it is merely reassuming the former value which it had. In the Undeveloped Land Duty that is not the case, because it is put on the existing site value of the land. I think it makes a distinction.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think that meets the observations I have just made. There may be cases where, having regard

  257
  to the Increment Value Duty, it may not pay the owner to seek the benefit of this exemption. In those cases he will not seek it.

  CLAUSE 3.—(General Provisions as to Collection of Increment Value Duty.)
  (1) On each occasion on which Increment Value Duty is collected on the increment value of any land such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, after giving credit for the amount of duty paid on previous occasions.
  (2) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the transfer or passing on death of the fee simple in possession of any land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of land held in fee simple in possession by a body corporate or unincorporate, the whole amount of the duty which is determined to be due shall be collected by the Commissioners in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose.
  (3) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer or passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, such proportionate part of the duty shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners to be payable in respect of the interest in land created, transferred, passing on death, or held, in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose.
  (4) For the purpose of the collection of duty on the increment value of any land under this Section, the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced on the first occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due under this Act by an amount equal to ten per cent. of the original site value of the land, and on any subsequent occasion by an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the site value on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has become due, and the amount of duty to be collected shall be remitted in whole or in part accordingly.
  Any duty which by reason of this provision is remitted on any occasion shall not be collected and shall be deemed to have been paid.
  Provided that no remission shall be given under this provision on any occasion
  258
  which will make the amount of the increment value on which duty has been remitted during the preceding period of five years exceed twenty-five per cent. of the site value of the land on the last occasion on which increment value became due prior to the commencement of that period or of the original site value if there has then been no such occasion.
  (5) Increment Value Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment made: To insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words: "The Commissioners shall make such apportionments and re-apportionments of any duty paid on previous occasions as they think necessary for the purpose of giving effect to this provision."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBYmoved to insert, at the end of Sub-section (2) the words, "Provided that where Increment Value Duty becomes due on the occasion of any grant of a lease of the land, the duty shall, if the person or persons chargeable so desire, be collected by fifteen equal instalments payable annually."
  The land which is to be built upon in many parts of England and Scotland is not sold, but leased. I have always thought myself, if there is any justification at all for Increment Duty, it is in the case of these windfalls of which we hear so much when a man sells his land and gets his money into his hands. In cases where he does not sell the land, but simply leases it, and does not get a capital sum of money paid down, he should be allowed to pay by yearly instalments. If an Amendment similar to this is not accepted the result may be to stop the leasing of land for building purposes. I hope the Attorney-General may see his way to accept this Amendment. I do not suppose it would cost the Government any money; they would not lose by it in the long run, and it would be a great convenience to people, many of whom may only derive a very small increase on their yearly income by letting on lease.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the Noble Lord's Amendment would have a limiting effect. Under Clause 4, Sub-section 5, ample power is given to the Commissioners to make regulations with respect to the

  259
  payment by instalments, and they are not limited to 15 instalments. The Subsection says that regulations may be made for the payment of any Increment Value Duty by instalments in the case of any lease or transfer on sale where the consideration is in the form of a periodical payment, so they may make regulations for the payment of the whole Increment Value Duty by instalments.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved to insert at end of Sub-section (3) the words:—
  "Where on the occasion of the death of any person the property passing on the death comprises settled land in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased, then

  (a) if the subject of the settlement at the time of the death is the fee simple of the land, Increment Value Duty shall be collected as if the fee simple of the land passed; and

  (b) if the subject of the settlement at the time of the death is any other interest in the land, Increment Value Duty shall be collected as if that interest passed:

  but that duty shall not be collected on any such occasion if under the provisions of Section five of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, Estate Duty is not payable in respect of the settled land."
  This is a formal Amendment intended to deal with a difficulty which frequently arises under the Finance Act of 1894. Under that Act a partial interest or limited interest in land, for instance, a life tenant who succeeded to the land as a holder, although he might have succeeded to a life tenancy nevertheless paid duty on the whole fee simple. This Amendment makes clear that which perhaps the Finance Act of 1894 did not make clear. That Act used the expression "passing on death." This Amendment explains that expression and interprets it in the way in which it should be interpreted.
  Drafting Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Collection and Recovery of Duty in Cases of Transfers and Leases.)
  (1) On any transfer on sale of any land or interest in land, or on the grant of any lease of any land for a term exceeding fourteen years, Increment Value Duty shall be collected on the instrument by means of which the transfer or the lease is effected or agreed to be effected, and shall be assessed by the Commissioners and paid by the transferor or lessor, as the case may be.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the transferor or lessor, on the occasion of any transfer on sale of any land or interest in land or on the grant of any lease of any land for a term exceeding fourteen years, to present to the Commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by them, any such instrument or reasonable particulars thereof for the purpose of the assessment of duty thereon, and if the transferor or lessor fails to comply with this provision he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, with a right of appeal to quarter sessions, and to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum on any duty ultimately payable by him as from the date on which the instrument has been executed.
  (3) Any such instrument shall not, for the purposes of Section fourteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, and notwithstanding anything in Section twelve of that Act, be deemed to be duly stamped unless it is stamped—

  (a) either with a stamp denoting that the Increment Value Duty has been assessed by the Commissioners and paid in accordance with the assessment; or

  (b) with a stamp denoting that all particulars have been delivered to the Commissioners, which, in their opinion, are necessary for the purpose of enabling them to assess the duty, and that security has been given for the payment of duty in any case where the Commissioners have required security; or

  (c) with a stamp denoting that upon the occasion in question no Increment Duty was payable;

  but where an instrument is so stamped, it shall, notwithstanding any objection relating to the Increment Value Duty, be deemed to be duly stamped so far as respects that duty.
  (4) Any duty assessed by the Commissioners under this Section shall be a debt

  261
  due to the Crown from the transferor or lessor, as the case may be, and for the purpose of calculating the amount of Increment Value Duty due on any subsequent occasion shall be deemed to have been paid.
  (5) Regulations may be made by the Commissioners with respect to the mode in which any instrument is to be presented to them in order to be dealt with under this Section, and for the payment of any Increment Value Duty by instalments in the case of any lease or transfer on sale where the consideration is in the form of a periodical payment, and the Commissioners shall deal with any instrument presented to them and allow payment by instalments in accordance with those regulations. The regulations shall provide that where the duty due on the grant of a lease is payable by instalments, and the lease is determined before all such instalments have fallen due, the instalments which have not fallen due shall be remitted, and that in that case the amount of duty which, under this Section, is deemed to have been paid shall be reduced by the amount of the instalments so remitted.
  (6) In any case where Increment Duty shall have been paid under the provisions of this Section, but the transaction in respect of which the duty shall have been paid was subsequently not carried into execution, the duty shall be returned to the transferor or lessor on his making application to the Commissioners in accordance with regulations to be made by them under the provisions of Sub-section five thereof.
  (7) Where any agreement for a transfer or agreement for a lease is stamped in accordance with this Section, it shall not be necessary to stamp any conveyance, assignment, or lease made subsequently to and in conformity with the agreement.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), at the end to insert the words "but any person aggrieved by any conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction under this provision may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions."
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved, in Sub-section (5), after the word "and" ["and for the payment"], to insert the words "for dispensing with the presentation of any instrument, or particulars thereof, in cases where arrangements are made for obtaining those particulars through any registry
  262
  of lands, deeds, or title, or through a Register of Sasines, and with respect to the mode in which any application for a return of duty under this Section is to be made; and."
  This Amendment enables the Commissioners to dispense with the presentation of any instrument or particulars where they have already got the particulars in some public form.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, in Subsection (5), after the word "Duty" ["and for the payment of any Increment Value Duty"], to insert the words "or Reversion Duty."
  I want to meet the case of limited owners who do not come in as owners of settled land under the Settled Land Act, 1882. Their case is provided for by this Clause so far as their liability to Increment Value Duty is concerned, but they will be required to provide a lump sum for Reversion Duty, although by the nature of their position they may not have got it in hand. The right hon. Gentleman previously said that in the case of a sale there would be a lump sum out of which to pay the duty; but I want to provide for the case of the reversion falling in and the grant of a new lease. There is an increase in the capital value, but it is not realised at the time. It is only represented by an increased rent year after year. It must have been intended that the Clause should cover that case. It is not only proper, but necessary that it should be met.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that to insert these words here would go far beyond the necessities of the case, because it would extend the payment by instalments to the Reversion Duty under all conditions.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It is permissive.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know that it is really permissive. Regulations, after all, have to be made by the Commissioners, and unless there is something to indicate very clearly that it is the intention of Parliament the regulations should be confined merely to the case of the clergyman, the Commissioners would be duly bound if the words were inserted here to apply them to all cases. I should like the right hon. Gentleman really to consider whether the suggestion I put forward earlier in the evening would not adequately

  263
  meet the case. This is certainly not the point to do it effectively, but Clause 37. I think it would be a very dangerous thing to introduce here, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman he should withdraw his Amendment.
  11.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not quite understand what danger the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates. Of course, the Commissioners would be bound to make regulations, but they certainly would not say that in all cases the Increment Duty shall be paid by instalments; neither would they be bound to do so under this Clause. If they were, the same rule might be applied to the Reversion Duty. Certainly it would be for them to consider whether in such cases as my right hon. Friend has in mind it is fair and just that the Reversion Duty should be paid by instalments. In my opinion, at any rate, this is the point at which this question should be dealt with, and not Clause 37.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Suppose a man dies after he has paid only two or three instalments, who is to be responsible for the remaining instalments? Will the whole lot at once become due from his estate, or will his successor be held to be liable to continue paying the instalments?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The person for the time being in receipt of the rents would be liable.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is nothing in the Bill to make him liable.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert the words, "such regulations shall also provide that any person interested in the land may at any time on payment of a small fee obtain a certificate from the Commissioners that any duty has been paid on any occasion, and such certificate shall for all purposes of evidence and of title be conclusive."
  There is nothing here to enable the owner of land who has become liable to this duty, and who has paid it, to get a certificate of the payment, and I do suggest that we shall take the analogous case of the Death Duties, where a certificate can be applied for and obtained from the
  264
  Inland Revenue that these duties have been paid. Such certificate is a very useful thing to give with title, and the Government might consent to allow this Amendment to be made. We are dealing with regulations to be made by the Commissioners, and the effect of the Amendment is to provide that any person interested in land may at any time on payment of a small fee obtain a certificate from the Commissioners that such duty has been paid, and such certificate shall on all occasions be final and conclusive. The occasion I have in my mind is this: Increment Duty has been paid upon a contract and the provision is that the Increment Duty being so paid upon a contract the conveyance which has been subsequently given can be adjudicated duly stamped. It frequently happens, and in all cases of building land it always happens, that pieces of land are cut up and conveyed by a very large number of conveyances arising out of the same transaction, and all I am asking for is that it may be possible that the person who paid the amount should apply for a certificate that the duty has been paid, and that such certificates should accompany the sub-conveyances into the hands of the different purchasers.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this is clearly an Amendment, even if an Amendment is necessary—which I contend it is not—to Section 30 of the Bill. Again, under Sub-section (2), it is provided that the Commissioners shall furnish to any person on payment of a fee copies of any particulars so recorded by them relating to the land certified. That undoubtedly governs the case. The only difference suggested by the hon. Member is that the certificate supplied shall be evidence of title, and in that case it is clearly an Amendment to Clause 30, and comes in there.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is quite true that any person interested in the land can obtain from the Commissioners records, particulars of the valuation, apportionments, reapportionments, and assessments. What is not provided for is a certificate of the payment of duty.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The best place to raise it is on Clause 30, which deals with matters very much of the same character.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (6), after the word "Increment" ["In any case where Increment Duty"] to insert the word "Value."
  After the word "Commissioners" ["making application to the Commissioners"] to insert the words "within two years after the payment of the duty."
  To leave out the words "the provisions of Sub-section five thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "this Section, and in that case the duty returned shall not be deemed to have been paid for the purposes of this Section."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Sir W. ROBSONmoved at the end of the Clause to insert the words, "but the Commissioners shall, if an application is made to them for the purpose, denote on the conveyance, assignment, or lease the amount of duty paid."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to know whether this Amendment applies only to any conveyance, assignment, or lease as described in the Clause, that is, when it is made subject to and in conformity with the agreement. It seems to me it ought to apply to any conveyance, assignment, or lease which is made where Increment Duty is charged, because there is no provision in the Bill at all that the conveyance, assignment, or lease should bear a stamp denoting on the face of it what amount of duty has been paid, and it seems to me that that is really very necessary from the point of view of the person who receives the land, so that he may know on what lines increment will have to be paid in the future. Under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 there are various provisions for stamps, but the Attorney-General was quite well aware that under some of these provisions there may be only a stamp which will denote that all particulars have been delivered to the Commissioners which will enable them to make an assessment, and there is no provision for there being a stamp on the deed which would actually say what amount of duty has been paid. I think that is necessary, and I should like to ask whether those words are intended to convey that or whether they are limited to the words in the Clause.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Sub-section provides that where an agreement for the transfer on the sale is stamped it is not necessary to stamp the conveyance made subsequently to and in conformity with that agreement. That is a very reasonable provision. Of course you do not stamp an agreement for conveying if the conveyance itself is already in existence. The provision is necessary in order that
  266
  the subsequent agreement should be strictly in conformity with the original agreement. You could not allow the original deed to frank a deed subsequently made which is not in conformity with it and which has no relation to it.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Would there be any objection to put a denoting stamp on the conveyance that the duty was paid. May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a profound difference between these two statements. Supposing that £20 duty has been paid on the contract, then the conveyance is submitted for the denoting stamp. That denoting stamp would not be conclusive that £20 was the duty that ought to be paid.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It does not matter to the purchaser whether the duty has been paid or not. What does affect the purchaser is the amount of duty that has been paid.
  Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Collection and Recovery of Duty in Case of Death.)
  The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty; but where any interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable is property passing to the personal representative as such, the duty shall be payable out of that interest in land in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate, and shall be collected upon an account to be delivered by the personal representative, setting forth the particulars of the increment value in respect of the property:
  Provided that in respect of all property of the deceased, other than that assessed to Increment Value Duty, the Crown shall, as a creditor in respect of such Increment Value Duty, rank pari passu with the other creditors of the deceased.
  Amendments made: After the first "Duty" ["shall apply as if the Increment Value Duty"] insert "to be collected on the occasion of the death of any person."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Amendment proposed: To leave out "an addition to the" ["as if increment duty were an addition to the"].
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that at this point we might ask the Government how far they intend to proceed

  267
  to-night. I do not want to move the Adjournment now, but there is really nothing more to discuss on Clauses 5 and 6, and I think it would be a reasonable thing to adjourn and take up to-morrow Clause 7, which raises the important question of the exemption of agricultural land.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that is quite a reasonable suggestion. Clause 7 does raise an important matter on the Report stage for the consideration of the House. Therefore if it is really the desire of the Opposition to put it off until to-morrow I shall raise no objection.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Collection and Recorery of Duty in Case of Property Held by Bodies Corporate or (noncorporate.)
  (1) Where land or any interest in land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate, as defined by Section twelve of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is due shall be the fifth day of April in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifteenth year.
  (2) The account to be delivered under Section fifteen of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, shall, in the case of the account to be delivered in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifteenth year, contain an account of the increment value of the land, as on the preceding fifth day of April (calculated, in cases where an interest in the land only is held, in accordance with the value of the interest), and that Section shall, save as in this Act is hereafter provided, apply for the purpose of Increment Value Duty, whether the body corporate or unincorporate are chargeable with duty under Part II. of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, or not.
  (3) The provisions of Sections thirteen to eighteen, of Sub-section (1) of Section nineteen, and of Section twenty of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 (with the exception of any provisions relating to appeals), shall have effect for the purpose of the assessment and recovery of Increment Value Duty as they have effect for the purpose of the duty charged under Section eleven of that Act:
  Provided that Increment Value Duty may, if the body corporate or unincorporate chargeable therewith so desire, be paid by fifteen equal yearly instalments,
  268
  and the first instalment shall be due immediately after the assessment of the duty.
  Any part of any duty so payable by instalments may be paid up at any time.
  (4) Any Increment Value Duty assessed by the Commissioners on an account delivered in accordance with this Section shall, for the purpose of determining the amount of Increment Value Duty due on any occasion, be deemed to have been paid.
  (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the collection of Increment Value Duty on the occasion of the grant of any lease or the transfer on sale of any land or interest in land by a body corporate or unincorporate.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add the words, "or oblige an account to be delivered of the increment value of any land on any periodical occasion if under the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act Increment Value Duty ill respect thereof is not to be collected on that occasion."
  R SOLVED.—That the proceedings under the Bill be now adjourned until to-morrow.—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  [Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Bill considered, and reported without Amendment.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph pease.]
  House adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes after Eleven O'CLOCK.

  Labour Exchanges (Wales).
  Labour Exchanges (Wales).
  Poundgate New Road, Uckfield.
  Poundgate New Road, Uckfield.
  Templebreedy Fort, Crosshaven, County Cork.
  Templebreedy Fort, Crosshaven, County Cork.
FINANCE BILL.
  ANNUAL COMPENSATION.
  ANNUAL COMPENSATION.
  Old Age Pensions, Belnmullet, County Mayo.
  Old Age Pensions, Belnmullet, County Mayo.
  Licensed Premises (United Kingdom).
  Licensed Premises (United Kingdom).
  Old Age Pensions Disallowed (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions Disallowed (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Sligo).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Sligo).
  Royal Dockyards (Joiners in Dredging Department).
  Royal Dockyards (Joiners in Dredging Department).
  National Telephone Company's Plant (Sunderland).
  National Telephone Company's Plant (Sunderland).
  Post Office (Male Assistant's Pay).
  Post Office (Male Assistant's Pay).
  University Work (Administrative Reform).
  University Work (Administrative Reform).
  London University (Medical Degrees).
  London University (Medical Degrees).
  Vaccination (Cost),
  Vaccination (Cost),
LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 200.)

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this very small Bill. It is indeed a very modest and unpretentious measure, and had I not seen the notice of opposition on the part of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I should have thought that it was impossible to find anything to object to in it. It is simply to enable local authorities in Ireland to strike a rate and to spend a very small sum of the ratepayers' money in advertising in other parts than in Ireland the advantages and the amenities of their health resorts and watering-places. I do not think I can do better than read a few lines from a memorandum that has been drawn up, and, I think, sent to your
2
Lordships regarding the objects of this Bill—
"The desire to encourage visitors to Ireland is strongly felt by all classes in that country, but the difficulties in the way of making known the beauties and attractions of various districts there among the British public are very great owing to the great competition with Switzerland and other countries where the development of tourist business has been a national question, and where large sums are expended by the public authorities in those countries in advertising for and attracting the British tourist. This is a question in which not only the local authorities are interested, but also the railways and carrying companies who have expended, during recent years, enormous sums in the improvement of transport and intercommunication between England and Ireland … The towns in Ireland most anxious for the Bill are Cork, Queenstown, Killarney, Kingstown, Bray, Killaloe and a number of towns in the North of Ireland. In all of these towns the local authorities have, under the authority of the Local Govérnment Board, borrowed money and expended large sums in improvements suitable and necessary for the accommodation of visitors, and they naturally feel that unless there are powers granted to enable them to bring these advantages before the travelling public they do not receive the full benefit which they might otherwise expect from the large expenditures they have incurred. The sums likely to be expended in advertising are very trifling compared with the interest and sinking fund which has to be repaid in connection with these expenditures.
Therefore so far as this is a Bill to protect Ireland against foreign competition it is almost of the nature of a modified Tariff Reform Bill.

