Sitting of 20 October 1909

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sligo and Bundoran Railway Bill,—Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered:—
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and add the words "upon this day three months:"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means:]—
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived:—Words added:—
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to:—Consideration of Lords' Amendments put off for three months.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Colinton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],—considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Navy (Recruiting).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL (for Mr. Gretton)asked how many men and boys entered the Navy during the first six months of the present financial year, and what were the numbers who entered the Navy during the corresponding period last year?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Approximately 6,000 boys and men have been entered in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines during the first six months of the present financial year. The corresponding numbers for the first half of 1908 and 1909 were 5,330.

  Battleships (Gun Mountings).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL (for Mr. Gretton)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expected to place orders for gun-mountings for the three battleships ordered on 1st April; and whether any of the firms tendering for this
  276
  work had already made extensions of plant or other preparations in anticipation of orders from the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's question.

  S.S. "Waratah" (Supposed Loss).
  Mr. STANIERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could give any fresh information regarding the missing steamer "Waratah"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No further information has been received.

  Navy (Medical Service).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to the acquittal of Fleet-Surgeon Charles Matthew by court-martial on a charge of behaving with contempt towards Commander Richard Walters, and also to the fact that Fleet-Surgeon Matthew was placed on the retired list at his own request on account of the charge; whether Commander Walters had retired; and what steps he was taking, in the interests of efficiency in the Navy, to remove the alleged grievances of the naval medical service?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; Fleet-Surgeon Matthew has been placed on the retired list at his own request; Commander Walters has not retired. I should be glad if my hon. Friend will direct my attention to the alleged grievances referred to in the last part of his question.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Was a Commission appointed to inquire into these alleged grievances, and, if so, has it reported?
  Mr. McKENNA: A Committee was appointed to inquire into certain circumstances affecting the medical service in the Navy, but I would not describe them as grievances.

  Royal Marine Reserve.
  Captain FABERasked whether the Order in Council, dated 10th August, instituting a reserved list of colonels, Royal Marines, contained a proviso that it should take effect from 1st April; and, if not, under what authority the Board of Admiralty could antedate the provisions of His Majesty's Order in Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Order in Council provided for the re-establishment of the reserve list to take effect from 1st April, 1909.
  Captain FABER: Can I see a copy of the Order in Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. It has been published.
  Captain FABERasked whether the current quarterly Navy List is correct in its statement to the effect that the rates of pay of a reserved colonel, Royal Marines, are £730 a year in the Royal Marine Artillery, and £702 12s. 6d. in the Royal Marine Light Infantry?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
  Captain FABER: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his statement that the utmost pay for a colonel in the Royal Marine Reserve was £600 a year?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that I made that statement.
  Captain FABER: I might ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer to what he did say some little time back in this House.

  Poor Law Midwifery Orders.
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had sanctioned the rules of some boards of guardians restricting midwifery orders to mothers who had already not less than a specified number of children; and, if not, whether he would express his official disapproval to the boards which had embodied this restrictive provision in their rules?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am aware that in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, attention is drawn to the Rules of certain boards of guardians restricting the grant of midwifery orders to mothers with a prescribed number of children. I have made inquiry on the subject, and I find that in some of the cases cited the rule is seldom or never acted upon, whilst in others it does not apply if the relief is given by way of loan. I am still giving attention to the matter.

  Bringing Children to Workhouses.
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the importance of preserving children as far as possible from any connection with the workhouse, whether he sanctioned the practice of some boards of
  278
  guardians of bringing children from receiving homes to the workhouse to be handed over to their parents when these were taking their discharge; and, if not, whether he would express his official disapproval of the practice in question?
  Mr. BURNS: It is necessary when an able-bodied parent is discharged from the workhouse that his children should be discharged with him, and in these circumstances it does not seem to be practicable to avoid an arrangement of the kind referred to in the question.

  Care of Feeble-minded (Royal Commission).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked whether any legislation was being prepared in his Department to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, with particular reference to the removal of mentally-defective persons from the workhouses?
  Mr. BURNS: The initiation of legislation affecting the methods of dealing with mentally defective persons in public institutions would not be a matter primarily for my Department; but the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the particular matter referred to in the question will not be lost sight of by me when any such legislation is proposed.