3
I do not know whether your Lordships noticed the names on the back of the Bill. They comprised three Unionist Ulster Members:—Mr. H. T. Barrie, Mr. T. L. Corbett, and Captain Craig; one Liberal Member representing an Irish Constituency, Mr. Glendinning; and seven Nationalist Members. All the Conservative members representing Ireland are in favour of this Bill. It is likewise backed and supported by the whole of the Nationalist members. Ireland is unanimous, so far as its members in the House of Commons are concerned, in support of this Bill. The Government starred it and therefore made it an official measure in order to enable the House of Commons to pass it, and it was assented to by Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, the chief Unionist Whip, on behalf of the Front Opposition Bench. Therefore I venture to claim for it that it comes here with the unanimous support of the House of Commons. It is true that one member in the other House raised some objection, not to the Bill as a Bill but to the Bill as a Government measure, because he said, being a Unionist, that no Government measure ought to be allowed to pass. That was Mr. Claude Hay, and he was requested by the ex-Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Campbell, to withdraw his opposition in this phrase—
"He hoped that Mr. Claude Hay would not prevent Ireland from getting what all Ireland wanted."
I understand that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees is going to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. I am not clear on what grounds he bases his opposition, but I think I am entitled to anticipate the noble Earl's arguments.
I believe it is urged that, in the first place, health resorts and watering-places either in Ireland or elsewhere ought not to advertise the merits of their wares, as it were, because unhealthy rivalry and competition might spring up and the ratepayers' money be expended unwisely. But I think I ought to point out to your Lordships that this Bill lays it down that the maximum rate that may be imposed in this direction is a penny in the pound; and I am sure your Lordships will recognise that in a poor country like Ireland, where the rateable value of these health resorts is not very great, a penny in the pound will bring in no very large sum of money.
4
Irishmen are as wise in the administration of their financial matters as we are, and I am sure that the local authorities will not unwisely or with any insane degree of recklessness expend the money of the ratepayers. But how are they to make known outside the advantages of their own districts unless they are allowed to advertise?
The second argument which I believe the noble Earl is going to advance is that if this power is granted to Ireland it cannot logically be withheld in this country when any towns come to Parliament and ask for similar powers. I venture to suggest that the noble Earl is entirely wrong, and I think against his contention one might cite almost the whole Statute Book of the realm. The great bulk of Bills before your Lordships' House and of Acts of Parliament that are passed do not deal in similar fashion with England and with Ireland. How many Bills have your Lordships had experience of dealing with Ireland alone; and it is a very frequent matter to find at the end of a Bill this significant clause, "This Bill shall not extend to Ireland." As a matter of fact, one might argue that it is the exception and not the rule when Bills, embodying principles perhaps far more important and more far-reaching than this, do apply both to England and Ireland. Therefore it is impossible to argue that because this very limited power is given to a very poor country which cannot possibly make the merits of its health resorts and watering-places known otherwise than by advertisement, this principle is bound to be embodied in other Bills to which your Lordships' assent will be asked dealing with towns in this country.
I venture to suggest that the principle should be dealt with as far as Ireland is concerned at the present time, and that when other Bills, of which I do not for one moment fear the introduction, are introduced for England, that will be the time for the noble Earl to object. To use the phrase of an Irishman, there is not one whisper of opposition from any corner of Ireland to this Bill, and I do not think any Irish Peer will get up and oppose it. I venture to suggest that the noble Earl does not know better what Ireland wants than the Irish members of Parliament, and, therefore, I hope he will

5
waive his decision and allow the Bill to be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marchamley.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read 2a this day three months, said: My Lords, the noble Earl said he was surprised to find that a notice of opposition had been put down to so harmless a Bill, but I think he will agree with me that the best thing I could do if I intended to ask your Lordships to take any exception to this Bill was to give due notice thereof, not only to the noble Lord but also to all members of your Lordships' House, and the result of my doing so has been to give an opportunity to those who support the Bill to take all the steps in their power to ask members of your Lordships' House to give it your support. The noble Lord appealed to some extent to the sentiment of your Lordships. He said that Ireland is a poor country, and surely you might allow it to have this little Bill. We all know that Ireland is the spoilt child of Parliament. Ireland has Acts of Parliament which make the mouths of Englishmen and Scotsmen water when we see the advantages that are extended to that country but which are denied to us. But what I desire to do is to call your Lordships' attention to what this must inevitably lead.
There is nothing really new in the proposal. It is one which is made every year in one or more of the Private Bills that come before your Lordships' House, and it has been the universal practice both of this House and of the other House to refuse clauses which provide that the ratepayers' money shall be spent in advertising the attractions of any particular locality. There are measures on the Statute Book which allow of advertising, but in every case except one—that of Blackpool, where it was allowed by inadvertence—the money is derived from some undertaking which shows a profit and the expenditure is confined to the profits derived from that undertaking. It is confined, in the case of Brighton, to profits from the Aquarium; in the case of Buxton, to profits from the Pump Room; and so on. What would be the result if you allowed all these places to compete
6
with each other in advertising their attractions? There is nothing that I know of to equal provincial jealousy. One small place is more jealous of its neighbour than it is of all the rest of the world. I remember it was one of the greatest difficulties we had to contend with in Australia. There was a Governor of New South Wales who went over to Melbourne and ventured, in an after-dinner speech, to say that Melbourne was the largest town in Australia, which was a truism and the merest commonplace. But he was so hauled over the coals when he got back to Sydney that he made the excuse that the statement was made after dinner and that the champagne was exceptionally good.
Do you not think the same thing will happen in Ireland? We shall have the inhabitants of Killaloe advertising that magnificent outside cars are provided to take people to see the beauties of the Valley of the Shannon, and then we shall have Killarney advertising to the effect that there are no old-fashioned outside cars there and nothing but up-to-date automobiles. I cannot help thinking that if you allow this to take place, the same thing must be allowed to Margate, Eastbourne, and to all the health resorts in England. Your Lordships are probably aware that there is now a large amount of advertising of English health resorts. But how is it done? It is done by voluntary association of those interested—of the railway companies, lodginghouse-keepers, and, perhaps, the fly-drivers and other people to whom tourists bring grist to the mill. The advertising is paid for out of these voluntary funds, and there can be no objection to a course of that kind; but there must be a large number of ratepayers to whom it is of little concern whether the lodginghouse-keepers and fly-drivers derive an increased income from visitors or not, yet a burden would be put upon them by this Bill. I see by Clause 2 that the expenses incurred by a district council are to be defrayed out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, and I conclude, therefore, that the expenses would be paid for by the ratepayers in the whole area of that district council.
I do not know what may be the view of His Majesty's Government upon this Bill. I only know what is their view on Bills of

7
a similar character which have been introduced in this House in this and the last session of Parliament. There was a Bill called the Dunoon Bill, which no doubt your Lordships may recollect. That proposed exactly the same thing as is contemplated in this Bill, and the Secretary for Scotland—I regret that the noble Lord is not in his place—said that there was no precedent in Scotland for allowing such advertising, and he strongly urged upon the Committee to whom the Bill was referred that they should reject that clause. Then a Bill was brought in last year by Margate, and the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board both drew the attention of the Committee to whom that Bill was referred to this matter and and strongly urged that the clause enabling them to advertise at the expense of the ratepayers should be struck out of the Bill, and it was accordingly struck out by the Local Legislation Committee in another place. I do not know what view your Lordships as a whole may take of this Bill. I have felt it my duty to point out that it will be creating a precedent, and if your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading and pass it into law I confess I do not see how it will be possible either for me in your Lordships' House or for the Local Legislation Committee in the other House to refuse to allow English watering-places and seaside resorts to have the same powers in the way of advertising.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion the words ' this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like, with you Lordships' leave, to say a few words in support of this Bill. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees did not mention to your Lordships that it was with the unanimous agreement of every member representing Ireland that the Bill was passed by the other House. He carefully avoided mentioning that important fact. Irish questions as a rule in the House of Commons are not taken in such good part by all parties as was the case with this Bill. With regard to the tourist question I suppose no one has worked harder than myself in regard to it, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House will remember perfectly well the first occasion when we brought forward the tourist question in
8
Ireland. He presided at that meeting, and there is another ex-Lord-Lieutenant here, Lord Cadogan, who will also remember the efforts everyone made, with no object of gain in view, to promote tourist traffic in Ireland.
The noble Earl who has moved the rejection of this Bill stated that Lord Marchamley, in moving the Second Reading had appealed to the sentiment of your Lordships' House. I do not wish in any way to appeal to the sentiment of the House. I wish to appeal to the business instincts of the House. What we want is to be able to advertise these Irish resorts. We are not able to advertise them now in the way that rich communities in England are able to advertise their resorts. The noble Earl drew attention to the fact that when similar provisions appeared in Private Bills they were always opposed. But this is not a Private Bill. It was starred by His Majesty's Government, and was supported in the House of Commons by all the representatives from Ireland. Then the noble Earl mentioned Blackpool, and said the power possessed by Blackpool in this matter was given by inadvertence. Was not that the most lucky thing that ever happened to Blackpool? There is no desert shore in the world that has bloomed forth as it has done into the most wonderful watering-place of modern times. Why, all the flying machines have gone there! But for the power of advertising Blackpool might have remained a shingly beach.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It is all sand.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Well, a sandy beach. Sand and shingle are very much the same thing, so far, at any rate, as the question of flying machines go. I think it was a very lucky thing for Blackpool that by inadvertence they were allowed to strike a rate for this purpose. Then the noble Earl said that if we had this power in Ireland it could not be refused by your Lordships to Margate, Ramsgate, and other places. I do not think that argument was a good one. You cannot compare the huge populations that seek fresh air in this country to the small populations in Ireland who are anxious that English people should come over and at all events see some of Ireland's most beautiful spots. There is something beyond the mere desire to advertise these places. I think it is a most

9
excellent thing that the English people should come over to Ireland and learn the ways of the people there and how they live. But the noble Earl wants to stop them from coming.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
THE EARL OF MAYO: We cannot advertise these places in the same way that you can in England. With regard to what was said about the interests of the ratepayers, if there was any fear of the interests of the ratepayers suffering in this matter, I venture to think my countrymen would have taken very good care to protect their interests. As to this principle if granted in the case of Ireland extending to England, I can only say that I think the noble Earl is well able to take the necessary precautions in that matter both in regard to Private Bills and Public Bills. I myself am a ratepayer, like other noble Lords, in Ireland, and I should be sorry if any ratepayer from this side of the Channel should oppose this little Bill. The authorities who would make use of this Bill if passed are Cork, Queenstown, Killarney, Kingstown, Bray, Killaloe, and a number of towns in the North of Ireland. The Northern members in the House of Commons can take very good care of themselves, as the noble Earl knows, and if those members had the slightest suspicion that the ratepayers were going to be up in arms about the matter, they would not have given their unanimous support to the Bill. There is a consensus of opinion throughout Ireland that the Bill should become law, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, in which case tie noble Earl will be able, if he thinks it necessary, to move any Amendment in Committee to further protect the interests of the ratepayers.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have little to add to the arguments so ably put forward by my noble friend behind me and by the noble Earl who has just sat down. The fact that the Bill was supported by all the Irish members in the other House is in itself a very strong argument in its favour, and therefore we shall be glad to see the Bill pass into law. The noble Earl the Lord Chairman objected to the Bill on the ground that there, was no precedent for it. I am afraid it is occasionally my duty, as representing the Irish Office, to
10
introduce Bills for which there is no precedent at all, and I do not see that we should necessarily be deterred on that account from giving the Bill a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House will feel that the Lord Chairman was well within his rights when he called attention to the peculiar provisions embodied in this Bill, because it is idle to conceal from oneself that the Bill is a very unusual Bill, and I am afraid I must add is one which conceivably might lead to considerable abuse. It is not difficult to imagine a, case in which a reckless expenditure of the ratepayers' money might take place, not for the benefit of the ratepayers generally, but for the benefit of hotel keepers and other people more immediately concerned in the tourist traffic. Therefore, like the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, I approach this Bill with a certain feeling of suspicion, but I think it is fair to consider the circumstances under which the Bill is brought before the House. It is apparently desired with absolute unanimity in Ireland; it is supported in another place again unanimously by members of Parliament who do not always act together in reference to such matters, and there is also this consideration which may, perhaps, be borne in mind. Development of tourist traffic in Ireland on anything like the present scale is a comparatively modern innovation, and my noble friend who spoke from the Bench behind and others who have been working with him have really within the last few years done an immense deal to bring about a knowledge and an appreciation of the very great attractions which that country offers to visitors. I speak with no particular prejudice in favour of these advertisements, because my attention was called to one the other day in which the enterprising proprietor of an hotel proclaimed to the public that his guests were entitled to free fishing in certain waters which happen to be my private property, and I can conceive an almost indefinite extension of practices of that kind. I think we must allow that in Ireland we are nothing if not illogical, and that a certain amount of indulgence on special Irish grounds may be claimed by the promoters of this Bill to such an extent that some of us who, on principle, are not entirely favourable to the measure, would not perhaps feel justified in going

11
to the length of voting against it on Second Reading.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I thought I had a plain duty to perform to your Lordships' House to point out what I think this Bill may lead to. The arguments which have been addressed to your Lordships seem to me chiefly to have been of the kind which was adduced in excuse for Mrs. Easy's baby—that it was but a little one—and that Ireland is entitled to be treated quite differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. That appears to be the general view of noble Lords, and I shall, therefore, not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing against the Bill; but I trust you will exonerate me if you find this practice spreading throughout the seaside towns and health resorts of England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): I rise to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 3. This, as your Lordships will see, deals with the question of regulations respecting priority, and the same subject is dealt with later under certain Amendments proposed by my noble friend behind me, Lord MacDonnell, and sought to be amended by other noble Lords. We have taken the view that it is not reasonable or desirable to insert these proposed provisions in the Act of Parliament. There is, in fact, no precedent that I can recall for doing anything of the kind. When the Act of 1903 was in progress Mr. Wyndham made certain forecasts of the manner in which and the amount to which advances would, as he believed, be made by the Treasury. The sum of five millions, with which your Lordships are so familiar, was first mentioned by him in that connection, and Mr. Wyndham's forecast has in the main been fulfilled, although, as we know, it has been to a certain degree exceeded of
12
late. When it became a question of whether certain classes of transactions should have precedence of others, it was done by regulation, as your Lordships are aware, in more than one instance. I took occasion on the Second Reading of the Bill to state what the form would probably be, as we hoped, of the advances. There is this general objection, I think, to placing provisions of this kind in an Act of Parliament, that so far as their general lines are concerned you gain nothing over and above the assurance which you receive as in this case from the responsible Government, because, of course, it would be impossible for any Government to go back as regards the general lines of assurances thus given; whereas if for any reason you want to make some small or slight alteration in the regulations you have to come to Parliament and pass a fresh Act through both Houses before you can alter them in the minutest particular. It therefore needs some justification, which we have not yet heard, for the insertion of these provisions in an Act instead of proceeding by way of regulation. My second subsection provides that the regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and, of course, therefore they will be subject to the criticism of both. It is also important to remember that under the Statutes which regulate publication notice has to be given to the public of the intention to make the regulations forty days before, and the draft regulations are open to public inspection, which enables anybody who desires when the regulations are laid before Parliament to take any exception, to be in a position to do so after full preparation.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The Amendment does not say that.
THE EARL OF CREWE: But that is the law which governs all regulations. The Rules Publication Act, as the noble and learned Lord knows, compels them to be open to public inspection for forty days. As I say, that gives an opportunity before they are issued for anybody who considers himself aggrieved by them to study them with a view to causing criticism to be made, if he so desires, in Parliament.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My point is that there is no provision in this section that if either House of Parliament objects the regulations must be withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: No; but they are open to the criticism of both Houses.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Instructive but useless.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Surely not entirely useless, because I can conceive eases where the criticism might be so intelligent that it might lead to an alteration of the regulations. The safeguard, in fact, that is given is the safeguard of full publicity. I do not go further than that. We do not place them under Parliamentary control for reasons which noble Lords will understand. Therefore, although in the main I may say the proposals made by my noble friend behind me carry out the intentions of the Government and, speaking generally, embody what the regulations would be, we feel that it is not desirable to place them in an Act of Parliament; and unless noble Lords go so far as so say that they cannot trust us to put forward the regulations in the form which we indicate—unless they go so far as that I am not quite clear what arguments they will produce for placing these regulations in the Act instead of leaving them to be carried out in the way which we propose. It is quite clear, and I think it was generally admitted by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and others, that nobody would propose to ask the Treasury to bind itself to advance a given sum in any given year. That, I think, is a subject of general agreement. But we have always said that our intention is to raise this five millions in cash until the block is wiped out. We then propose to place a restriction as regards one million for the purpose of purchase by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, or, in the form which your Lordships have now placed this Bill, by the Congested Districts Board through the Estates Commissioners, supposing that to be the form in which the Bill ultimately becomes law. I need not repeat the proposed allocation of the rest of the cash because I have already stated it more than once, and it is repeated, I think, in my noble friend's Amendment. I defer anything further that I may have to say on this point until I have heard what noble Lords have to say on the point of the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill at all, rather than the method of proceeding by regulation.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
'4.—(1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant under subsection (8) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by moans of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned, and for allocating as between different classes of sales the total amounts from time to time available for advances.
(2) Every regulation made under that subsection shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said that as he had had the privilege of bringing this matter before their Lordships in the Committee stage, he might be allowed to follow the noble Earl. The noble Earl had said, and said very justly, that under the provisions of the Act of 1903 certain regulations were made. But the position now was quite exceptional. They had never had a condition of things such as this Bill would bring about. The Act of 1903 was entirely an Act for cash payment, and he could understand that the regulations in connection with that payment were very simple. But that case had passed away; they were now going to deal with three sorts of payments to three sorts of people, and while the noble Earl's Amendment would suffice for cash payments, he maintained that in the present case it did not go far enough, and that the exceptional treatment they were going to receive under the Bill required that this point should be dealt with in a separate and entirely different manner. The Amendment which he had been allowed to bring forward in Committee was, he admitted, not quite as distinct as he would have liked it to have been, and he was glad he was allowed to withdraw it. He considered that the whole question bristled with difficulties, and that potent instructions must be given to the Estates Commissioners who were going to deal with these vast sums of money. He could not imagine a Lord Lieutenant being placed in a more disagreeable position than that of having to suggest new treatment and to issue new regulations. On the question of stock, which he hoped to discuss later, it was difficult to deal fairly with the respective parties because they must not lose sight of the fact that there were fifty-two millions of property lodged on the faith of being paid in cash. He did not blame His Majesty's Government in the least for that

15
but still it showed that different conditions were necessary to allocate with a proper balance of justice between the respective parties—those who wanted payment in cash, those who wanted payment in half stock and half cash, and those who wanted payment in stock—all of which required separate registers as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment, but would listen with favour to any remarks that might be made from that side of the House as to the amending of this clause.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that when the noble Lord, Lord Langford, brought forward his Amendment he ventured to make certain suggestions with a view of possibly improving it. He felt with the noble Lord that the subject was one upon which certain definite regulations were desirable. Although he (Lord MacDonnell) believed that the Estates Commissioners had always endeavoured to perform their duties impartially, yet in certain instances suspicions did prevail in reference to priority of dealing with applications, and consequently a feeling of dissatisfaction existed which was out of all proportion to the cause. It also appeared to him that in the proposals of the noble Lord there were certain admirable suggestions which had not been previously brought into practice, and which it would be to the good of everybody to reduce into the form of rules. In the rules which were on the Paper that night he had endeavoured to incorporate Lord Langford's ideas, and generally to produce a scheme which he thought would be found workable in practice; but he agreed with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that it would be better if the rules were elastic, and that they should, if possible, avoid stereotyping them in the form of an enactment which would require another Act of Parliament to alter. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House would consider the proposals he had made and could see his way to embody them in the rules which he proposed to lay on the Table of the House, he certainly would not feel disposed to impede or inconvenience His Majesty's Government in this matter. He supposed the matter would come up for discussion on Clause 14, and he would point out that when rules were laid on the Table of both Houses they became nugatory if either House objected
16
to them. It might thus come to pass that on a most important matter, a matter upon which the efficient discharge of the duties of the Estates Commissioners would depend, a conflict between both Houses might produce the most serious inconvenience. That was a matter of great importance to be considered in deciding upon the question whether it was better to proceed in this instance by means of rules embodied in the Act or by means of regulations. When they came to that particular clause he would avail himself of the opportunity to make some further remarks on the subject.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that this was by no means a simple question, and one could discuss it without imputing the slightest vestige of bad faith to His Majesty's Government or suggesting for a moment their wish to do anything except what was perfectly fair. He felt fully the force of the argument that putting everything in black and white into a Statute that could not be changed was a serious matter and he appreciated the advantages in many ways of having regulations that might be varied according to the exigencies of practice and of experience; but he thought that the noble Earl the Leader of the House asked in this Amendment for too blind a trust. There was no suggeston from the beginning to the end of this very innocent looking clause that any regard was to be paid at all to priority. Absolute power was taken to the Executive in the matter. If they found that a certain number of estates had by energy been got in the list early and had made all their arrangements, regard had to be paid to that, but absolute power was given to the Executive to decide the priority. He knew that Lord MacDonnell had tried to work out fair results, but he was not sure that he was prepared, after having read his Amendments, to think they were the best that could be drafted. As he understood, Lord MacDonnell's suggestion was that first there should be a general register, in which regard should be paid in framing it to the priority of dates.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: A sort of day book, in which every entry should be put down, and then carried to the registers, which are a sort of ledgers.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that was what he understood. There was first a general register, which was to be framed according to the dates. That was the vulgar way of ascertaining priority. That was called the