  Births and Deaths in Poor Law Institutions.
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the statements in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission as to the absence of official statistics in regard to the number of births in Poor Law institutions, the rate of mortality in Poor Law institutions of children between the ages of two and five years, and the rate of mortality under one year of age of infants being maintained on outdoor relief, whether he will request, by circular to boards of guardians or otherwise, that information on these several points shall in future be collected and tabulated, with a view to its inclusion in one of the annual publications of his Department?
  Mr. BURNS: The recommendations made in the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Royal Commission are receiving consideration. The recommendations in the former Report, as regards the development of official statistics, cover a somewhat wider range than those in the Minority Report to which my

  279
  hon. Friend refers; and pending a decision on the whole matter I think it will be better to defer calling for any such special returns as are suggested in the question.

  Upton Magna (Teacher's Retirement).
  Mr. STANIERasked what is the total amount of superannuation allowance and annuity on which Mr. Alfred Sheldon, of Upton Magna, has been retired, and at what age such retirement took place, and after what number of years of service as a certificated head teacher in public elementary schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Mr. Alfred Sheldon was awarded a superannuation allowance of £39 4s. 9d. and an annuity of £3 19s. 4d. He retired at the age of 65, and had served as a certificated head teacher for 43 years and 6 months.

  Children Act Instructions.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON (for Mr. Cochrane)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a Memorandum, purporting to be official, has been sent to certain justice of the peace clerks directing them to read into Section 25, Sub-section 1, of the Children Act certain words which were deleted during the passage of the Act through Parliament; and will he say by whose authority this Memorandum was sent out?
  The SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I presume the hon. Member refers to a Memorandum issued by the Stationery Office forwarding certain corrected leaves to be substituted for the leaves of the Act as first issued. This Memorandum was sent to all officers to whom the Acts are applied. It had to be issued in consequence of an oversight, which was explained by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a question on the 25th May last. The words alluded to, in Section 25, were omitted in the House of Lords, but when the Bill was returned to this House the Lords' Amendment was disagreed to, and the House of Lords acquiesced.

  Poisonous and Inflammable Hair Washes.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to take any action with a view to restrict or prevent the use of substances for shampooing the
  280
  hair which by reason of their poisonous or inflammable qualities are liable to cause serious injury or fatal results?
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent further deaths which have taken place in the Metropolis from the use of inflammable hair washes, he can hold out any hope of the introduction of legislation next Session for the purpose of prohibiting the use of such preparations?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The matter is receiving my serious attention, and the question whether legislation ought to be undertaken will be fully considered. In the meantime, I may point out that, as intimated by counsel in the recent proceedings at Westminster Police Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions would certainly prosecute for manslaughter if tetrachloride should again be used and a fatal result ensue. The inquest in the recent case of two deaths arising from the use of petrol is not yet concluded; but when the inquest is completed, the question of prosecution will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Llanhilleth Colliery (Visit of Mines Inspector).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the miners of the Llanhilleth colliery allege that the chief mines inspector for the western division informed the Llanhilleth colliery manager that the workmen had requested him to visit the colliery, and that he also acted in a partisan character with respect to a dispute between the management and the workmen and that colliery; and will he issue instructions to the mines inspectors that they must treat communications received from the miners respecting the safety of the mines as confidential, and refrain from giving any expression of opinion upon matters in dispute between the employers and workmen?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have communicated with the inspector in regard to the matters referred to. He informs me that the request to visit the mine came from the workmen's committee, who had made many similar requests in the past, and had never themselves treated them as confidential, members of the committee on such occasions usually meeting the inspector on his arrival at the mine. No intimation was conveyed to the inspector that the committee wished a change to be

  281
  made in this respect; but, as it now appears, they desire this, their requests will in future be treated as confidential by the inspector. As regards the other allegation, the inspector informs me that the dispute had already been settled when he reached the mine. The management had represented to the inspector that he had been unable to get men to work at repairs to the necessary extent, and the only action taken by the inspector was to suggest to the workmen's committee that in the interests of safety and of the men themselves disputes should not be allowed to interfere with the carrying out of the necessary repairs at the mine. I do not think there are any grounds for the suggestion that the inspector, in whose experience and impartiality I think general confidence is felt, has acted in a partisan manner in this matter.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is an instruction to all inspectors from the Home Office that representations by the workmen are to be treated as confidential?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is the case in all the Orders issued by the Department to the inspectors. The special case on which this turns is not quite similar to what my hon. Friend has in mind.

  Postal Service (Loughgall).
  Mr. MOOREasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters posted in Glasgow, Liverpool, and other cross-Channel ports reach Loughgall the following morning about 10.30, but are not delivered till the day following, and if posted on a Friday are not delivered till the following Monday; and if, having regard to the amount of the fruit-growing industry carried on in Loughgall and its necessarily perishable character, he will alter the existing system of delivery of such correspondence?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Buxton): I will make inquiry into the matter.

  Agrarian Agitation in Ireland (Number of Persons Imprisoned).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many persons have been imprisoned in Ireland since 1905 in connection with agrarian agitation as distinguished from ordinary crime?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Since 1st January, 1905, 518 persons have been imprisoned
  282
  after conviction for offences committed in connection with agrarian agitation, or, in default of finding bail, to keep the peace or be of good behaviour.

  Colonel Malone's Estate (Westmeath).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the Chief Secretary will say, in view of the new definition of congestion, how many holdings under £10 valuation have been sold to tenants on Colonel Malone's estate, Westmeath; and whether the Estates Commissioners will now propose to purchase the grass ranches on that estate for the relief of the existing congestion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that there are 36 holdings on this estate with a Poor Law Valuation of less than £10. The holdings were vested in the purchasing tenants in 1907. As regards the concluding portion of the question, the hon. Member was informed, in reply to a question asked by him in December, 1906, that the grass farms on the estate were held under lease, or yearly tenancies, and that the Commissioners had no power to compel such farms to be sold to them as untenanted land.

  District Industrial Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the position of the two district industrial schools in Ireland in that their officers are technically outside every existing scheme for superannuation, though qualified by length of service and otherwise, and are liable to lose or be deprived of their positions without any provision on account of past services; and if he will consider some means of bringing those officers within the rules applicable in this respect to persons performing similar duties in other institutions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member refers presumably to the district schools at Glin and Trim. I understand that there is no power to grant any superannuation to the officers of those schools. The matter will be considered in connection with legislation for the reform of the Irish Poor Law.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland—Bennett Case).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Chief Secretary is aware that the name of Peter Bennett, baptised at Clonmellon in 1837, and ever since a resident at Delvin, has not been found in any Census Return; if he will state the nature of the evidence upon which the Local Government Board have disallowed, on the ground of age,

  283
  the pension of five shillings a week granted by the local pension committee in this case; whether Bennett or the local committee will be allowed to examine and answer that evidence; and, if not, whether the pension will be allowed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Peter Bennett could not be traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851. He put forward in support of his claim a statement of his belief that he was born in 1837, and baptised by a certain curate, who, according to the recollection of some old people in the locality, left Clonmellon over 70 years ago. The pension officer's appeal was upheld by the Local Government Board for lack of proof that the claimant had attained the statutory age, and not because evidence put forward on Bennett's behalf was refuted by other evidence brought before the Board.

  Drogheda Corporation (Pay and Hours of Staff).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the Chief Secretary is aware that the Drogheda Corporation has reduced the pay and hours of those members of its staff who are in receipt of old age pensions; whether this course has the approval of the Irish Local Government Board; and if the Government will interfere to prevent the granting of an old age pension from operating to penalise work and wages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that it has been the practice of the Drogheda Corporation for a considerable time to put their old workmen, when no longer fit for an ordinary day's labour, on light work, decreasing their hours and reducing their wages. This has been done in the case of an aged and crippled workman who is the only man on the staff in receipt of an old age pension. The action of the corporation does not require the approval of the Local Government Board. There is no reason to suppose that it has had the effect indicated in the last paragraph of the question.

  Portadown Corps, Salvation Army.
  Mr. MOOREasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the members of the Portadown corps of the Salvation Army, while passing through the Nationalist district of Ballyvarley, near Ban-bridge, on the night of Wednesday, 22nd September, were, without any provocation, stoned from behind a hedge; and if he will state what steps the police have taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that on the occasion referred to some members of the Salvation Army when driving through Ballyvarley were stoned from behind a hedge on the roadside. As it was dark at the time they could not give a description of their assailants to the police, who have made every effort to trace the offenders, but without success.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it a correct description, as given in my question, that this is a Nationalist district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think the answer indicates that is so.