17
general register. And then the noble Lord said there would be three subsidiary registers, and here it was that he (Lord Ashbourne) was to a certain extent unable to follow the argument. Once the entries were taken from the general register and put into the three subsidiary registers, as far as those entries were concerned the general register was bid goodbye to; it need not be looked to again. What were those three subsidiary registers? He did not clearly know. One was A and another was B, and then there was one that was supposed to contain those who were satisfied to be paid altogether by stock. Well, but how were they to secure the priorities, clashing priorities, priorities that were not agreed upon?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: It is stated in the section.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he had read it more than once, and he still asked how were they to be ascertained? The dates in the general register were clear enough, but each subsidiary register must have separate priorities for itself. How were they to recognise each of the three subsidiary registers so as to bring out the competing priorities in a way to give satisfaction?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: They do not compete.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked who was to decide when there were three subsidiary registers.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: May I explain?
LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, certainly.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that when the office was opened in the morning, the people—A, B, C, and D—would be there ready with their documents to deposit. A deposited his documents with the particulars, they were noted down in the register, and he said "I want to be paid in cash." B came on and deposited his documents and particulars and said the same thing, that he wanted to be paid in cash. C came and depositing his documents said, "I wish to be paid in stock." while D, after depositing his papers, said he wished to be paid partly in stock and partly in cash. And so on to the end of the day; as people came their names and the
18
facts of their applications were entered in this general register. They need not call it a register. They could call it a day list. At the end of the day clerks would be set to work and A, who had presented his papers first and claimed cash, was entered in the cash payments register first on the list. B, who came after him, and also wanted cash, was entered next on the list. C, who came after the other two, but wished to be paid in stock was entered first in the stock register; and D, who came last and wished to be paid partly in stock and partly in cash was entered in the cash and stock register. When it came to paying each, the payments were made from different funds. The man who wanted cash did not want stock. Consequently the priority in the stock register was of no consequence to him. He only looked to the priority in the cash register. In the same; way the man who wanted cash and stock did not care what happened to the other two. Consequently the priority, once they were entered in the register, was the priority in the register in which they were entered. There could be no mistake if that wore done.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he was afraid there could be a mistake; not in the noble Lord's statement, but as to the hand that would enter in the register the particular figures. Would they be entitled to do anything to secure a priority outside of the fact of the position in the subsidiary registers? There were three or four methods to be considered. One, the voluntary method of sale between landlord and tenant. Then there was the method of buying voluntarily by the Estates Commissioners. Then there was the method of the Land Judge, who might sell under his jurisdiction; and finally there might be those who might be created under this Bill, the people who were compelled to sell by compulsory sales. What was the position of these four people among themselves? There was the compulsory sale. Was it intended if a compulsory sale was carried out that it should be paid for in cash?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Those are not registered.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he understood that cash was to be paid in compulsory sales.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Not of any in these registers. These are registers of applications.
LORD ASHBOURNE: That is what I was suggesting, that the noble Lord's statement of registers is not exhaustive.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: They are registers of applications only.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that might be so, but the noble Lord's Amendment from beginning to end, though most carefully framed, did not indicate that there was to be any special or different regard paid to the source from which the entry came. He had indicated four. The landlord who sold voluntarily to his tenant was one. The Estates Commissioners buying voluntarily was another. The Estates Commissioners buying compulsorily was another. The Land Judge, proceeding by the mechanism of his Court, was another. There was nothing in the clause to show it, there was a confusion likely to arise amongst them, that any regard was to be had to the special priorities that might come up between them. The matter was not simple. He gave credit for good faith to everyone, but he was not satisfied that the noble Earl's clause would work out necessarily well, because it asked too blind a trust, and it did not give on the face of the clause any guidance to the Executive to work it out. He was disposed to think that the noble Lord's Amendment, which he presumed would not be taken at the same time as the clause of the noble Earl, would not of itself give guidance. He admitted that the noble Lord had framed it with an honest desire to do this, but although the noble Lord was, of course, quite capable of grasping, he had not grasped in a way that was clear to his (Lord Ashbourne's) mind the various difficulties that might arise amongst competing priorities. Though they might have an interesting discussion on this question now, he did not see how they could entirely escape from its renewal on the final stage of the Bill.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON thought the two objections were unanswerable. First of all, they could embody all these provisions in an Act of Parliament, but that would make them too rigid. He thought that was clear. He felt that on the other side his noble and learned friend's objection was equally well founded. The noble Earl the Leader of the House asked for absolute trust, and proposed another new clause by which, under subsection (8) of Section 23 of the Act of 1903, regulations might be laid before Parliament, and they might
20
be enforced. He did not think any satisfactory and workable method could be arrived at except in the form he was about to suggest. It was that the regulations should be put into a schedule, and then they would take powers under the Bill to modify the schedule from time to time with a provision that any order or variation made by the Lord Lieutenant modifying the schedule should lie upon the Table of each House of Parliament for forty days during the time Parliament was sitting, and if any resolution should be carried in either House against the variation, the modification should not be carried out. They would thus get a set of rules which would be fairly useful, but would not be so rigid, because they might be changed from time to time according as the necessity arose. That method was followed in the Local Government Act of 1898 to avoid making it unduly lengthy, and they provided that orders might be made adjusting the provisions of a number of Acts given in the schedule. The difference there was, of course, that there was a final adaptation, but here they might adapt from time to time as the occasion arose. A new point might arise at any time, but they could provide that the order modifying the rules should lie on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and if a resolution was carried against it, it should not be carried out. That would not bring the thing to a standstill, as Lord MacDonnell feared; it would enable them to proceed under the schedule and get a modification from time to time until something further could be done.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO remarked that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had got one in, so to speak, before Lord MacDonnell had managed to get his guard up at all. Noble Lords from Ireland did not approve of the means proposed by the noble Earl for dealing with what his noble friend Lord Langford had described as quite a new state of affairs. The Lord Lieutenant, who was really the Chief Secretary, was to determine the priority of stock and cash payments and so on. That was an enormous responsibility to put upon anyone. He noticed that Lord MacDonnell said that if the noble Earl would embody in his rules and regulations Lord MacDonnell's suggestions that appeared further on in the list of Amendments, he would be, so to speak, satisfied. But that did not satisfy noble Lords

21
from Ireland in any way. They thought that that would be impossible for the noble Earl to do, and he was sure the noble Earl would feel so too. But a suggestion had been put forward by Lord Atkinson that there should be a schedule, and that that schedule should be subject to alteration from time to time by the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. That, he thought, was a very reasonable and commonsense view to take of the matter, and it might be the means of getting them out of this difficulty. He did not know how it commended itself to the noble Earl. The noble Earl had referred to trusting the Government. He trusted the noble Earl, but his trust in the Chief Secretary was much more modified than the trust he reposed in the noble Earl. It was much better to be quite frank about the matter, and those were their feelings. He hoped the noble Earl would consider the suggestion made by Lord Atkinson with regard to the schedule and the regulations.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON thought the noble Earl the Leader of the House would see that some modification of the clause was desirable. As the clause stood, although they had the fullest confidence in the intentions of the noble Earl, there was nothing to determine the priority in which the Lord Lieutenant might order advances to be made. On the other hand, the discussion which had taken place rather prematurely on Lord MacDonnell's Amendments showed that it was very difficult, at all events in the body of the Bill, to embody all the regulations which it might be desirable should be made. He suggested to the noble Earl that they should have some governing words to the clause which he was submitting, and that subsequently, if thought well, Lord Atkinson's proposal could be adopted. He therefore moved to add to the first subsection of Lord Crewe's Amendment the provision that "such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission." Those words were not absolutely binding, but they showed a clear intention which would enable Parliament at any subsequent stage to treat them as a basis of any arrangement which it might be necessary to make. He moved that these words be now inserted as governing words without in any way prejudicing the question raised by Lord Atkinson of including in the schedule
22
such regulations as might be found desirable in accordance with the Amendments submitted by Lord MacDonnell.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To add at the end of the first subsection the words 'But such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said it appeared to him that even the noble Viscount's Amendment did not give quite the security they desired. The words were that "as far as was reasonably practicable" the order of priority should be preserved. It might be found that it was not convenient to preserve that priority. It might be thought expedient to give payments in stock priority over payments in cash, and if the Treasury found that this was the most convenient course, it might be then said that it was not reasonably practicable to preserve the original priority.
THE EARL OF CREWE: On the suggestion of the noble Viscount I have to say this. It does not seem to me that his Amendment carries out the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the various priorities. His Amendment makes no allusion whatever to the fact that we propose to divide the whole number of pending agreements into classes, to be dealt with pari passu, and all retaining their general priority on the list only so far as that priority can be applied to the class to which they themselves belong. That is to say, suppose that the first three or four millions of transactions were put forward by people who were first in time but who refused to take anything except cash, and a vendor came forward who was prepared to take only stock. On our system he would come in at the top of his class, and be considered pari passu with number one of those who were prepared to take cash, and similarly with regard to those who were prepared to take stock and cash together. Our object is to maintain priority in point of time so far as we can consistently with the division into three classes. If you do not do this, it is evident that you give no advantage in point of time to those who are prepared to take stock, and, as we know, it is not quite so pleasant to take stock

23
as it is to take cash. If you do not give priority nobody will take stock at all, and you may as well leave the provision out of your financial clauses. Assume that a gentlemen called A is at the top of the cash class. Another gentleman called B is at the top of the stock class, and C is at the top of the mixed class. Those cases will all be taken pari passu at the same time as far as possible. D is a cash gentleman. He will come second, but where he will gain or may gain is that B and C being before him on the list would have had to be considered in any case on a system of pure priority before him, whereas now he will be promoted in point of time from the fourth place to the second, and so on all through. Now the Amendment of the noble Viscount seems to me to leave this fact altogether out of account, and merely to draw attention to the fact that general priority in time without any reference to class or the character of the transaction is alone to be respected. Apart from those three we have the case of the sales to the Estates Commissioners and those of a compulsory character. Those must stand in a different class, because they are ex hypothesi of a somewhat urgent character in the public interest, and although we do not want to mass them in front of the other transactions, yet they must be treated as a class apart, and have their places in point of priority in that particular class. You have therefore the four sets, all of them proceeding pari passu, and indeed we hope to include, as time goes on, a certain number even of a fifth class—that is, those who come in future agreements, because those are payable in stock. The whole question, as your Lordships well know, is governed by the fact that we have only so far as we can tell these five millions of actual money, and we think that if with five millions we ought to try to effect ten millions of transactions, this offers the best chance of doing it. Now as regards the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson), which I fully recognise is intended to be of a thoroughly helpful character, I am afraid we see strong objection to that course. We do not think it is a desirable thing that whenever an amendment is made at any future time in such regulations, although it may not be of a very serious character, that there should be prospects of a debate about it, not always on its actual merits, but possibly for some other reason, in either or in both Houses of Parliament.
24
We see no immediate prospect of altering the general principle on which these priorities are to be governed, and we must adhere to the view that it is not really necessary in the interests of anybody to attempt to describe them in detail either in the body of the Bill or in the schedule. I heard with regret what fell from the Earl of Mayo as to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. I am bound to say that I desire no personal compliments at the expense of my right hon. friend, and I venture to say that when I make a statement, or any Minister makes a statement, on behalf of the Government, I expect it to be accepted on behalf of the Government without any reference to cither my personal qualities or those of any other Minister. I regret, therefore, that the noble Earl should have made that allusion in the manner in which he did. I fear, however, that we must stand out for the clause as it appears on the Paper, and must, if necessary, divide upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will only ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he thinks he has sufficiently considered that the form of words proposed by the noble Viscount really does admit of a certain amount of elasticity in the interpretation of these regulations. I quite understand the point made by the noble Earl a few moments ago, that these applications fall within four different categories, and that there may be a tendency for applications to gravitate towards one category or another, and that an application which is, say, seventh in point of time on the general list may turn out to be number one in a less popular category. That, I think, is the noble Earl's point; but is not that covered by the noble Viscount's suggestion that the "allocation shall so far as is reasonably practicable preserve the priority" in which the agreements are lodged with the Land Commission? I think that was the object with which my noble friend drew his words, and if the noble Earl would add additional words making it clear that this priority was to be looked for, having regard to the distribution of the applications as between the different classes of applications, I have no doubt that the noble Viscount would be glad to consider a proposal to amend his Amendment. But I am afraid on this side of the House we do feel that it is necessary to insert in this Amendment some words indicating generally that

25
the principle of priority must be kept in mind by those who will interpret this Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House because I have already spoken on the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I do not quite follow what is in the mind of the noble Viscount or the noble Marquess, and I fail to see what it is exactly they are afraid of. Are they afraid that the Estates Commissioners will deliberately postpone pending applications in favour of number 9 or number 10 or number 20 upon the list, other things being equal? Or is the object of the noble Viscount that the indirect sales—that is to say, the sales through the Estates Commissioners—should have no advantage over the ordinary direct sales? It was not quite clearly explained by the noble Viscount. I do not know that there ever has been any imputation against the Estates Commissioners that they have, so to speak, darted about from date to date, and given some vendor an undue preference over a man who lodged an agreement before him. I was under the impression that, subject to the fact that the sales of the Estates Commissioners were for the reason I have given held to have a certain claim to have a priority of their own, as regards the ordinary transactions of the office the priority had always been maintained, and I have never heard any imputation to the contrary. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said that the case seemed to him to be perfectly clear. He confessed that what he apprehended was this, that the Treasury might find it
very difficult to appropriate more than a moderate amount of cash, and that the Estates Commissioners, following a precedent of which they had heard a great deal in that debate, would send broadcast to those who had agreements to sell a circular asking them, "Will you take cash or stock?" A certain number might say they were ready to take stock, and in that event those estates, being apparently available at the beginning of the financial year, might be put in the forefront, and without regard to priority those estates might be taken. The Commissioners would then say, "we are full of applications in respect of vendors who will take stock, and we require a very small amount of cash." That would be a very hard measure on those landlords who could not afford to take anything but cash. There was a, second difficulty. The noble Earl knew that those who were compelled to sell were to be paid in cash and not stock, and there might be a considerable number of those on whom compulsion was brought to bear in the course of a single year.
LORD ASHBOURNE: If the noble Earl will look at subsection (7) of Lord MacDonnell's proposed new clauses, he will find the words of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think you will find a great many more also.
On Question, whether the words proposed by Viscount Midleton be added to the proposed new clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Halsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Rutland, D.

Huntingdon, E.

Hill, V.

Somerset, D.

Lichfield, E.

Hood, V.

Sutherland, D.

Lucan, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Wellington, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Iveagh, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Mayo, E.

Abinger, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Plymouth, E.

Addington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Rosslyn, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Sandwich, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cadogan, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Ashtown, L.

Carnwath, E.

Stamford, E.

Atkinson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Bagot, L.

Clarendon, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Barnard, L.

Cowley, E.

Wicklow, E.

Barrymore, L.

Cromer, E.

Bateman, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Belper, L.

Devon, E.

Falkland, V.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Essex, E.

Falmouth, V.

Castletown, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Forester, L.

Northcote, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Grenfell, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)

Clonbrock, L.

Harlech, L.

Cloncurry, L

Hindlip, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Colchester, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Sanderson, L.

Collins, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Cottesloe, L.

Kenyon, L.

Sinclair, E.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

De Mauley, L.

Knaresborough, E.

Stanmore, L.

Desborough, L.

Langford, L.

Stewart of Garlies, E.(E. Galloway.)

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Lawrence, L.

Digby, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Templemore, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Massy, L.

Ventry, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Waleran, L.

Faber, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wynford, L.

Farnham, L

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Airedale, L.

Lucas, E.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Armitstead, L.

Marchamley, L.

Boston, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Ribblesdale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Eversley, L.

St. Davids, L.

Chichester, E.

Glantawe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Liverpool, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Haversham, L.

Weardale, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V.

Lochee, L.

Welby, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved a new clause providing that where a vendor under future purchase agreements received payment in stock instead of cash, superior interests payable out of the purchase money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works, or any public Department should be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock had been received by the vendor. The same question was raised in the Committee stage, and he thought the noble Earl, in his reply, devoted nearly the whole of his attention to pending agreements. The noble Earl said, in effect, that if any vendor who had a pending agreement chose to wait till the Greek Kalends he might hope to be paid in cash, and therefore it was rather unfair to ask a Government Department to receive stock when he could get cash and pay them in cash. That was with regard to pending agreements; but with regard to future agreements they must be paid in stock. The vendor had no option in the matter. He suffered most. The noble Earl had explained that the bonus averaged four and a-half per cent. less than that obtainable under the Act of
28
1903, and in addition to that there was the depreciated stock. The noble Earl had told them that it did not matter so much that the stock was depreciated, because it was such an excellent investment that people would keep it and would not realise it; but, unfortunately, they would have to realise it if the Government Departments insisted upon being paid in cash. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and he thought his was a most reasonable suggestion. The noble Earl had said he might be inclined to consider this in the case of future agreements, and he hoped the noble Earl would tell them that this very reasonable proposition might be accepted.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
'4. Where a vendor, under future purchase agreements receives payment in stock instead of in cash, all charges, duties, incumbrances, and redemption prices of quit-rents, tithe rent-charge, or other superior interests payable out of the purchase-money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works or any Public Department, shall be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock was received by the vendor, and it shall be lawful for the Land Judge, and the Judges of the Chancery Division, and for any trustees, in respect of any sums payable out of the purchase-money into

29
Court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord has stated his case with moderation, but I am afraid I cannot on behalf of the Government hold out any hope of accepting this provision. We do not feel it is possible, supposing any loss to take place, that we should place such a loss on departments who are in no sense parties to the purchase, and who therefore are rather in the position of an ordinary encumbrancer. For instance, supposing that a loss arises over a Board of Works Loan. The loss then falls on the local funds, and that means that it has to be met by other borrowers, which I suppose the noble Lord would not contemplate, or the deficiency would have to be made up by a vote. Therefore we do not feel able to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion. I admit, of course, that he has modified it considerably by making it refer to future agreements, but I hope the noble Lord will be disposed not to press it, even in its modified form.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE desired to point out, as his noble friend had pointed out in Committee, that the case was a far larger one than the noble. Earl seemed to imagine. The loans referred to by the noble Earl were a very small percentage of the cases that would come under this clause if it passed. This clause dealt with the repayment of interests, many of them centuries old, interests dating from the time when the land was originally acquired from the Crown; and landlords were going to be put in this position, that in every future sale, in order to redeem the superior interests, which must be redeemed—it was not possible for a landlord to say he was ready to go on paying the annual amount, he must redeem them—the landlord would have to sell stock obviously at a very much lower price than he received it from the Government. He confessed he could see only one way out of it. These superior interests were redeemed at a price fixed, not fixed by the Government, but fixed in accordance with the procedure under the Act of 1903. As a rule, he thought these superior interests had been redeemed in the past at the price of twenty-seven years purchase. Those who had to redeem these superior interests in the future would go to the arbitrator and ask for the price to be refixed, and one of the things on which they
30
would base that request, he assumed, would be the fact that they had to incur a very large loss, and he thought that, fact might be: considered by the arbitrator and that the price of redemption might consequently be reduced. It was, therefore, possible that the Government might yet suffer the loss which at present they thought they were avoiding and putting entirely on the shoulders of the landlord. That was the only hope he had in face of the refusal of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said he did not know whether his noble friend intended to divide the House on his Amendment, but he would point out to the noble Earl the Leader of the House what he thought had not yet occurred to him, and that was that at this moment the Government had no power to accept stock instead of cash. A case might arise in which the one thing which the Government might wish to avoid would be the depreciation of their own stock, and they would desire to avoid a large quantity of stock being thrown on the market. The obvious justice of his noble friend's proposal must commend itself to all; and he suggested that it might be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, with the alteration of "shall" to "may" in the provision that "superior interests…shall be received and paid in stock." It was obvious, if it was not in the power of the Government to accept stock, that cases might arise in which they would be actually prohibited from paying out stock by the large amount put on the market by the vendors being forced to sell.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount's suggestion would come in after the word "Department"?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Yes.
THE EARL OF CREWE: If I may be allowed, I will consider before the Third Reading whether the Amendment could be accepted in that form. I am afraid it cannot be accepted in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (1) of Clause 6—
6.—(1) The charge on the Guarantee Fund for any deficiency in respect of the issue of stock or bills or bonds at a discount shall extend only to the amount of the Ireland Development Grant

31
which forms part of the cash portion of that fund; and the deficiency, so far as is not made good out of that amount, shall be made good out of moneys provided by Parliament,
to insert, after the words "cash portion of that fund," the words "and is available in excess of the sum of five thousand pounds and twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Congested Districts Board respectively." He said that the Amendment as it appeared on the Notice Paper was incorrect, as he intended it only to apply to the Congested Districts Board. It would now read, "and is available in excess of the sum of twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of the Congested Districts Board." He had put this Amendment upon the Paper with the object of getting some assurance from His Majesty's Government that it was not their intention to give to the Congested Districts Board with one hand and to take away with the other. At the present time the Congested Districts Board received two sums of £20,000 and £25,000. The sum of £20,000 was charged on the Development Grant, and the £25,000 was a Parliamentary Grant made to the Congested Districts Board in 1899. Both his Amendment in Clause 6 and the subsequent Amendment in Clause 40 were devised with the object of making sure that these two sums of £20,000 and £25,000 should be preserved to the Congested Districts Board. If he received that assurance from His Majesty's Government he would be satisfied and would withdraw his Amendment, but if he did not receive that assurance he would be compelled to divide the House upon it. As the Bill now stood, the Treasury took over the loss by flotation on all pending agreements, and they said that so far as the Development Grant lasted, the interest and sinking fund on those losses should be charged against the Development Grant. The £20,000 was charged against the Development Grant by executive order, and there was nothing to prevent the Government from ordering to-morrow that this £20,000 should be no longer paid to the Congested Districts Board. He did not think it was the intention of the other House, and certainly he did not think it was the wish of the Irish people, that any money which the Congested Districts Board now enjoyed should be taken from it. The operations of the Board had been greatly restricted by lack of funds. They looked forward to an increase of funds and not to a process of
32
giving with one hand and taking away with the other in so far as these two sums of £20,000 and £25,000 were concerned. In the absence of any assurance from His Majesty's Government he begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 37, after the word 'fund' to insert the words ' and is available in excess of the sum of twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I can reassure the noble Lord, and, what is more important, I think I shall be confirmed in that assurance by noble Lords opposite. The point, of course, is whether these sums of £20,000 and £25,000, which under Section 38 of the Act of 1903 are payable to the Congested Districts Board, form part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. They are part, of course, of the Development Grant, but we understand that they do not form a portion of the Guarantee Fund, and I think I am right in saying—I shall be contradicted from the opposite side if I am wrong—that this particular question was submitted to the legal advisers of noble Lords opposite both in Ireland and in England and it was agreed, and this is the opinion which we also hold, that these two sums do not form part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Then I may take it that His Majesty's Government give the assurance for which I ask?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, we do.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Then I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE had two Amendments to Clause 11 (Substituted agreements). His Amendments were, he said, similar to those which he moved in Committee. The object was to enlarge the effect of Clause 11, which at present was confined to three classes of substituted agreements. Other agreements would naturally occur to their Lordships which might be included. He need not enumerate them, but he was encouraged to put the Amendments down in consequence of the reply he received from the noble Earl the

33
Leader of the House, and he hoped the reasonableness of his Amendments would commend them to the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 25, to leave out from 'Where' to 'holding' in line 29."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot agree to the first Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, although we do not take the same exception to the alternative which he suggests in his next Amendment. We feel that to leave out all the words from line twenty-five to line twenty-nine, down to the word "holding," would open the door too wide—that is to say, that whenever a fresh purchase agreement is entered into in substitution, it would open the door, if not to fraud, at any rate to certain evasions, and to the substitution of agreements for the mere purpose of receiving the old terms. But if the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his first Amendment, we should not raise the same objection to the insertion of the words "or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission or of the Estates Commissioners."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 29, after 'holding' to insert or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission or of the Estates Commissioners.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE had two Amendments to Clause 12. He said his object was to add the Land Judge to the clause. As the clause now read the expression "pending purchase agreements" meant the agreements lodged with the Land Commission. He proposed to add the words "or the the Land Judge." Paragraphs (a) and (b) as he proposed to amend them would read—

"(a) The expression 'pending purchase agreements' means agreements lodged with the Land I Commission or the Land Judge on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;

(b) The expression ' future purchase agreements' means agreements lodged with the Land Commission
34
or entered into by or with the Land Commission or the Land Judge or the Congested Districts Board after that date."

Amendments moved—
"In page 7, line 19, after 'Commission' to insert 'or the Land Judge'; and in line 23, after 'by' to insert 'or with' and after 'Commission' to insert 'or the Laud Judge.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not quite follow the point raised by the noble Lord opposite, and I dare say he will not object to giving some further explanation. So far as the Land Judge can be said to enter into purchase agreements, those agreements would all be lodged with the Land Commission.
LORD DUNBOYNE: There are agreements which are made in the Land Judge's Court which are not lodged with the Land Commission at the time. They are lodged in the first place in the Land Court. The Land Judge sells certain estates, and these agreements are lodged in his Court and not in that of the Land Commission.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, I am not so cognisant of the proceedings as the noble Lord. I was under the impression that in every case agreements entered into by the Land Judge or with the Land Judge were lodged with the Estates Commissioners, but, of course, if the noble Lord says it is not so, I must ask leave to look into the point.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said this was a technical point. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners might proceed and buy estates pending sale before the Land Judge's Court. If that agreement was carried out, well and good. If it was not carried out, and they withdrew, then the parties were driven back to Section 40 of the Act of 1896. That section and the other earlier Acts required that when an estate was for sale in the Land Judge's Court the Judge should divide it into lots for the purpose of selling it to the tenants. There was a long procedure. The Judge made an offer to the tenant, and if the tenant accepted, that acceptance and the offer was an agreement for sale under the Land Purchase Acts, and it was to those agreements to which his noble friend referred. "To lodge" was not exactly the term to use as far as the Land Judge's Court was concerned; the agreements were created there, because the procedure was

35
that the Land Judge made an offer to the tenant, and if the tenant accepted the offer, then the Act said they should be deemed to be created an agreement for the sale of the land to the tenant, and all the provisions of the Land Act were to apply as if an agreement had been entered into for the sale and the purchase. It was necessary, although there were not many cases, to include those in the words "pending purchase agreements" or else it might happen that agreements which had been entered into there by means of that machinery would not come within the words "pending purchase agreements" within the meaning of the Act.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Lord would bring up the Amendment again on the Third Reading in the amended form as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, and we can then discuss the matter again.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE did not think that was necessary, as the words "entered into" were already in the clause, and would meet what the noble Earl desired. Surely it was more convenient to insert these words now with a view to the Government moving them out afterwards if they so desired.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, I have no objection to that.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved a new clause after Clause 13. He said this clause was originally on the Paper in the form of an Amendment to Clause 14. He had put it on the Paper now owing to his anxiety to remove what he thought was the only blot that had ever been established on the zone system. In proposing this he did not think he came against the rule about infringing the privileges of the House of Commons. In Section 24, subsection (8), of the Act of 1903 it was clear by implication that the purchase money might contain one year's rent. The section read—
"In the case of the sale of an estate where at any date hereinafter mentioned arrears of rent were due in respect of any holding on an estate a sum equivalent in amount to those arrears but not exceeding in any case one year's rent shall be paid out of the purchase money to the person who would have been entitled to receive those arrears."
36
In other words, where the tenant for life was the owner of a limited interest and sold the estate for a certain sum, the arrears belonged to him. He was entitled to receive out of the purchase money a sum equivalent to one year's rent on the foot of those arrears. That section must have been passed upon the assumption that a sum equivalent to one year's rent was included. In other words, the purchase money was increased by that amount in respect of the arrears so due, because the person who was entitled to receive it was not merely the owner but the tenant for life, and the arrears belonged to him, and by reason of that fact one year's Tent of the purchase money would be paid in respect of the arrears. It would be unjust to follow that course unless the purchase money had been increased by that sum. Accordingly his Amendment was putting in expressly what the section implied—namely, enacting that where the Commissioners were satisfied that the purchase money included a sum more than one year's rent in respect of the arrears, they might refuse to sanction the advance unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consented to the purchase money being reduced. If they consented, they could proceed as if the agreement had been entered into for the reduced sum, and all further agreements could be made on that basis. It was necessary to have this in order that parties might not lose the priority. If land was sold with five or six years of arrears due and three or four years purchase money was added in respect of those arrears, and money was advanced by the Government, it was advanced not to purchase the land but to pay the debts of the tenant. He thought that was not a legitimate use of the zone system. One year's arrears was adopted under the 1903 Act, and he therefore proposed to do expressly what had been done impliedly, and to guard against the only abuse which had ever been shown in connection with the operation of the zone system.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 13, to insert the following new-clause:
'14. Where, after the passing of this Act, application is made under subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commission are satisfied that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof, in respect of arrears of rent due thereout, they may refuse to sanction the advance,

37
unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consent that the purchase money shall be reduced by the amount of such excess over one year's rent. On such consent being given the said agreement shall be varied accordingly, and the application dealt with under the aforesaid subsection in its proper order as if the reduced sum had been the whole of the purchase money, and the application had been originally made in respect of that sum. The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite appreciate the desire of the noble and learned Lord to meet the case dealt with in his Amendment—a case which is, I think, by common consent one of impropriety as regards the use of the zones. In that way a number of years arrears are made to form part of the purchase money. We take a certain degree of exception to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment partly on the ground that we do not think it covers all the necessary cases. It does not, for instance, meet the case of tenants who are several years in an ear and who are put by their landlord in the position of either having to buy on certain terms, or to remain as they are, and who are for the purpose of the purchase not free agents. Real freedom of contract cannot exist in a case of that kind, where the tenant is weighed down by a number of years arrears. That is an instance where we think the noble Lord's proposed clause is incomplete. But there is also a further difficulty as regards how the machinery is to be brought about. How are the Land Commission to be satisfied that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof? What means have they got of knowing that this is done? All that comes before the Land Commission is an application to advance a certain sum of money for the purchase of the particular holding; they have no power to inquire how the purchase money has been made up; they have no means of knowing whether it includes arrears of rent or not. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but I am given to understand that that is so, and it seems to me to stand to reason that it must be so. As we first drew the Bill we had a subsection which gave the Commissioners power to inquire in any case where they thought the circumstances demanded it, but the noble and learned Lord gives no such power, and in the absence of any such provision I maintain the opinion that the Estates Commissioners have no means of discovering
38
the circumstance to which the noble Lord wishes their attention to be drawn. I am not quite certain about the drafting of the last two lines. I should have thought that to say, "The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner," would almost appear to place upon him an obligation to concur, and it seems to me as if the noble Lord's sentence was in that respect incomplete. But apart from that, we do object to bring in the Judicial Commissioner for administrative functions of this kind. He has always been kept clear of matters of this sort; he has always been a Judge and a Judge only, and we do not like dragging him in for purposes which involve administrative discussion. For that reason, my Lords, we should in any case like to see that left out.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that the noble Earl was entirely in error in saying that the Commissioners could not inquire into the circumstances. In the case of Weir's Estate, they sought to inquire into the amount of the arrears for the purpose of determining whether the security was good, and the order made by the Court was that they were not entitled to get that information because they had no right to inquire into the security, and they would not allow them to ask for information upon a subject as to which they had no jurisdiction. If the noble Earl, however, were to read the orders, he would clearly see that there was a distinct decision by the Court of Appeal in Ireland that the Commissioners had a right to inquire in reference to any matter over which they had jurisdiction, and therefore when he gave the Commission jurisdiction to reject the proposal if more than one year's arrears of rent had been added to the purchase money, that necessarily involved, according to the decision, that they had power to make inquiry about that over which they had jurisdiction to decide.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON only desired to say one word to make it clear that they were unable to support the Amendment of his noble and learned friend, not from any want of sympathy with the principle he laid down but because they had very great doubt of the application of the proposed new clause. He did not suppose that any one on that side of the House wished a large amount of arrears to be added to the purchase money, but what the noble and

39
earned Lord did not allow sufficiently for was that in many eases what was added on as arrears was deducted from the natural number of years purchase which might have been and should have been asked for the holding. It was perfectly well known that Irish tenants who had got three or four years arrears of rent were glad to feel that those could be wiped out in some way by purchase, and it might suit the landlord to name eighteen years' purchase when he otherwise would have named twenty or twenty-one, allowing it to be understood that the arrears were added on in such cases to the price. The first objection to the noble and learned Lord's new clause was that there was absolutely no finality. The Land Commission might feel bound to inquire into many cases where holdings were sold below a particular level; they might find tenants with no arrears and others with arrears, and be plunged into a sea of difficulty. The main security for the taxpayer was to be found in the number of years purchase giving a large reduction to the tenant purchaser in what he was in future going to pay, and so long as that large reduction existed he did not think the method by which the calculation was arrived at between the parties was quite so material as his noble and learned friend seemed to think, and he was sure that the clause would have very little chance of settling the question. He hoped, therefore, that his noble and learned friend would not think it necessary to divide their Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD, in moving to insert at the beginning of Part II. the new Clause 14, of which he had given notice, embodying provisions as to priority with respect to advances, said he thought the new state of things which would be called into being by the establishment of three systems of payment—payment in cash, payment partly in cash and partly in stock, and payment in stock—would render it totally impracticable to have only one list of priority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, stated that there were several methods of selling land under the Land Purchase Acts. There were sales through the Land Court, sales by owners to the Estates Commissioners, and direct sales from landlord to tenant in accordance with purchase agreements. The last category of sales were the only sales
40
covered by his Amendment. The first words of his proposed new clause were, "As regards advances under the Land Purchase Acts whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements." There were some £50,000,000 worth of agreements already deposited with the Estates Commissioners, and the land to be sold in Ireland on future agreements was variously estimated at from £70,000,000 to £90,000,000, and those two categories—the £50,000,000 agreements deposited and the £70,000,000 to £90,000,000 agreements to be deposited—were the only agreements to be covered by his proposals. The future purchases were to be in stock altogether. Therefore their entry on one register would necessarily determine their priority, and the priority with regard to agreements for which stock was to be paid could have no effect upon priority with regard to agreements for which cash or cash and stock were to be paid.
The idea he had endeavoured to embody in his proposal was that there should be a general register, a sort of day book which would show hour by hour what the transactions were. Solicitors came into the Estates Commissioner's Office with the agreements which they had to deposit, they presented a memorandum showing the name of the landlords and certain particulars which would be prescribed, and they would be entered on the lists in the order of priority, first come, first served. At a later period the register would be gone over and all those who asked for payment in cash would have their names carried to a particular register—Register A—in the priority in which they stood in the general register, and there would be no necessity in future to refer to the general register so far as they were concerned. Then they had to deal with vendors who desired to be paid partly in cash and partly in stock. They would be dealt with in the same way, and carried to the second register, B, according to their priority in the general register. Then came the third class—stock; the names would be carried to the stock register, C, according to their priority. That was the general rule which now prevailed, that a person got priority in the order in which he was entered upon the general register.
But, as was pointed out the other evening, it might well be that when a

41
vendor's name was entered in the register he had afterwards to perform certain legal obligations before the Estates Commissioners could take notice of his claim. Those obligations were fulfilled by his solicitor, and some solicitors were more active in looking after their clients' interests than others. Consequently it might happen, and it frequently had happened, that a vendor whoso name had been entered say in the month of January was still in arrear with the performance of those legal obligations at the end of the year, while another vendor whose name had been entered in February had completed all his legal obligations perhaps by October. The question then was whether all these vendors who had fulfilled the obligations resting upon them at an earlier date than persons whose names were entered before them on the list, should wait until all those persons who had priority on the list had performed their legal obligations. It might happen in that way that they would have a great block of work. To take a large estate of say £20,000 a year, it might require a year to perform all the necessary legal business in regard to that estate, while smaller estates, the vendors of which had entered their names after the owner of the large estate, had performed their duties very quickly and asked the Estates Commissioners to dispose of their business. If the Estates Commissioners were under a legal obligation to postpone dealing with the small estates until the large estate had completed all its legal obligations, there would be a block in the Estates Commissioners' office and there would be general dissatisfaction. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Langford, brought to notice, and it seemed to him that he made a most valuable suggestion—namely, that the Estates Commissioners should not take up an estate in the order of priority of presentation of the documents merely, but that the order of priority in which the legal functions were performed should also be taken into account. He had endeavoured to incorporate that suggestion in his proposal.
There was another point. Where the Estates Commissioners had taken up a case in respect of which all the preliminary legal proceedings had been fulfilled, they deputed an inspector to visit the place and see whether the property was security for the advance, or, if it was within the zones, whether the tenant was in occupation.
42
A large staff of inspectors would be required, and it might very well happen that one inspector was able to perform his duties quickly and expeditiously, the work being easy, while another inspector was later in submitting his report. It might also be the case that there was heavier work on an estate which had priority on the list. Were; the Estates Commissoners to postpone dealing with such a case as he had mentioned until the heavier-weighted inspector had made his report, or were they to take up the business as it came into their office and dispose of it? Unless power and discretion were given to the Estates Commissioners to deal with cases as they came in, having no regard to priority on the registers, there would be a great block of work and dissatisfaction and demands for larger establishments. There had been suspicion, although in most cases there was no ground for it, that matters were not disposed of in the exact priority in which cases were deposited, and he thought it well that any suspicions of such a kind in the performance of public duties should be obviated and precautions taken to prevent their recurrence. In such a scheme as he had placed on the Paper he thought they went as far as they reasonably could go in securing that there should be a regular uniform practice and as little should be left to the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of particular officers as possible. He, however, felt himself very unwilling to push his own views as against the superior wisdom of His Majesty's Government in such a matter and if he were assured by the noble Earl who led the Government that in considering any rules which the Government might find necessary they would bear in mind the suggestions he had made, he would be glad, if it would facilitate the proceedings of their Lordships' House, to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"At the beginning of Part II, to insert the following new clauses:
'14.—(1) As regards advances under the Land Pure are Acts whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements, or in respect of sales to the Land Commission the following provisions shall have effect—
(2) A general register shall be kept by the Land Commission of all proposed sales of estates under the Land Purchase Acts, whether directly to the tenants, or to the Land Commission, or otherwise.
(3) Every proposed sale shall be entered in the general register in the order of time at which the purchase agreements were lodged, or the request

43
under section six of the Act of 1903 was deposited, or the particulars and documents required under section seven of the same Act were supplied.
(4) Subsidiary to such general register there shall be three registers, the first of which shall be designated Register A, and shall exhibit the names with the necessary particulars of information in respect of vendors desiring to be paid wholly in cash; the second of which, to be designated Register B, shall exhibit similar details in respect of vendors desirous of being paid partly in cash and partly in stock; and the third of which, to be designated Register C, shall give similar details in respect of vendors desirous of being paid wholly in stock.
(5) In each subsidiary register the entries shall be made in the order of priority in which the original entries stand in the general register, and thereafter the priority of the general register shall cease and the priority of each estate shall be that of the particular subsidiary register to which the entry has been carried.
(6) The priority in each subsidiary register shall be determined in the following manner—

(a) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under sections one to five inclusive, of the Act of 1903, the order shall be determined by the date at which the agreements for purchase were lodged, and the: other duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers were discharged:

(b) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section six of the Act of 1903, the order of priority in the register shall be determined by the date at which the originating request was lodged, and the duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers have been discharged:

(c) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section seven of the Act of 1903, the order of priority on the register shall be determined by the date at which the particulars and documents required by the said section have been furnished by the Land Judge.