  Training Batteries (Service Ammunition).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if instructions have been issued that no service ammunition is in future to be held by or for the 18 training batteries, Royal Field Artillery; and, if so, can he indicate the use the batteries would be put to in the event of any sudden emergency?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the training batteries would continue to be used for training recruits, there being no reason to suppose that our artillery force, exclusive of these batteries, would be insufficient to meet requirements.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that in future no service ammunition is to be served out at all to this branch of the Regular Army; and how can it possibly be trained unless they have a certain amount of ammunition supplied to them?
  Mr. ACLAND: They are not part of the field organisation.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Have these batteries no training at all in actual firing?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not in the actual firing, but they have gun trials.
  Mr. LEE: Not in the actual firing practice at all?
  Mr. ACLAND: No.
  Captain FABER: But does not the ammunition column become the fighting column very soon in time of war?
  Mr. ACLAND: We are fully manned for that.
  Captain FABER: But how can you tell you are fully manned until you know your losses in the fighting line?
  Mr. LEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the ammunition columns in the Japanese army had to join the regular batteries before the end of the war?
  Mr. ACLAND: There will be plenty of time to train these men to take part in field service.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will be plenty of time to train our men?
  Mr. ACLAND: There will be ample time.

  Royal Field Artillery (Withdrawal of Guns).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the hon. Gentleman can state how the 36 guns, with their accompanying ammunition wagons, withdrawn from the Royal Field Artillery, have been disposed of?
  Mr. ACLAND: Two guns have been issued to the Cambridge University Contingent of the Officers' Training Corps; two guns have been issued to the School of Gunnery, Shoeburyness; the remainedr are in store at Woolwich.

  Training Batteries (Reduction of Guns).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the hon. Gentleman can state if the number of guns with each of the 18 training batteries, Royal Field Artillery, has been reduced from six to four; whether the whole system of fire discipline, fire tactics, and general handling of a battery in the field is based upon the fact that in the British Army the regular battery consists of six guns; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the training of the Special Reserve affiliated to such regular batteries will not be placed on a false basis as regards their work in the field?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the rest of the question, the organisation of our Regular Horse and Field Artillery is in batteries of six guns, but a great part of the preliminary training is done with four guns. Twelve guns per training brigade are quite sufficient to train Special Reservists, especially as most of the training is recruit training, and a 6-gun battery can be turned out when necessary. It must also be remembered that the six training brigades do not form part of the field organisation. The teaching will not be on a false basis, and the men will be as efficient for their duties as if they were trained in a 6-gun battery.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not the fact that the training of 4-gun batteries and of 6-gun
  286
  batteries is entirely different, and will not considerable difficulty be found in case of national emergency?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not in the preliminary training.

  Supply of Horses (Training of Brigades).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the establishment of horses maintained in training brigades, Royal Field Artillery, is quite inadequate to carry out training in an efficient manner; whether any steps are being taken to increase the establishment so that at least partially efficient training may be given to non-commissioned officers and men; and whether he can state the establishment of horses in the Royal Field Artillery serving in the United Kingdom on 1st October, 1907, and 1st October, 1909, respectively, and the actual strength in horses on those dates?
  Mr. ACLAND: The present establishment of 141 horses of a training brigade is considered sufficient, and no increase is contemplated. The figures asked for in the last part of the question are as follows:—

  Establishment.

  Strength.

  1st October, 1907

  …

  6,820

  …

  6,423

  1st October, 1909

  …

  6,560

  …

  6,241

  Captain CRAIG: Has there been any reduction in the supply of horses since the alteration from 6-gun to 4-gun batteries?
  Mr. ACLAND: The establishment has been reduced from 6,820 to 6,560 on the dates named.

  Maryhill Barracks (Fair Wage Clause).
  Mr. BARNESasked whether the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair Wage Clause by Messrs. P. and J. Gordon, contractors for the painting of Maryhill barracks, has yet been concluded; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. ACLAND: The inquiry has now been concluded, and it has been decided to remove the firm from the list of contractors to the War Department.