(7) The Estates Commissioners shall, so far as practicable, sanction and make advances in respect of estates in the order of priority as determined in the last preceding subsection.
(8) At the beginning of every financial year the Treasury shall inform the Land Commission of the amount of cash intended to be provided during that year, and shall apportion that amount between advances to be made for the purchase of estates for the Congested Districts Board, and advances to be made; in respect of estates entered in the Subsidiary Register A, that is to say, of estates to be paid for in cash; and advances to be made in respect of estates entered in the Subsidiary Register B, that is to say, of estates to be paid for partly in cash and partly in stock.
Provided that if all the money allocated in any year for the payment of advances in respect of estates entered in the Register B, that is in the register of partly cash and partly stock transactions is not required in that year, the surplus over the sum required for such estates may be transferred and made available for payment of advances made entirely in cash.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think we shall all agree that although my noble friend's Amendment as it stands on the Paper is not compatible with the decision which your Lordships reached at an
44
earlier stage, yet it is an advantage that he should have stated his views besides giving us the reasons which might induce him to withdraw his Amendment. As I have said before, we concur generally with the proposition laid down by my noble friend, but there are certain omissions in the clause as he proposes it which in our opinion would have to be dealt with by regulations. My noble friend explicitly stated, although I do not quite follow his reason for doing so, that he made no provision with regard either to the sales of untenanted land or with regard to sales of particular holdings which are not declared to be estates, and then in his provisions, as I see them here, nothing is said which covers future agreements of any kind, and nothing is said with regard to pending sales of land to the Congested Districts Board. My noble friend by his subsection (8) allows for some apportionment of advances to the Congested Districts Board, but one assumes that that only applies to future sales and not to pending sales.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD called the noble Earl's attention to the wording of subsection (1).
THE EARL OF CREWE: I see my noble friend means to cover everything by the words "whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements, or in respect of sales to the Land Commission." But my point was that although he laid down these rules for the various registers, his detailed provisions said nothing about the sales to the Land Commission. Now it is, as I said, unquestionably the case that as my Amendment, with the addition moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, has been passed, this Amendment becomes, I should think it is not too much to say, altogether out of order. But there is one point with regard to the provision made by the noble Viscount to which I ought to draw attention, and indeed I ought to have drawn attention to it at the time. The noble Viscount says that so far as is reasonably practicable priority should be maintained. My Lords, what is there to make it impracticable? The result might surely be that precise priority might have to be maintained without any reference to the different classes of which we spoke. What I think the noble Viscount meant was, not so far as is practicable, but so far as was thought

45
reasonable under the arrangements which had been made. You cannot say it is impracticable merely because you desire to do things in a different way, and unless noble Lords intend to sacrifice our various classes, carrying out the different priorities inter se, if they mean to take a single list and make priority depend on that, that will as I have pointed out before, altogether upset the arrangements for the various methods of advances by cash alone, and by stock, and by stock and cash together.
Our view is that the object being to get rid of this block, you must, although you can indicate the general lines on which you wish to proceed, allow a certain latitude to the Estates Commissioners. If you do not you will find yourselves in the position which was pointed out very truly by my noble friend as likely to happen, that a number of pending agreements will be held up because some other pending agreement, which has a technical priority over them, on account of some question of title or some matter of the kind cannot be immediately settled; and if you are going; to make a fetish of priority you will positively find that there are people whose affairs are quite ready to be concluded and yet who are technically prevented from coming to a conclusion by the fact that some gentleman ahead of them has not been able to establish a question of title. That, I am sure, is not at all what your Lordships mean by desiring to maintain priority, and we must be careful not to tie the Estates Commissioners down too closely. I quite understand what is in the minds of noble Lords opposite on this matter of priority, and we do not differ from their view. In all these matters, first come first served is a reasonable general view. The man who makes up his mind to sell clearly ought to have an advantage over the man who has not made up his mind. But, of course, this must all be subject to the very peculiar financial considerations under which we find ourselves, and also subject to subsidiary causes of delay which may have the effect of making a particular case which has been entered for sale at quite an early date drag on, as I am afraid some have dragged on, for quite a lengthy period. I need not add anything further. I have expressed on behalf of the Government a general agreement with my noble friend's Amendment, and I can assure him if his Amendment should be withdrawn
46
and it is to become a subject of regulation, that the general outlines of his scheme will certainly be embodied, although with some modifications and additions to which I do not think he would be likely to object.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: After the statement the noble Earl has just made to the House I cannot help thinking that my noble friend on the Back Benches will be well advised not to press his Amendment. There really have been two different proposals before the House His Majesty's Government desire that this question of priority should be dealt with by regulations issued by the Lord Lieutenant. My noble friend on the Back Benches desires, on the contrary, that the question should be dealt with within the four corners of this Bill. I am bound to say, speaking generally, that it does seem to me that the subject-matter of my noble friend's Amendment can be more conveniently dealt with by regulations than within the strict clause of an Act of Parliament. It does seem to me to be necessary that there should be some power of adapting the rules to varying circumstances and of varying these regulations from time to time, and that we require something not quite so stereotyped as the clause of an Act of Parliament. But be that as it may, the House has really decided in favour of dealing with the matter by regulations, because we accepted, with an Amendment, the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. The proposal submitted by my noble friend on the Back Benches is one to which he has evidently given very close and attentive consideration, and I was extremely glad to hear from the noble Earl that when these regulations come to be drafted the general outline of my noble friend's proposal is likely to be followed, because the Amendment of my noble friend really does seem to me to be in accordance with what I conceive is the policy of noble Lords from Ireland who sit behind me. Let me say this one word more before I sit down. Nothing has been further from my thoughts at any rate than that we should endeavour to fetter the Estates Commissioners by a hard-and-fast application of the rule that he who comes first must in any circumstances be first served. It is quite obvious that a certain amount of elasticity must be given as between the different classes of applicants under this part of the Bill; and all that we

47
care for is that in a general way the principle should be accepted by His Majesty's Government that so far as the circumstances permit, and as between the different classes of applicants, priority should be given to those who make their application first. That is the simple general principle, and if, as I hope, that principle is applied in the regulations which will be framed under this part of the Bill, I, for one, should be entirely content.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he assumed there were regulations in existence at present. There were regulations at the time of the late Government although they were modified after the change of Government; and he ventured to suggest, as had been done by his noble and learned friend already, that the Government themselves should embody in a schedule the regulations they were prepared in this first instance to submit to Parliament. That would not in the least fetter their power of changing, varying and adding to them, and would combine the advantage of letting their Lordships see in an Act of Parliament what was suggested.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I will ask my right hon. friend whether in his opinion it is possible to give now the general form which the regulations should take, but I am afraid it will be quite impossible to lay on the Table of the House before the Third Reading of this Bill the precise form which the regulations are likely to take, for reasons which I think noble Lords will appreciate. It would be very difficult for the Estates Commissioners, without having the Bill before them in its final form, to give advice to the Irish Office as to the form which the regulations under the Bill ought to take; but I will ask my right hon. friend whether it is possible—I cannot say that it will be—to submit any general heads of proposed regulations before the last stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Could we see the existing regulations?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will inquire into that also.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a clause in relation to applications under subsection (1) of the Act of 1903, to provide that the Land Commissioners, if they had reason for doubting if a holding offered sufficient security for
48
an advance, might make inquiry and declare that the provision of the subsection should not apply. He did not yield to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, in his desire to keep the zone system intact. The zone system was, in his opinion, free from the complaint made against it that it enhanced the selling price of property. In his opinion it had proved most effective in bringing landlord and tenant together for the purpose of purchase. It was because he was so-jealous of the reputation of the zone system and so anxious to remove from it every possibility of hardship that he ventured once again to appeal to their Lordships' sense of justice in the matter.
When the Estates Commissioners began their work, at a very early stage of their operations a proposal was made to them for the sale of a property under an agreement between landlord and tenant. The same property had also been proposed for sale under the earlier Land Purchase Acts, an agreement having been come to between the landlord and the tenants. Under the system then in force the Commissioners deputed an inspector to report on the property. The amount claimed was, he thought, £5,000, and the inspector reported that it was not security for more than £4,000. These were approximate figures. When the Act of 1903 came into force the Estates Commissioners saw that if they were bound to comply with all applications, the zone system could be turned into an instrument of fraud on the public Treasury, and for five years they acted in the belief that it was competent to them to decline to declare that a particular property should be taken to be an estate in the language of the Act until they were satisfied that the property was security for the amount they advanced upon it. But their jurisdiction in that respect had been called in question and the Court of Appeal had ruled that the Commissioners were not competent to withhold their assent to the property being declared an estate and were bound to make the advance. During the time the Estates Commissioners maintained that they had that power, assaults on the Treasury of the description he had mentioned had been rare in Ireland, but if things continued as they were now he himself could place no limit to the number of unconscionable assaults there might be perpetrated on the public funds; and he ventured to ask their

49
Lordships to take precautions to prevent the zone system being made the instrument of such attacks upon the public Treasury. He thought his Amendment would have that effect. He was of opinion that it was demoralising to the country and unfair to the Treasury that such bargains as he had indicated should be possible.
There was another reason for enabling the Estates Commissioners to inquire into bargains which came within the zones, and that was where after the judicial rent was fixed the holding was permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant, It was quite possible now for a landlord and a tenant to come to an agreement for the sale of a property which had greatly deteriorated since the judicial rents were fixed, which was the basis of the zone system; an estate might be partly destroyed by a bog-slide and have become of less value than it was when the judicial rent was fixed. He was one of those who thought that the Government had conferred on Ireland remarkable benefits by the Land Purchase Act of 1903, and no temptation should be placed in the way of any parties to abuse those benefits.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'15.—(1) When application is made under subsection (1) of the Act of i903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commissioners, if they are satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances exist, namely—

(a) that the judicial rent was fixed after the passing of the Act of 1903 by agreement or consent and not after judicial inquiry in court, and that there are reasons for doubting that holding is sufficient security for the advance;

(b) that since the judicial rent was fixed, the holding has permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant, may make inquiry as to the security for the advance, and may by order declare that the provisions of the same subsection shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly as if these provisions had not been complied with.

(2) The Judicial Commissioner and the Estates Commissioners may make rules under section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 providing for the furnishing of such particulars with respect to rent and arrears and of such information with regard to the estate as may appear necessary for the purposes of this section and for the verification of the particulars and information in such manner as they think fit.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, in opposing the Amendment, said he did not wish to repeat
50
what he was afraid he had already said ad nauseam, that under the existing law if any advantage had been taken of a tenant he had the right to have the agreement set aside, and while that was so it was beating the air to talk of fraud and oppression and injustice that never had been established. There was no ground for saying that rents fixed by agreement out of Court had been excessive, or that they would not stand examination perfectly satisfactorily side by side with agreements made in Court. He had heard the Land Courts called by litigants "the Reduction Courts." Any one who knew the condition of things in Ireland knew perfectly well that the idea of a landlord coercing his tenant, the tenant being backed up and supported by public opinion as he was, into making an agreement adverse to the tenant's interests was a purely imaginary one. But why select 1903? The suggestion he supposed was that after the passing of the Land Act rents were fixed with a view to purchase under the Act of 1903.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the obvious reason was that there was no zone system before 1903.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON asked why if it was a genuine and real transaction it should not be done; the law provided a remedy in the case of a sham one.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said his point was that there was collusion between the landlord and tenant. That point the noble and learned Lord was evading.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said it was beating the air to speak of collusion which had not been proved. From the year 1888 till the present day he did not think there had been five cases in Ireland of agreements being set aside on the ground of collusion. The new clause would enable the Commissioners to take certain steps if they were satisfied that since the judicial rent was fixed the holding had permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant. In all the annals of the Estates Commissioners could they produce ten cases where a holding had substantially deteriorated in value since the fixing of the judicial rent? He thought it was rather too much to ask their Lordships to legislate for the circumstances which were not proved to have

51
arisen simply on the suggestion that they might occur, and to set aside an existing system which had worked extremely well and but for which the vast majority of the agreements entered into would never have been effected at all.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE pointed out that Section 8 of the Act of 1881 dealt with the very thing with which the noble Lord sought to deal in his proposed new clause. He thought that nobody who had any experience of an Irish tenant would suggest for a moment that he was a man who would be likely to make a bargain which would be to his own detriment.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON did not think that the question of zones had the great importance that was sometimes ascribed to it, because he was satisfied that the cases in which there had been any sort of abuse were extremely few. At the same time the arguments of his noble friend were extremely forcible when he brought forward such a case as he did, and even if one case of collusion only was proved he thought it deserved notice and that their Lordships should see that some safeguard was provided. He thought, however, that his noble friend's Amendment went too far. Everybody who was familiar with land purchase in Ireland was aware that in many cases agreements had been entered into after the passing of the Act of 1903 merely for the purpose of getting within the zone, cases where there was no manner of suspicion that any collusion was intended. He was perfectly well aware that many vendors in Ireland did take that course and it was a perfectly legitimate one, but whether wise or not was another matter. He thought, therefore, that the Amendment went a little too far in ruling out all judicial rents fixed by agreement since the passing of the Act of 1903, and he suggested that words should be introduced limiting the clause to cases where the rent had been raised. He suggested, after the words "judicial inquiry in Court," the insertion of the words "and such agreement did not include an increase of Tent." If the noble Lord consented to that he would support him if he went to a Division.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD intimated his assent.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This subject is one of considerable gravity, and I am
52
glad, therefore, that my noble friend behind me alluded to it as he did in his powerful speech. The argument that I understand is used against any interference with the zones is that they are so valuable a part of the Act of 1903 that they ought not to be touched in any way. The question of collusion between a landlord and tenant, and the possibility of it, is one which cannot be set aside. It is all very well to say that you cannot produce a great number of cases. It is the mere fact that you cannot produce them which makes the situation a serious one. If you have no means of making the inquiry you clearly cannot produce the necessary data. I do not suppose there is either a landlord or a tenant in Ireland—and I am willing for the sake of noble Lords opposite to add in England—who cares a brass farthing whether the State is properly secured or not, and naturally in entering into an agreement of that kind people try to get the best terms they can for themselves. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, used on a former Amendment a singular argument with regard to this question of collusion. He said that as long as there was a reduction in the rent it did not matter how it was arrived at and that the State security would not be impaired. That all depends on whether the rent was paid. If it was not paid, the mere fact that a rent was fixed at a certain amount is entirely irrelevant on this question of security. That, of course, applies in particular to the question of arrears, but my noble friend in his Amendment, in subsection (2), makes the question of arrears one into which the Estates Commissioners should have power to inquire, and I therefore think I am not wrong in alluding to it. We consider, I confess, that it is a serious matter to place the Exchequer entirely at the mercy of what people entering into these transactions may choose to do. As time goes on people get cleverer and cleverer in such matters in devising means. In a sense one does not blame them as long as they are acting within the law. But as years go on, and more and more agreements are made, there will be a tendency, it seems only natural to think, to attempt evasions, and although it seems clear that my noble friend has no chance of carrying his Amendment I feel bound to say that we regard with no little apprehension the absolute disappearance from the Bill of any safeguard in respect of these evasions.
THE MARQOESS OF LANSDOWNE: The difference between us, I think, is a perfectly clear cut one. We desire to maintain the zones, and therein I think we do not differ from the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. On the other hand we do not desire that the zones should be made use of for the purpose of shielding improper transactions, but we do not believe that in order to guard against improper transactions it is necessary to rip up the whole of the agreements entered into out of Court since the year 1903. We hold a very strong view that agreements entered into out of Court between a landlord and a tenant are deserving of respect as much as agreements entered into in Court.
THE EARLOFCREWE: What machinery do you propose in the Bill as amended for making any inquiry as to possible abuse of what may take place within the zones?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When this question was debated the other evening I challenged noble Lords opposite to tell me whether it was not the case that under the existing law wherever there was a suspicion of duress or collusion it was competent for the Court to challenge it, and I referred to Mr. Cherry's Manual on the Irish Land Act, where the particular cases are cited and the particular regulations referred to. Noble Lords opposite have never been able to tell us that so far as collusion between landlord and tenant is concerned the existing law does not give adequate powers. That being so, we remain of opinion that it is not necessary to provide specially for cases of duress and collusion, and that other cases are sufficiently provided for by the law as it stands.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO moved to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 14—
(2) A person shall be deemed to reside on a holding within the meaning of this section if he occupies a house or resides in the immediate neighbourhood for the purpose of working or managing the holding.
He said the whole of the clause limited the operation of Section 1 (4) of the Act of 1903 whereby the Land Commission was empowered to advance to one purchaser a sum not exceeding £7,000. Clause 14 was retrogressive and even went
54
behind Section 2 of the Act of 1888, which permitted an advance to one purchaser up to a limit of £5,000 provided that the holding to be purchased was situated on the estate of the same landlord. It would be very hard under the clause on a tenant of a large holding, who, perhaps, for family reasons had to live away from his particular holding, that he should be debarred from obtaining the necessary advance over £3,000 to purchase his holding. Was that because the Government wished to break up the strong yeoman farmer class in Ireland, the men who were able to farm their land with their own capital and who occupied a strong and respectable position in the community?
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, lines 30 to 33, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl's Amendment seems to me not entirely to carry out what he desires, because the effect of omitting subsection (2) is simply further to limit the class of persons to whom advances can be sanctioned. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) forbids the making of an advance unless the tenant resides on the holding, or unless he lives on a holding and wishes to buy a holding ordinarily used with that on which the tenant resides. Subsection (2) enlarges the definition of residence, and if it is omitted the power will be entirely confined to persons under paragraph (a). I should like to point out another curious effect which arises from the clause as it stands; that is, in respect of the word "or" in line 26 [the "or" connecting paragraphs (a) and (b)], inserted, I think, on the motion of a noble Lord opposite at the last stage. The effect of that is that there is a normal limit of advance of £3,000, and where the Land Commission think that a larger amount, not exceeding £5,000, may properly be sanctioned, they can do it; but owing to the use of the word "or" there is a further class of persons—namely, tenants who reside on a holding, or near—who can receive an advance of an absolutely unlimited amount. There is nothing to prevent a million of money being advanced under subsection (a); therefore I think it will be necessary, if noble Lords desire to put the clause in a form to carry out what I take it they mean, although it has been altered from our view,

55
that the word "and" should be substituted for the word "or."
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD* LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD had a series of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 15. The clause ran—
15.—(1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:—

(a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value;

(b) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion;

(c) A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and

(d) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after adequate provision has been made to satisfy the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection an advance ought to be made: Provided that no advance shall be made to the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value of more than thirty pounds, nor shall any advance be made to more than one son of the same tenant.

(2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, which has been made and is then unrepaid by the purchaser, or for which an application by the purchaser is pending, exceed one thousand pounds: Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
(3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this section in like manner as if the same was a holding and the purchaser was the tenant thereof, at the time of his making the purchase; and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section.
(4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that section shall be construed as a reference to this section.
His first Amendment, said the noble Lord, was merely a transposition of the last proviso in paragraph (d) of the clause as it stood. He had taken the liberty of transposing the clause of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, from that part of the clause in which it at present stood and had placed it in the situation from which the subclause had been removed. He did that with the object of making room, as it were, for his proposal, which was at the bottom of the page. In the first Amendment, so far as he could judge, nothing was done that was not already in the Bill or introduced into it on the last occasion when the measure was before their Lordships. The second proposal was to insert in paragraph (c) the words "and had been evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent." He saw that the same proposal was made by the noble Earl, Lord Wicklow, and the object of it was to prevent tenants evicted after the passing of that Act from claiming reinstatement as evicted tenants. It was, in his opinion, the intention of the Act of 1903 that tenants evicted after the date of the passing of that Act should not be able to claim the privileges of an evicted tenant of restoration to their holding. But that clause of the Act was so interpreted as to confer upon tenants evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 the privilege of evicted tenants, and was said to endow them with a claim for reinstatement. He thought it was desirable that an end should be put to this sort of claim and he therefore made his proposal. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the proposal which he now made was already incorporated in the Evicted Tenants Act which their Lordships has-passed. His last proposal, which he presumed he might mention at this time, was to delete paragraph (d) and to insert a new paragraph (e), as follows—
"Any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, an advance ought to be made for the purchase of mansions, demesne lands, special grounds, plantations, and other such land, as, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is not suitable for distribution to persons of the preceding classes."
That was to give the Land Commission the power of selling demesnes, mansions, and gardens which had been sold by the proprietor, and to save them from the necessity of dividing the land among the neighbouring tenants.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 5, after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph:
'(b) The son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value not exceeding thirty pounds, provided that no advance shall be made to more than one son of the same tenant.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he did not recognise at all that the Amendment was of the harmless character that the noble Lord had suggested. The provision about the son of the proprietor of the holding was part of the Bill as it originally stood and was deliberately struck out. It was provided by Clause 15 that three classes of persons were first to be considered—proprietors of holdings, persons who had surrendered their holdings, and evicted tenants. He would have a word to say later about the definition of an evicted tenant. It was after that that landless men and the sons of tenants, if they came in at all, came in under paragraph (d) after all the requirements of the preceding classes had been adequately provided for. What the noble Lord attempted to do was to restore the deleted subsection (d) into its original place in the Bill. That was to smash up altogether the Amendment which had been made. It was not merely to alter procedure but to smash the Amendment thoroughly. They had been told that the function of the Report stage was sandpapering. This appeared to him to be using the pickaxe rather than sandpaper. It restored what was knocked out on Second Reading, and he would suggest to the noble Lord that, as there must be some finality in these proceedings, there was no use in moving again upon Report things that had been fully debated in Committee. How did the matter stand? At present, according to the Bill, the three classes he had mentioned were entitled to have parcels of land allotted to them, and then, after their requirements had been provided for, any surplus lands might be given to any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, an advance ought to be made. It might be that landless men would come in under paragraph (d), but, as he had said, only after the requirements of the other classes had been fully met. The noble Lord defeated all that by putting in an earlier paragraph which would give all landless men an opportunity of getting advances, even in priority to those persons who had surrendered their holdings for
58
the purpose of relieving congestion. As to the evicted tenants question he hardly thought that necessary, because it was clear, under the Act of 1903, that it was only intended to apply to persons who had been tenants twenty-four years before the passing of the Act and were not tenants at the date of purchase. He did not know where it had been decided that men who were evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 were entitled to be treated as evicted tenants.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: They have been.
LORD ATKINSON: That may be, but there is no decision entitling them to be. If there is any doubt about the matter I should welcome any Amendment to provide that the only persons intended to be relieved should be those who had been evicted before the passing of the Act of 1903. The noble Lord mentions the passing of this Act.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: They have been admitted after the passing of the Act of 1903.
LORD ATKINSON: The noble Lord's subsequent Amendment says "evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent." Why on earth should this be extended to men who have been evicted between 1903 and 1909?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Because they have been so treated.
LORD ATKINSON: By whom? Besides, is it necessary that you should give legislative sanction to the blunders of the Estates Commissioners? They have chosen to interpret that Act in a way obviously never intended, because the phrases are phrases that were put into the Acts of 1896, 1903, and 1907. It was obviously intended that no person should be entitled to be reinstated as an evicted tenant unless he had been in possession of land twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903 and was evicted before the passing of that Act.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I think you will find it laid down in Mr. Cherry's book that tenants evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 were held to

59
be entitled to, and as a matter of fact were granted, the privileges of evicted tenants.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he did not know how soon Mr. Cherry might be translated to a place where his decisions would have judicial weight, but he (Lord Atkinson) did not apprehend that his statement in the notes to his Act had any authority beyond the right hon. gentleman's own opinion. At all events, it was no reason whatever for giving the privileges of evicted tenants to men who had occupied up till 1908 and been then evicted. Everybody knew that the evicted tenants clauses were introduced to restore the original position in the case of men who were described as the wounded soldiers of the campaign which began in 1879 and who left their homes because they could not pay and would not pay, because they were told not to pay. It was never intended to apply to men who had occupied holdings which were at present held by them, and which they had continued to occupy up till the Act of 1908. If the noble Lord would confine his Amendment to persons who were evicted for non-payment of rent before the passing of the Act of 1903, he (Lord Atkinson) would entirely agree with him. He never could understand what particular virtue became concentrated in a tenant the moment he refused or was unable to pay rent. The noblest work of God, Pope said, was an honest man. According to the recent dispensation, the noblest work of Cod was a tenant who would not pay his rent; everybody's privileges must be invaded to restore him to the position from which he had fallen. The Amendment was, he thought, entirely misconceived. It must be considered with the Amendment of the noble Lord which attempted to deal with the surplus lands that were not required and to satisfy the claims of proprietors, persons who had surrendered, and evicted tenants. He could not see that the Amendment was in any way an improvement on the clause as it stood. It re-opened the entire matter and involved the rediscussion of all those Amendments that they discussed fully on the occasion of the Committee stage. If ever a question was chose jugée it was the question of the landless man.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As regards the first Amendment of my noble friend behind me (Lord MacDonnell) it doubtless has the effect which the noble and learned
60
Lord opposite describes of restoring to the son of a tenant or proprietor of the holding a certain priority which had been removed by the Amendment adopted in Committee. I see no object in again arguing that point, but, from some points of view, the more general provisions contained in the first part of Lord Atkinson's subsection is to my mind more satisfactory than the proposition of my noble friend behind me, because it does, at any rate, leave the general discussion to the Estates Commissioners after certain persons have been provided for, and it would even allow the admission of these later evicted tenants of whom the noble and learned Lord has no very high opinion.
I may also mention that we adhere to our objection that the single son of the same tenant should be favoured. In the clause as it now stands there is a somewhat curious result following from that. Parents are divided into two classes. If the parent's holding exceeds £30 in value, no son of his can come within the section. If he has more than one son, only one can come in; but, if he is a landless man himself, any number of his sons apparently can be introduced. The effect of that is surely anomalous. I remember when I was in Ireland receiving a petition to have a fine remitted. One of the grounds was that the culprit had "a long weak family of thirteen, all of them daughters only the two third youngest." Therefore as your Lordships will see from that rather enigmatical phrase, there were two sons, and if, in addition to having that large quiver full of children, the man was also a landless man these two third youngest sons could have received, under the clause as it stands, holdings from the Estates Commissioners.
As to the second Amendment, I should offer no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by my noble friend behind me; but as regards the third Amendment that, as I say, appears to us to be not so convenient in form as paragraph (d) as it stands. There is one point to which I should like to draw my noble friend's attention. He says after mansions, demesne lands, and so on "other such land as in the opinion of the Land Commission is not suitable to persons of the preceding classes." That would prevent any agricultural land being sold with a mansion, which is not, I am sure, at all what my

61
noble friend means, because in order to get a mansion sold it would very often be necessary to sell a home farm or land, which my noble friend's Amendment as drawn would prevent.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD then moved his second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 10, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'and had been evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF WICKLOW THE EARL OF WICKLOW moved to amend Lord MacDonnell's Amendment by inserting in paragraph (c) after "apply," the words "and who was evicted from such holding for non-payment of rent." He wished further to add words not on the Paper, "and had made application for reinstatement before the first clay of May, 1907." The object of his Amendment was not quite what Lord MacDonnell had stated it to be. It seemed to him that, under the clause as at present worded, the only qualification necessary for an applicant to obtain a holding would be the ability to prove that during twenty-five years preceding the Act of 1903 he had been in possession of a holding of some kind. A ridiculous state of things might result from that. A man might have sold his holding for a considerable sum of money during any of those twenty-five years and then might have gone abroad or might have spent that money in any of the numerous ways in which it was possible to spend money. He could then go back to Ireland in a practically destitute condition, go to the Estates Commissioners and say "You are obliged to provide me with a new holding. Will you kindly do so?" How could the Estates Commissioners get out of it? By his Amendment the operation of the clause would be limited entirely to tenants who had really been evicted; and the addition of the words which he suggested, which were not on the printed Paper, would restrict the clause and, at the same time, give it the same application as that which their Lordships allowed in the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907. No tenant could claim the benefit of that Act unless he had made a claim for reinstatement before the first day of May, 1907, and it seemed desirable
62
to introduce a provision of this sort. It was manifestly undesirable to allow the question of the evicted tenants to go on to all eternity.
Amendment moved—
"in page 9, line 10, after the word; 'apply' to insert the words 'and had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and had made application for reinstatement before the first day of May, 1907.'"—(The Earl of Wicklow.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord will, of course, be aware, that the rather delicate manner of describing the evicted tenant to which he took exception was adopted in 1903, and I have always understood it was so adopted because there was a certain unwillingness to allude to the evicted tenants as such by name in that Act. We have repeated what was put into the Act of 1903. The difference between the proposal of my noble friend and that of the noble Earl opposite is not a very serious one, and, of course, I must leave the House to decide which of the two proposals it prefers. I should myself have preferred to see the words as originally suggested by my noble friend.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said he had an Amendment on the Paper to include in the scope of the clause persons who were probationary occupiers of allotments attached to experimental farms established by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for promoting the relief of congestion. He would, he thought, be able to save the time of the House by postponing the statement which he had to make with regard to that and another Amendment which appeared on the Paper in his name for the first time that evening in the second marshalled list of Amendments. Unfortunately these Amendments were not circulated till late that evening, and as the main Amendment came at a later stage, and the Amendment to Clause 15 now before the House was consequential in its nature, he proposed not to move his Amendment to Clause 15 now, but to postpone it to a later stage. If he succeeded in persuading the House to adopt his suggestion of a new clause after Clause 44

63
he would then, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, as he believed he might, propose to insert the Amendment of which he had given notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord does not move?
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will tell me if I am right in supposing that I should be at liberty, if I do not move now, to move on Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh, yes.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Then I do not move now.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have a drafting Amendment to Clause 17 [Facilities for the planting and preservation of woods] and an Amendment which represents the result of a conversation which your Lordships will remember on an Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cadogan with regard to the safeguarding of the planting of trees. I propose that the Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord desirous of selling estates under the Land Purchase Act, may authorise the landlord, if they are satisfied that it is desirable, to resume a portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, provided that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption and upon such terms as may be approved of by the Commission, including full compensation to the tenant. Perhaps your Lordships will agree to the drafting Amendment first.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 33, after 'grazing,' to insert 'or other.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The other Amendment is, as I say, an attempt to carry out a pledge. It is important, I think, to point out a fact which might not, at a cursory reading of the Amendment, be quite clear. As my Amendment is placed on the Paper it would not apply to pending
64
agreements. It says "The Land Commission, on the application, in the prescribed manner, of any landlord who is desirous of selling estate under the Land Purchase Acts." That closes the door to the large number of £53,000,000 of pending agreements. That, I think, would, in itself, be an unfortunate result. But, on the other hand—and I think in this your Lordships will agree—it is a somewhat strong measure to re-open a contract which has been arrived at between landlord and tenant and to withdraw a certain portion of land after an agreement has been made between landlord and tenant that the whole of the holding should be the subject of sale and purchase. It really is a question of whether the undoubted advantage of applying from a social point of view this provision to pending agreements is so great as to justify what I think we must all admit is a serious departure from our ordinary custom in the way of allowing a Court to amend an agreement which has been actually arrived at between two different parties. Feeling that that was a somewhat serious matter to undertake we have drawn the Amendment in the way I have described. As regards the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Cadogan), it would, I suppose, include pending agreements. I take it that the words, "Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant," would entitle the Estates Commissioners to take the steps for which he provides, but for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of your Lordships' House as to which of the two courses is the most desirable I will move my own Amendment, and hear what the noble Earl has to say.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 10, after the word 'purposes' to insert:
'(3) The Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord who is desirous of selling an estate under the Land Purchase Acts, if they are satisfied that it is desirable that the landlord should be authorised to resume portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption, may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant, and may make an order accordingly apportioning the rent and discharging that portion of the holding from the tenancy.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN, who had the following new clause on the Paper—
(3) Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant under the Act of 1903, and the vendor desires to exclude from the sale a portion of such land for the purpose of planting trees thereon or preserving ornamental timber already growing thereon, and it appears to the Land Commission that, having regard to the extent and character of such portion, the value of the holding would not be substantially affected if it were resumed by the owner, the Land Commission may make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms, as to compensation and Otherwise as may be agreed upon,
said he ought to explain why he had allowed his original Amendment to remain on the Paper. He had no opportunity of seeing his noble friend and conferring with him on the matter, and perhaps, after all, it was better that the two plans should be seen side by side. The speech which the noble Earl had just made in support of his Amendment would be a somewhat memorable one, because he had explained that the reasons why His Majesty's Government preferred their arrangement was that they were very strongly opposed to the breaking of contracts. He hoped the noble Earl's statement would be duly registered in the annals of the House, and he thought that probably the page on which it was printed would be frequently referred to in their future debates. Of course, under the circumstances he would withdraw his new subsection.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I ought to point out to my noble friend that it is not a question of breaking a contract, but of allowing a Court to vary a contract entered into between two people on particular terms.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It would be just the same if you abolished the zones.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN observed that what had just fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, was also a very refreshing statement coming as it did from the Leader of the Government in that House. He desired to know if the noble Earl would make a small addition to his new subsection by inserting, after "planting trees or preserving woods or plantations," the words "or growing timber." Those words had been represented to him as being necessary, and he did not suppose there could be any objection to them.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know of any objection.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN said there was one question to which he would be glad to have an answer. It was as to why the word "full" was inserted before "compensation" in the subsection moved by the noble Earl. In his (Earl Cadogan's) original Amendment he stated, "the Land Commission may make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms as to compensation, and otherwise as may be agreed upon." The noble Earl's subsection, however, provided that the Land Commission "may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant." There was no reason to believe that there was any special significance in the use of the word "full," but he would venture to ask why it was inserted at all.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I believe the words "full compensation" are frequently used in this connection and that there are various precedents for them. The words have been used in more than one of the Irish Land Acts—in the Act of 1881 and others. The word "full" Has no specially offensive sense attaching to it. My noble friend has been so good as to withdraw his Amendment, but he did not specifically deal with the point which I have raised and perhaps some other noble Lord will give the opinion of the House upon it.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN asked what was the point to which the noble Earl referred.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As to the application to pending agreements.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN said he was quite prepared to accept the noble Earl's subsection.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON hoped the word "full" would not be deleted. If an occupying tenant had agreed to buy land, and the landlord desired to reserve a portion of the land, the tenant was to get "full" compensation, whatever that might mean. He hoped the word "full" would be preserved, as it would have a reflex-action on the compensation ion which was to be paid to the landlord under the compulsory clauses when land was taken from him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, with the addition after "plantations "of the words" or growing timber."
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINEORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINEORD moved to amend Clause 18, subsection (1)—
18.—(1) In subsection (51 of section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate) "ten pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds."

67
by omitting the words "In subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1903," and inserting the words "From subsection (4) of section six of the Act of 1903 the words ' with the consent of the owner' shall be omitted, and in subsection (5) of the same section and Act." He said he was anxious to put himself right in connection with this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, had stated that it was improper on the Report stage to bring up a matter which had been disposed of in Committee. But he himself was under the impression that it was open to members of their Lordships' House to bring up on Report for the further consideration of their Lordships any matter, whether it had been rejected in Committee or not. If he were wrong in that belief, he would be glad to be corrected, because his Amendment was a request that their Lordships would reconsider a decision they had come to on the Committee stage. It was a matter to which he attached the very greatest importance, and in the interests of the relief of congestion in Ireland he thought it desirable that he should again press his views on the notice of the House.
When the Bill which became the Act of 1903 reached their Lordships' House, it contained no mention of the consent of the owner being requisite to the certificate which Section 6 of the Act of 1903 required from the Estates Commissioners before an estate could be treated as congested. The whole matter was one of price, and subsequently of expenditure in improving the congested estate. As their Lordships knew, the zone did not apply to congested estates. If the Congested Districts Board entered into negotiations for the purchase of an estate, the zones had no application. Section 6 of the Act of 1903 provided that if the Estates Commissioners submitted to the Lord Lieutenant a certificate stating that, in their opinion, it was desirable that a certain estate for which they were in treaty should be dealt with as congested, the acceptance of that certificate by the Lord Lieutenant brought the negotiations under that section of the Act of 1903 which exempted the negotiations from the operation of the zones, and enabled the Estates Commissioners to expend money in improving the estate. The effect of introducing the words "with the consent of the owner," which was done in their Lordships' House, had been that practically no certificates had been submitted to the
68
Lord Lieutenant, and that all attempts to relieve congestion outside the scheduled districts had been neutralised. The Estates Commissioners, in their last Report, stated that in only twenty cases were they able to relieve congestion under the Act, and they put their failure down to the presence in the section of these words. It was certain that, if these words were retained in the section, congestion outside the scheduled districts would remain as much unrelieved in the future as it had been in the past.
What objection was there from the vendor's or the landlord's point of view to agreeing to this Amendment? It would not limit the freedom of contract or the freedom of sale. It would not compel landlords to sell or to accept a price which they were unwilling to agree to. What it would do was to exclude from the transaction all inferences to be drawn from the zones and to enable the Lord Lieutenant to consent to the expenditure of public money on the improvement of the estate. It might be that a landlord selling a congested estate would not be able to get from the Estates Commissioners as high a price as he might get from his tenants if he could induce them to buy within the zones. But he was not prevented by the deletion of the words from the section from selling to his tenants within the zones. As the law at present stood it was possible in a congested district for a landlord to sell to his tenants within the zones, and for the transaction to pass through. But when he proposed to sell to the Estates Commissioners, then the removal of these words would enable the Estates Commissioners, when they had bought from him at a price he was willing to take, to spend money on the estate and bring it into a good condition. At the present time they were unable to do that. If their Lordships decided to retain these words in the section they would prevent negotiations between the Estates Commissioners and the owners of congested holdings, and would make it impossible to relieve congestion outside the scheduled areas.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 11, to leave out from the beginning of the subsection to 'which' in line 12, and to insert the words 'From subsection (4) of section six of the Act of 1903 the words "with the consent of the owner" shall be omitted, and in subsection (5) of the same section and Act.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK remarked that the noble Lord opposite had rather surprised

69
him by saying he could not see that any possible harm could be done to a landlord through having his estate declared a congested estate and asking what objection there could be from the landlord's point of view. The noble Lord told them that the Congested Districts Board had received refusals from many landlords to have their estates declared congested estates. That being the case it was quite clear that they had an objection, and it was quite possible to conceive it was a well-founded one he trusted that their Lordships would not consent to the omission of these words, but would adhere to the course which they pursued in Committee.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON rather agreed with the noble Lord opposite. He did not see what protection the words "with the consent of the owner" afforded to the landlord. If the landlord wished to sell direct to his tenants the zones applied. If he wished to sell to the Congested Districts Board he had nothing whatever to do with the zones. The operation of the zones, if they acted at all, would be between the Estates Commissioners, who became the owners of the congested estate, and the sales from them to the tenants. The great advantage, as he understood, of having an estate defined as a congested estate was that the Estates Commissioners might sell to the tenants, although they thereby suffered a loss. He never could understand what protection these words gave to the landlord, because the landlord need not deal with the Estates Commissioners unless he liked. The definition
of the estate as a congested estate only applied to dealings between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners. It did not apply to dealings between him and his tenantry at all. His noble friend Lord Clonbrock had said that the best proof that these words were required was furnished by the fact that landlords in many cases had refused to allow their estates to be treated as congested estates. One did not know what was the reason they gave for their opposition, but it appeared to him, as far as he had been able to follow it, that they gained nothing by the retention of these words, and would lose nothing by their deletion.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE thought that exaggerated importance was attached to the matter. One would almost have thought that in putting in words to say that the consent of the landlord should be necessary they were dealing with the preamble to a compulsory purchase clause. As a matter of fact, it was not that at all. As Lord MacDonnell had explained on a previous occasion, it had reference purely to voluntary purchase and voluntary agreements. The landlord would not be a bit more compelled to sell if the Amendment were adopted than he was before. This was a preamble enabling a preliminary step to be taken which might be followed out by an agreement between parties.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Ardilaun, L.

Farnham, L.

Somerset, D.

Ashtown, L.

Forester, L.

Wellington, D.

Bagot, L.

Harlech, L.

Barrymore, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Ailesbury, M.

Belper, L.

Kenyon, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Cadogan, E.

Castletown, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Clarendon, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Langford, L.

Cowley, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lawrence, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Massy, L.

Denbigh, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Essex, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Northcote, L.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Cloncurry, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Onslow, E.

Colchester, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Wicklow, E.

De Freyne, L.

Powerseourt, L. (V. Powerscount.)

De Mauley, L.

De Vesci, V. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Sandys, L.

Hill, V.

Dunalley, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Lonrgford).

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunboyne, L.

Templemore, L.

Dunleath, L.

Waleran, L.

Iveagh, V.

Ellenborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Blyth, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

St. David's, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Sandhurst, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Save and Sele, L.

Liverpool, E.

IIaversham, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Kinnaird, L.

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Welby, L.

Atkinson, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment negatived accordingly.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE*LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved the omission of the words:—"(1) In subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate), 'ten pounds' shall be, substituted for 'five pounds.'" He said that if the Amendment were carried, of course the condition of things would revert to what it was under the Act of 1903. He confessed he moved the Amendment with some trepidation because he knew he should expose himself to the righteous indignation of the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, and to the wrath of the ghosts of the Devon Commission which sat seventy-five years ago. But he consoled himself with thinking that if he had their disapproval he ought at any rate to secure the approval of members of their Lordships' House on both sides, and also that of those who were members of the House of Commons on both sides in 1903. He found on reference to the debates that this clause was passed without any suggestion that the conditions which described a congested estate should be in any way enlarged. The definition of what constituted a congested estate given in the fifth subsection of Section 6 of the Act of 1903 was the definition given by the Government of that day and accepted by all parties as a good definition of congestion; and if they attempted to increase and extend that definition from £5 to £10, they rendered the problem very much more difficult to solve. Lord MacDonnell would say that was not a reason for not attempting to solve it, but the fact remained that it made the problem much more complicated and difficult. He pointed out some time ago that a congested holding did not always mean that the people on it were extremely poor. His noble and learned friend had described them as hungry, wretched-looking people who were pleading at the bar of their Lordships' House. But the fact that people were on congested holdings did not at all mean that
72
they were in that condition. On the contrary, heaps of them had a great deal of money. They took land for grass farms, and in many cases they got employment as labourers. Their Lordships must remember also that the whole problem had been much changed through the granting of old age pensions, which had made an immense difference to the comfort of the people in the West of Ireland. His chief reason for suggesting that this change was not necessary was that the problem would become so great as to be almost insoluble without another Act of Parliament to settle it. He suggested that His Majesty's Government would do well to confine themselves first of all to relieving the most pressing cases of necessity, and after that had been successfully done they could turn their attention if necessary to the larger problem.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, lines 11 to 13, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said that there was no longer room for indignation in his mind, which was oppressed with sorrow that a noble Lord coming from one of the most distressed parts of Ireland should find a reason for refusing to relieve that distress in the hardness of the task. Instead of raising the holdings from £5 to £10, the noble Lord would prefer to leave the value at £5 and let the people eke out a miserable existence on old age pensions and the wages of labour. That was not the spirit in which their Lordships as a whole approached this question, and it was not the spirit in which the problem could be solved. When the noble Lord referred to £5 as being the limit which was preserved in the Act of 1903, he failed to remember that some time before that, in the Act of 1891, the limit of £20 was incorporated by the Legislature. Those who had looked through the evidence of the Dudley Commission

73
must have been struck with the unanimity of feeling which prevailed, wherever the Commission took evidence, that £10 was the lowest valuation for a holding from which a family could derive a decent subsistence. There was a large mass of evidence to show that £15 was a more reasonable figure, while many people were in favour of £12 10 s., and nobody proposed anything less than £10. He thought it would be a waste of time to argue that the question of congestion in the West of Ireland, or in any part of Ireland, could be remedied if the House entertained a proposal which would keep people on a holding of £5 valuation, and bid them look for a means of eking out the subsistence they wore now obtaining through old age pensions and migratory labour. He was sorry that a proposal of this description should have emanated from a member of their Lordships' House.
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN differed from the noble Lord opposite. He did not believe anybody lived on the proceeds of a holding of £10 valuation, and in a great many cases those people were not in the poverty-stricken state that some noble Lords appeared to imagine. He knew one small tenant who lived on a holding of £7 valuation and paid him £90 a year for grass land. It was absolutely unnecessary to say that a man must starve in his holding, because these people did not live, as he had said, by their holdings alone.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has drawn attention to the well-known fact that everybody who lives on a small holding is not necessarily a pauper, but I do not think any one who knows even the comparatively little that I do of the condition of things in the West of Ireland will deny that—though undoubtedly to a somewhat decreasing extent owing in a large degree to the action of the Congested Districts Board—there are vast numbers of persons who are living on the very edge of pauperism and eking out a miserable existence by various forms of casual labour. It seems to me that noble Lords go almost too far when they deny, as they seem to do, the existence of anything like a problem of congestion in the West of Ireland. Noble Lords say "No, no"; but that seems to be the point to which the arguments of some noble Lords opposite are directed. I must confess that to my mind the acceptance of the Amendment
74
must have a most serious effect on the operations for the relief of congestion as described by my noble friend behind me.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am disposed to agree with the noble Lords who have pointed out that it by no means follows that the occupier of a holding under £10 valuation is necessarily in an uneconomic or miserable condition. I think it is within the knowledge of most noble Lords who are familiar with the congested districts of Ireland that there are many men with holdings of less than £10 valuation who have actually more land than they can properly cultivate. But in spite of that it does seem to me a very serious proposal to alter this £10 limit to one of £5, as proposed by my noble friend. The £10 limit is that insisted upon in the Report of the Dudley Commission, upon which this Bill is founded. We have, I think, to remember that what is proposed in this clause is not that it should be admitted that every holder below £10 is necessarily in such miserable circumstances as to require assistance at the hands of the Government; but that this is to be taken as a general definition as to what; ought to be considered in the eye of the law a congested district for the purposes of this Act. I cannot help feeling, as the noble Earl who leads the House has told us, that it would be a very serious modification for us to make in the first principle on which this Bill is founded, and I regret to tell my noble friend that, if he goes to a Division, I shall not be able to support him.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE*LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said that after what had fallen from the noble Marquess he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He would like to say, however, that he did not look upon a great many of these small tenants as farmers at all, but as labourers who had the advantage of holding five or six acres of land at the same rent that they would pay for a small allotment in England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE*LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 18—
(2) Where an estate not being a congested estate within the meaning of the said section as so amended, comprises within its area one or more congested townlands, the Land Commission,

75
or in the case of townlands situated in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board, may declare all or any one or more of such townlands to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and such townland or townlands shall thereupon he deemed for those purposes to be a separate congested estate,
by inserting, after the word "may" ["in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board may"], the words "with the consent of the owner." This Amendment, he said, was consequential on the Amendment which their Lordships carried in Committee, and which the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, had moved to omit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 18, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the owner.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord says this is a consequential Amendment. With that statement I cannot agree. It is in reality a very considerable extension of principle, but His Majesty's Government will not divide the House on the question.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON had given notice of an Amendment to add, "Provided that any person aggrieved by anything done by one Estates Commissioner shall be entitled to have the action of which he complains reconsidered by three Estates Commissioners, who shall make such order on the matter as they shall deem just, on the terms however, that the person so requiring the action of the aforesaid Estates Commission to be reconsidered shall be liable, should his complaint be held to be frivolous or unfounded, to pay to any person pecuniarily interested in the matter complained of, such costs, not exceeding £10 in amount, as the three Commissioners aforesaid may award."
He said that Clause 24 enabled the Estates Commissioners to delegate all or any of their powers to any one of their number, and provided that anything done by any one or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation should be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners. He did not wish to use extravagant language, but, considering
76
the powers conferred on the Estates Commissioners, that was a monstrous proposition. He quite saw, on the other hand, that there were many petty matters of detail in regard to which the procedure would be rather cumberous if it was required that they should be settled by two or more Commissioners. He thought it was impossible to define what should be done by one Commissioner and what should be done by more than one. Therefore he moved his Amendment, which he recommended to the consideration of their Lordships as providing a certain amount of guidance in the matter. Under his Amendment, if any person felt aggrieved by anything that was done by one Commissioner he would have the right to have the matter which be complained of reheard before three Commissioners sitting together. Lord Dunboyne had put down an Amendment to add after "three Estates Commissioners" the words "sitting together." He thanked the noble Lord for his suggestion, and he accepted it. He had provided for an abuse of the right conferred under his Amendment by providing that the Estates Commissioners might fix with costs, not exceeding £10, any person raising a frivolous or unfounded objection. His noble friend Lord Dunboyne had put down an Amendment to the effect that all ministerial acts relating to the details of the carrying out of any transactions might be performed by one Commissioner. The difficulty arose however, of defining what were details and what was a ministerial act, inasmuch as nineteen-twentieths of the work was administrative.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 23, after 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'Provided that any person aggrieved by anything done by one Estates Commissioner shall be entitled to have the action of which he complains reconsidered by three Estates Commissioners sitting together who shall make such order on the matter as they shall deem just, on the terms however, that the person so requiring the action of the aforesaid Estates Commission to be reconsidered shall be liable, should his complaint be held to be frivolous or unfounded, to pay to any person pecuniarily interested in the matter complained of, such costs, not exceeding ten pounds in amount as the three Commissioners aforesaid may award.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE thought that Clause 24 was extremely wide in its application. The Act of 1903 required all the Estates Commissioners to perform all the duties.

77
It did not make use of the words "sitting together," but the context showed the intention that it should be so. What took place was that one Commissioner sat alone to hear a case and make an order upon it, which was sent to another Commissioner, or the other two Commissioners, to be initialled. The order then passed as the order of the three. He believed an instance had occurred where a Commissioner who heard a case had actually been overruled by the two who did not hear it, and in consequence of their refusal to initial the order the matter fell through. He had placed on the Paper an Amendment that the powers of the Commissioners should be exercised by any two of them "sitting together," and he thought some such provision was essential to the proper conduct of their duties. He was glad those words had been accepted by his noble and learned friend.
LORD ASHBOURNE*LORD ASHBOURNE remarked that the position as regarded the proposed Amendments required consideration. He agreed almost entirely with Lord Atkinson, but thought that was not a convenient place to introduce the modification. Lord Dunboyne proposed to omit Clause 24 altogether and insert a new clause, and he thought Lord Atkinson's Amendment should be added at the end. He would like to ask what was the technical meaning of "sitting together." Was it contemplated that the Commissioners would sit together in a kind of judicial position? He did not believe that would be the way in which business was carried out, but it would be done in the manner most convenient for the despatch of work. He supposed that in nine cases out of ten they would exchange their views without technically sitting together, and finally conclude that they had come to a point where they could agree. Although the three Commissioners had not been sitting together their minds might have been working to the same object, and accomplishing the same result. Putting it shortly, he would be satisfied with the first part of the clause of his noble friend Lord Dunboyne, with the exception of the reference to the Commissioners sitting together. He was not sure about the proviso, but if his noble friend thought it desirable he had no objection to it; but then there came into consideration the difficulty pointed out by Lord Atkinson of differentiating in such a jurisdiction between a judicial and a ministerial act.
78
The vast majority of the work was ministerial if they chose so to regard it. It had the flavour of being judicial occasionally, but it was not easy to mark out clearly what was judicial and what was ministerial. He thought the Amendment of his noble and learned friend would come in with great force if Lord Dunboyne's proposal were taken, so that if one Commissioner made an order which was open to objection then any aggrieved person could, in the words of Lord Atkinson's Amendment, require the action to be heard again by the three Commissioners, but should his complaint be held to be frivolous or vexatious he would have to pay costs. He thought it would be wiser in the interests of the drafting of the Bill for Lord Dunboyne's Amendment to come first if that were the desire of the House, and for Lord Atkinson's Amendment to come in after.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD thought it would be a most dangerous thing to give to the Estates Commissioners the power of delegation which it was proposed to give. It might be that one of the Estates Commissioners took a particular view of his duties and another took another view, while the third differed from the other two. It was quite possible, if the delegation were carried out, to have a system which would differ according to the idiosyncrasy of the particular Commissioner who presided. There would be nothing like uniformity of procedure and serious inconvenience would arise. That, he thought, was a very great danger which their Lordships ought not to incur. He thought the Amendment of Lord Dunboyne, if the words "sitting together" were omitted, was the best solution which could be found if they altered the existing state of things at all. As things were conducted at present the Estates Commissioners did not always sit together. They did so sit when an important case was to be heard; but otherwise a great deal of their work was done by means of the circulation of papers. An opinion was expressed by one Commissioner, the next Commissioner initialed it if he agreed with it, and then it went on to the third. In that way business was conducted in an expeditious manner. When an important matter was to be decided all three Commissioners, when there, sat together. He thought the object should be to preserve that system as much as possible, and if any alteration was to be made so that the work done

79
by two Commissioners was to carry the authority of all, that could be done by leaving out the words "sitting together." If those words were inserted an inconvenient limitation would be imposed upon the procedure of the Commissioners. He should prefer to omit the clause altogether and leave things as they were, when the opinion of the majority carried the day; but if anything had to be done, he should prefer the proposal of Lord Dunboyne with the omission of the words "sitting together."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is not entirely unreasonable if this power remains in the Bill to impose upon it certain limitations, but in our view the limitations proposed by the two noble Lords opposite are of such a character and would have such results that of the two we should prefer to see Clause 24 omitted altogether rather than to see it amended in the manner which noble Lords opposite propose. The effect of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would be that any person who considered himself aggrieved by anything done by an Estates Commissioner would be entitled to have the action of which he complained reconsidered by three Estates. Commissioners. If the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to stand I think he would have to say "anything so done," because he cannot mean anything done anywhere by an Estates Commissioner in any capacity.
LORD ATKINSON: It is a proviso, of course.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Anybody who considered himself aggrieved, however trivial the matter, if he were willing to risk a £10 note, as a great many litigious persons are, could cause this trivial matter to be considered by three Estates Commissioners sitting together as a tribunal. If anything of that kind were done it would be necessary to make the liability very much greater than the £10 proposed here, because the cost to the other party might be infinitely greater than £10 if he had to go to Dublin from the other end of Ireland in order to defend a case before the three Commissioners sitting together. Therefore we object to the phrase "sitting together," and very largely on the grounds which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, stated just now. Lord Dunboyne talked of a matter being settled
80
by a mere initial as though that involved some complete neglect of the subject-matter which had to be decided. The noble Lord knows very well that infinitely more important matters than the questions that come before the Estates Commissioners are settled every day by initials, and it does not follow because you write your initials on the back of a document that you have not given it the closest possible study and arrived at a very definite decision upon it. If all these trivial matters had to be decided by the three Commissioners seated side by side in an almost judicial manner I would very much rather not see the clause in at all. As regards the Amendment of Lord Dunboyne, I confess I do not know how you could distinguish between ministerial acts which could be done by one Commissioner and other acts which could not. I have no clear conception in my mind as to the distinction which would be drawn, and how in the event of somebody complaining that some decision had been arrived at by a Commissioner by which he, the complainant, considered himself aggrieved, what meaning in a Court of Law would attach to the word "ministerial" in this relation. For that reason I am afraid we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. We do not take the same exception to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord provided that it does not involve the sitting together of the three Commissioners, but we should, of course, greatly prefer to see Clause 24 stand as it is in the Bill as amended in Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO thought a great many noble Lords behind him from Ireland would fall in with the view of the noble Earl and have the clause deleted altogether from the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl does not, I think, understand me. What I said was. I would rather see the clause out than surrounded by all the restrictions proposed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he had never heard any argument why the Estates Commissioners might delegate any of their powers to any one or two of their number. Why was that put into the Bill? What was the good of it? What was the object of it? What had been said was perfectly true, that the Estates

81
Commissioners did not sit on a bench in one room as a judicial body. Their business had to be done in the way that all business was done. One man had to do one part of it and the other another part, and these schemes were brought from one to the other and initialled or not initialled as the case might be. For his own part he could not see the object of this clause at all, and he could fall in with the noble Earl's idea that the clause was much better out of the Bill. That would be much better than the Amendments that had been brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne, and he hoped noble Lords from Ireland would fall in with this view, because it simplified matters very much and left the Estates Commissioners free to do their business in the way they thought best. He had never said a word against the Estates Commissioners and he hoped he never should. They had had a most difficult task to perform under most difficult conditions, and he could not see the object of this delegation clause.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The suggestion made by my noble friend behind me seems the most promising of which circumstances permit. On this side of the House we have a decided objection to the clause as it stands. On the other hand, the noble Earl opposite and his friends take exception to both of the Amendments on the Paper. Is not the obvious way out of the difficulty that we should agree to omit the clause altogether, leaving the Estates Commissioners to do their business in the way which all bodies of that kind do theirs?
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he had no objection whatever to withdrawing his Amendment. He disliked the clause as much as it was possible, and he only introduced his Amendment with the object of reforming it to a certain extent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said that as his noble and learned friend had withdrawn his proviso he (Lord Dunboyne) proposed to move the first part of his Amendment—namely, to leave out Clause 24.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 24."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to insert a new paragraph in Clause 31. He said this was another of the paragraphs which their Lordships deleted from the Bill in Committee, and which he thought it his duty to ask their Lordships to reconsider. The effect of the clause as it stood would be that holdings would become consolidated into larger holdings, that publicans and money-lenders would buy up holdings that were offered for sale, consolidate them into estate?, and let them to tenants for whom their Lordships' House at some not very far distant date would have to pass rent laws and protection laws. It seemed to him to be a very unwise procedure to abolish the system of landlordism now prevailing in Ireland and to lay the foundation of a system infinitely worse. Their Lordships already knew what the acquisition of land by publicans and money-lenders in Ireland meant, so that he need not labour the point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 27, after 'namely,' to insert '(a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, would exceed the sum of five thousand pounds, and if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to press upon your Lordships the reconsideration of this question. The omission of the clause was proposed, I think, by a noble friend of mine who, I am sorry, is absent this week owing to illness, Lord Inchiquin. He, I think, proposed the omission of the clause on the ground that the strong farmer will be altogether replaced by the small holder. I do not think that is as good a reason as the noble Lord seemed to think, whereas the other reason which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord MacDonnell I believe to be a very real one. The noble Marquess opposite, when the clause was being discussed, rather derided the notion that anybody would wish to mass holdings together in Ireland. I think it is very likely you will not again see estates run into many tens of thousands of acres, but the sort of purchase by a local moneyed man, who is

83
also not unlikely to be a lender of money, and the consolidation of a block of holdings in his hands, is a possibility which ought not to be ignored, and consequently we desire to press very strongly once more on your Lordships the importance of restoring this paragraph to the Bill.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said he had great sympathy with Lord MacDonnell's contention because he saw a possibility of that terror to all Ireland, the gombeen man, coming in and acquiring these farms. It was a well-known fact that a great many parcels of land bought under purchase annuities had changed hands. The Government could not do anything so long as the purchase annuity was paid. Although he had more than once in their Lordships' House stood up for the big farmer, he could not help thinking that a provision such as this would be very advantageous to the small holder and would prevent the one terror in the West of Ireland in the form of the gombeen man and the publican acquiring, as they did acquire, the land on which the small men were paying the purchase annuity. The Government were going to try a great experiment in the West of Ireland as regarded congestion, and he was afraid there would be a very great temptation to the men, whom he should not name but who were now so well known, once they got possession of this land, to pass it on to the two classes of men he had mentioned. Therefore he had a very great sympathy with this clause for that reason.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK agreed that the gombeen man might get hold of too much land to the exclusion of the small man, but the sum of £5,000 represented about 250 acres only, and surely it was not thought desirable that no man in Ireland should hold more than 250 acres. Surely the right view was that if the landlords left the country—as he was afraid many would under the operation of this Act—there should be some substantial men to take their place, and that farms should not be stereotyped to a size not exceeding 250 acres.
THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Lord looks at the first line of the proposed paragraph he will see that practically there
84
is no limitation on the Land Commission's power of consent.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said the limit might be disregarded under some special reason, but to put the sum at £5,000 looked as if it were intended by the Government to limit farms in Ireland to 250 acres.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO wished to ask Lord MacDonnell a question with regard to this matter. Supposing a tenant was a purchaser under the 1903 Act, he was then a proprietor was he not? Very well, the farm was put up to auction by the Estates Commissioners because the man had not paid his rent to the State. Was the proprietor of any other farm under the 1903 Act debarred from bidding and buying at that auction?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD replied in the negative, and pointed out that the Amendment said that the proprietor should not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance had been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, exceeded the sum of £5,000; and so long as the advance made to the person who was bidding and the advance made on the property for which he was bidding did not exceed £5,000 he was at liberty to bid and to buy.
THE EARL OF MAYO: If I am a proprietor, cannot I buy when the Estates Commissioners put the farm up to auction because the man has not paid the State rent?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Yes, you can buy.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Not more than 250 acres?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: You can buy up to £5,000.
THE EARL OF MAYO: £5,000 worth of property.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Yes.
LORD ATKINSON: Surely there must be a mistake. The sum advanced on the farm bought as well as the sum pending on the farm of the buyer are not together to exceed £5,000?
Amendment negatived accordingly.
LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE moved to insert a new clause to remedy a flaw in the existing law under which, in cases where there was a middleman and an unexpired term of less than sixty years, it was impossible to sell to the tenants. This clause, he said, was put down but not reached owing to the closure in the House of Commons for both the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill by Mr. Maurice Healy, who was, perhaps, as well acquainted with the technical working of the Land Purchase Acts as any man in Ireland, and it was put down because there were a very large number of cases, certainly in the South and South-West of Ireland, where these conditions existed, and where, consequently,
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: That is so.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23: Not-contents, 64.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor).

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Pentland, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Digby, L.

St. David's, L.

Glantawe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Carrington, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Liverpool, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Haversham, L.

Allendale, L.

Langford, L.

Weardale, L.

Blyth, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Welby, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

O'Hagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Ashbourne, L.

Harlech, L.

Devonshire, D.

Ashtown, L.

Hindlip, L.

Wellington, D.

Atkinson, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Bagot, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Ailesbury, M.

Barrymore, L.

Kenyon, L

Lansdowne, M.

Belper, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Knareshorough, L.

Camperdown, E.

Castletown, L.

Lawrence, L.

Clarendon, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Massy, L.

Denbigh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Devon, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, E.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Oranmore and Browne, B.

Shaftesbury, E.

Clonbrock, B.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Waldegrave, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)

Wicklow, E.

Colchester, L.

De Freyne, L.

Sanderson, L.

Churchill, V.

De Mauley, L.

Sandys, L.

De Vesci, V. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunalley, L.

Templemore, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Ventry, L.

Iveagh, V.

Dunleath, L.

Waleran, L.

Milner, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Wynford, L.

Farnham, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Forester, L.

it was impossible for the landlord to sell or the tenant to purchase when both were perfectly agreeable to do so. Section 15 of the Act of 1903 was passed, he believed, with the intention of dealing with this state of things, but difficulties had arisen through a decision in the King's Bench in Ireland in 1905 in a case entitled "Lambkin's Estate ex parte Deane." In that case Mr. Deane was a middleman, holding under a lease of which less than sixty years was unexpired. He could not, therefore, sell to his tenants because he could not qualify as a vendor under the Land Purchase Acts. His interest was accordingly assumed to be what was called an "intervening interest," which could be redeemed under Section 15 of the Act of 1903, and on this assumption the head landlord, Mr. Lambkin, entered

87
into purchase agreements with the occupying tenants of the lands comprised in Mr. Deane's lease. After the agreements had been signed a question arose as to whether the tenants were still liable to continue paying their rents to their direct landlord, Mr. Deane, and to test this point Mr. Deane instituted ejectment proceedings against one of them. The points involved came before the King's Bench Division, who held unanimously that the case was not within Section 15 of the Act of 1903, because the whole of the lands in the lease from Lambkin to Deane were found to have been sub-let by Deane. He had a copy of a letter from the agent of the estate with regard to this matter. The agent was well known to him. He was a clear and level-headed man, and he wrote this account of what was a typical case under Section 15 of the Act as at the present moment construed—
"The King's Bench Division in Ireland decided unanimously in a considered judgment that the head landlord could not sell under the Act of 1903 to (ho occupying tenants on a middleman's estate where the middleman held for less than sixty years, and the entire of the lands included in the middleman's lease was sub-let. The case was argued at length. I was agent over the head landlord's estate. The circumstances were as follow: Lambkin was head landlord. Deane was middleman with twenty-eight years un-expired of his lease. Lambkin, under counsel's advice, entered into purchase agreements under the Act of 1003 with Deane's sub-tenants, and when the following Gale day of the occupiers' rents fell due Deane brought an action in superior Courts against his largest tenant, who, relying on his purchase agreement with Lambkin, refused to pay the half-year's rent that accrued due after the date of the purchase agreement. The case was argued at length, and the Court reserved judgment and gave the decision I have mentioned."
This agent told him that he had a large number of estates under him, including from 100 to 220 tenants, all of whom were anxious to buy and the landlords were perfectly willing and ready to sell; but the whole business was stopped by the decision in the case of Lambkin v. Deane. The estates of that class were probably as a rule smallish estates and probably the estates of all others on which it was most important and advisable that the tenants should be made possessors of their holdings. Of course, there was a remedy. The head landlord could buy out the middleman or the middleman could buy out the head landlord, and in that way become the sole landlord and thus be able to deal with the tenants; but in most of these cases neither the head
88
landlord nor the middleman had the money to do it, so that the difficulty remained. He understood there was a certain doubt among lawyers as to the reading of the sections of the Act, and it would appear that this case of Lambkin v. Deane had not been fully reported and was not very well known among lawyers. But the judgment existed, and it was preventing the sale of estates similarly situated. If the noble Earl or his Law Officers had any doubts as to the necessity of such a clause as the one he proposed, and were prepared to look into it, he would suggest that he should be allowed to carry this clause, or, at any rate the first part of it, and that the Law Officers should look into the matter between now and the next stage, or else that it should be considered when their Lordships' Amendments to this Bill came before another place.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
'.—(1) Where the immediate landlord of any holding or holdings has not an interest sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the next superior landlord having such an interest shall be deemed to be a person having power to sell to occupying tenants under the said Acts notwithstanding that the said holding or holdings constitute the whole estate of such superior landlord, and section fifteen of the Act of 1903 shall apply accordingly.
(2) On a sale by any such superior landlord any arrears of rent due by the occupying tenants shall be dealt with in such manner as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, as may be decided by the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(3) The interest payable by the occupying tenants pending the completion of the sale, shall in such case be payable to such persons and in such proportions as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, as may be decided by the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.'"—(Lord Barrymore.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that as this was more or less a technical matter, perhaps he could assist the noble Earl. Deane's estate was a case where all the land was held by a middleman, and it was decided that it did not come within Section 15 of the Act of 1903 because that section enacted that in the case of the sale of an estate the Land Commission might, if they thought fit, declare that any person who, as a subtenant, was in the exclusive occupation of a parcel of land comprised in the estate, should be deemed the tenant of that parcel. It was obvious that did not apply

89
to tie case where the entire of the estate was sub-let by a middleman to one individual tenant. It would be desirable that the head or superior landlord should be able to sell direct to the sub-tenants and that the middleman's interest should be redeemed out of the purchase money.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the further explanation, although the noble Lord, Lord Barrymore, who, like myself, is a layman, gave a very clear account of the difficulty which has arisen under Section 15 of the Act of 1903. The noble Lord is quite right; I did find myself in some difficulty with regard to this Amendment because the case is not a reported case, and, therefore, we were not in possession of the particular circumstances on which the noble Lord relied. To a layman, although I think I follow the point of the noble and learned Lord, it does seem somewhat absurd that the mere fact of an estate being in that single occupation should keep it out of subsection (1) of Section 15, but I am quite willing, I need hardly say, to take the noble and learned Lord's word for that fact. I think the best course to take would be that suggested by the noble Lord opposite, that he should insert his subsection (1) of the new clause in the Bill, and then we should be able to consider whether we could accept it exactly as it stands or whether it might be possible to do so with some modification. I would assume from what has been said by Lord Barrymore, though I have been told otherwise, that there is a perfect unanimity and agreement between the superior landlord and the middleman as to the desire of the tenants to become purchasers under the Act, but that it was prevented by the construction placed on Section 15 of the Act of 1903.
On Question, subsection (1) of the Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM moved the insertion of a new clause to provide that where a number of the tenants of an estate had not agreed before the passing of the Act to the terms of purchase arranged with the other tenants the Estates Commissioners might order, subject to the consent of the Treasury, that the tenants so refusing should not be placed in a less advantageous position with
90
regard to the rate of advance than the tenants who had previously agreed to purchase, and that the percentage payable on the purchase money of any such transaction should be calculated on the same basis as for the rest of the estate.
The clause was designed to prevent possible friction arising between landlords and tenants in future and also to prevent any trouble arising from the fact that tenants living near each other were paying different rates of annuity it was also brought forward with the object of assisting estates where some of the tenants had not so far come to an agreement. He believed that since 1871 the rate of annuity had decreased steadily until the introduction of the present Bill, and it would be a pity if anything were done at this time to put a stop to the sale of land that had so far gone on satisfactorily. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the clause.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'38. Whore a number of the tenants on an estate have not agreed before the passing of this Act to the terms of purchase arranged with the other tenants, the Estates Commissioners may order, subject to the consent of the Treasury, that the tenants so refusing shall not be placed in a less advantageous position with regard to the rate of advance than the tenants who had previously agreed to purchase, and that the percentage payable on the purchase money of any such transaction shall be calculated on the same basis as for the rest of the estate.'"—(The Earl of Clanwilliam.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot alter the view we expressed on the noble Earl's Amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. We are bound to consider, quite apart from the question of privilege the fact that the Treasury have arranged as large an advance as they could possibly agree to, and an advance which we consider to be on a liberal scale. Quite apart from questions of privilege it is not advisable, by a clause here and a clause there, to make additions to that amount. We do not see why it is reasonable that a certain number of tenants on a particular estate, having, it is true, desired to come to an agreement but not having been able to persuade the requisite number of other tenants on the said estate to join with them—we do not see why they should obtain an advantage over those tenants in the future who may be, morally, in precisely

91
the same position because they might have been actually willing to come to terms but have had no opportunity of expressing their willingness to do so. I am afraid, on the various grounds I have mentioned, we cannot agree to the insertion of the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON did not wish to press the noble Earl the Leader of the House; but he would ask him if he would tell their Lordships what was the legal position of tenants who, at this moment and before the passing of the Bill, proposed to come in. What was the position of those who came in before the passing of the Act? He understood it was held by lawyers of repute that every tenant who chose to come in before this Act was passed would be debarred in future from coming in at three and a-quarter percent. He was entitled to come in at three and a-quarter percent, now, and therefore the date which had been put in, 15th September, was practically ultra vires. Would such a tenant come in under the three and a-quarter per cent. of 1903 or would he come in under the more restricted provisions of this Act?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to say I overlooked the point raised by the noble Viscount. If he will allow me I will take a note of it now and give an opinion—which certainly will not be my own, because it is not a point on which I am competent to form an opinion—at the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There seems to me to be a certain difficulty in applying this clause in the form in which it is put down on the Paper. Take the case of an estate where the bulk of the tenants have had an opportunity of buying under the terms which existed before this year. Part of them take advantage of the opportunity; part of them do not. If this Amendment is added to the Bill I understand the effect will be that the tenants who did not avail themselves of their opportunity would be afterwards, so to speak, brought up to the level of the tenants who did take advantage of their opportunity. If that were done might it not be very unfair to the tenants on an adjoining estate who never had an opportunity at all? If the tenants whom my noble friend wishes to rescue are left out in the cold it is, ex hypothesi, owing to their own fault; and I must say it seems to me it would be
92
rather a strong order to give to them the same advantages that were given before to their more enterprising brothers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved to insert a clause, at the beginning of Part III, dealing with the incorporation of the Congested Districts Board. The clause was, he said, omitted from the Bill by mistake during the Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'38.—(1) From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board for Ireland shall be a body corporate, bearing the name of the "Congested Districts Board for Ireland" with a capacity to acquire and hold land, and to sue and be sued by its corporate name.
(2) The Board shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and such seal shall be authenticated by the signature of a permanent member of the Board, or of the secretary.
(3) In the execution or performance of any power or duty conferred upon or transferred to the Board, by or in pursuance of any enactment, the Board shall adopt and use the style and seal of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland.
(4) The powers and duties of the trustees of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland under any enactment, shall on the appointed day, be transferred to the Board.
(5) Subsection (3) of section thirty-four of the Act of 1891 and subsections (2) and (3) of section two of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1893, shall cease to have effect as from the appointed day.'"—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no objection to the reinsertion of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause dealing with the constitution of the Congested Districts Board. He said that on the Committee stage of the Bill the personnel of the Congested Districts Board remained unsettled, and his Amendment altered its strength as little as possible. At the present time the Board consisted of eleven members, eight appointed members and three ex officio members. There was, at present, a distinction between temporary and permanent members of the Board, but it was now proposed to abolish that distinction which really never had any great significance. His proposal provided for a twelfth member of the Board, a paid member appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

93
The other members were, following the existing practice, appointed by His Majesty, but he saw no reason why the paid member of the Board should not be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant who appointed all the other high paid officials, members of the permanent Civil Service, in Ireland. He also provided that one half the existing permanent members should retire when this Act came into operation. At the present time three or four members held office for four years. The rest held office for life. It would be in their Lordships' remembrance that the Bill as it came from the House of Commons provided for the retirement from office of all the existing members of the Board who were not officials, but it seemed to him very desirable that a certain number should retain office and so afford a transition stage and a means of perpetuating the traditions which the Board had hitherto inherited. The only question of importance, in his opinion, was the proposal that half the existing members should retire. He thought it was desirable that there should be fresh blood introduced into the Congested Districts Board. He was aware that certain people considered that if these vacancies were created they would be filled in a particular way. For his own part he believed they would be filled with the sole object of placing upon the Board members who were more or less acquainted with the conditions of the West of Ireland—men of independent character and of standing in the country whose presence on the Board would be of great use.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'.—(1) From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board shall consist of the following members—

(a) The Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland and one Estates Commissioner taken in rotation:

(b) Seven members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as appointed members):

(c) One paid member appointed by the Lord Lieutenant (in this Act referred to as the permanent member):

(2) One half of the non-official members of the Congested Districts Board, as existing at the date of the passing of this Act, shall retire by lot on the appointed day and the second half shall retire on the expiry of one year from the appointed day, but members so retiring shall be eligible for re-appointment within the number of seven provided by this section.
(3) An appointed member shall hold office for four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
(4) The permanent member shall hold office during pleasure, and shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at their disposal such annual salary as the Lord Lieutenant may determine.
His Majesty may fill any casual vacancy in the office of appointed member, and the Lord Lieutenant may fill any such vacancy in the office of permanent member, by appointing a person to be a member in the place of the member whose office is vacant.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON opposed the Amendment. At an earlier stage he proposed an Amendment that the time had come for the abolition of the Congested Districts Board and the division of its duties between two other bodies. That did not find favour. On the other hand, the Government proposed that the Board should henceforth be elective, thereby putting upon the Board those who represented the constituents they were returned to represent and so representing various antipathies. The noble Lord had said he preferred the congests to the landless, or lawless, men. He said the existing Board had done good work; their powers were extended, and they had money that they never had before. The way the noble Lord rewarded them for all that was to abolish them within twelve months. The policy was different, the agencies were different, the personnel was different, the aims were all different; and the result would be that if these men were put upon the Board as nominated members the same force that had compelled the Government to create a Board, the real object of which was to prefer the landless men to the congests, would compel the Government to place upon the Board, through nomination, men animated with exactly the same ideas and having the same views as the elected members. This matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill. Everybody, he thought, rejected the elected members. Every noble Lord saw clearly that the nominated members would be of exactly the same kind, having the same views and the same objects as the elected members; and therefore it was desirable to give the present Board a chance—a Board of which everybody approved, which everybody complimented, which everybody said was a success, and which everybody was willing should continue. And yet, in the face of that success, it was wished to abolish them and place in the hands of the Government the power of putting in their place seven nominated members. The noble Lord himself provided

95
that immediately three nominated members were to disappear, they were to be followed twelve months after by the remainder of the nominated members; and then there were to be introduced immediately three nominated members and in twelve months three more. The result would be that before twelve months were over their place would know them no more. Lord MacDonnell had said he was fully convinced they would be men who would be wholly animated with a desire to promote the relief of congestion. He did not question the sincerity of that belief for a moment, but he confessed it was not his belief. He had read with great interest all the evidence given before the Congested Districts Board, and he thought there would be seven "Mr. John Fitzgibbon representatives "; and Mr. Fitzgibbon had deliberately said he preferred the landless men to the migrated congests. If men of that policy were to be upon the Board then the relief of congestion became an absolute impossibility. Everybody knew who was the real author of this Bill—who was behind it. His impression was that the nominated members would either be the dogs of war or the kennel huntsmen.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not propose to speak at any length on this Amendment, because, as your Lordships know, not merely the constitution of the Congested Districts Board but its powers and the area of its operations have been so altered from the propositions contained
96
in our original Bill that it would serve no useful purpose if I were now to compare the various methods which are proposed for replacing them. There is only one observation which the noble and learned Lord made to which I must call attention with a view of indicating that it is not entirely accurate. The noble and learned Lord said "You have got so much more money." I must point out that you have not got it, and whether you get it will depend in no small degree upon the composition, the area, and the powers which it is proposed to give to the Congested Districts Board. The noble and learned Lord must not assume that the one clause in the Bill of which they have always heartily approved, giving the sum of £163,000 extra to the Congested Districts Board, will necessarily stand part of the Bill if all the Amendments which noble Lords have been good enough to make in relation to the Congested Districts Board are insisted on at all stages.
LORD ATKINSON: That is the first time it has been suggested that that was the price of their extinction.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Further consideration adjourned till To-morrow, and to be taken first.
House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Three o'clock.