  Special Reserve (Royal Field Artillery).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the regular establishment of training brigades has been found to be inadequate to carry out the training of Royal Field Artillery Special Reserve efficiently, and that, in addition to their other duties, they are taking over the whole of

  287
  the clothing, equipment, documents, etc., of the old county unit of Royal Field Reserve Artillery, he could state if it is contemplated to provide in next year's Army Estimates for an increase to the regular establishment laid down in the Special Army Order of the 16th March, 1909; and whether, in any event, some increase of regular establishments will be allowed for the training brigade in Ireland in view of the fact that it is taking over the men and everything belonging to no less than 10 of the late county units of artillery, amounting to over 30 per cent. of the total strength of the whole of the Royal Field Artillery Special Reserve in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. ACLAND: An increase to the establishment of training brigades was made by the Army Order of the 16th March, and no further increase to the establishment is contemplated. The number of Special Reservists allotted eventually to the training brigade in Ireland is the same as that allotted to other training brigades, namely, 1,000, and it is not proposed to give it a different establishment. To meet the temporary excess of Special Reservists the Army Order mentioned provides for the temporary retention of brigades of Royal Field Artillery to serve as training brigades.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether he is aware that the pressure put on the Irish end is extraordinarily heavy compared with England on account of the amount of material and personnel they have taken over; and whether grave complaints have been made, and have reached the War Office on this subject; and whether to carry the work out efficiently and make it a success, it would not be better to grant them a larger establishment this coming year?
  Mr. ACLAND: I believe there is that pressure, but that it is mainly initial and will not recur.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries and see if they can start next year with some prospect of success.

  Coal Imports to Russia (Customs Duties).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what, if any, is the reduction in the Customs Duty on coal imported into Russia under the new treaty arranged with Germany; and if English coal imported by sea to Russia will be
  288
  allowed to enter under the same Customs Duty as German coal imported into Russia by railway?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I am not aware of any recent agreement between Germany and Russia which affects the duty on coal imported into the latter country. Coal imported into Russia at Baltic Ports is dutiable at the same rate as coal imported over the Western land frontier, but a higher duty is levied on coal imported at ports on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Coal imported at White Sea ports is free of duty.
  Mr. FELL: Are there not now fresh duties.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Those are from the latest information which the Board of Trade have been able to obtain.

  Market Price of Consols.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state the market price of Consols on Monday, 26th April, and on Monday, 11th October last, and the amount of the Sinking Fund invested in Consols during that period?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The average price of Consols on 26th April was 85, and on the 11th instant 82 15–16ths. As has already been stated in answer to similar questions, it is not the practice to give details of the application of the Sinking Fund in anticipation of the Annual Return presented to this House.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for so rapid a fall in Consols in such a short time. And may I ask if it was for the purpose of increasing the market value of Consols that the rumour of his resignation was circulated?

  Suffragists in Newcastle Gaol.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether all the suffragist prisoners now in Newcastle gaol are being fed by force; whether any representation has been made by the regular medical adviser of Miss Rona Robinson, M.A., a suffragist sentenced to one month's imprisonment in the second division for breaking a window in Liverpool gaol, to the effect that, owing to the weak-

  289
  ness of her heart and throat, forcible feeding in her case would be highly dangerous; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Only three of the seven suffragist prisoners in Newcastle prison are being fed by tube. The others are now taking their food from the officers without active resistance. Rona Robinson was released yesterday morning on medical certificate.
  Mr. ALDEN: May I ask why seven were detained and four were released?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Four of the suffragist prisoners at Newcastle were released solely on medical grounds. In each case the prison medical authorities certified that the prisoner was either suffering from heart disease or was in a feeble state of health with cardiac symptoms, and in each case the medical authorities recommended discharge.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take in the next few days?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We propose to continue the Report stage of the Finance Bill until it is completed, and, as I understand, that stage may be expected to occupy four days after the end of this week—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week.
  Should we reach the end of this stage on Thursday of next week, we shall proceed on the following Friday with the Lords' Amendments to the Housing and Town Planning Bill.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House, resumed.
  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Exemption for Agricultural Land.)
    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.
    Mr. E. G. PRETYMANmoved to leave out the words, "while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only."
    This Clause is one which has been already debated at some considerable length in Committee, and it raises the very
    290
    important point of the exemption of agricultural land. The object of the Clause, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that no duty shall be charged on agricultural land at all. If my Amendment were accepted, and if all the words of the Clause after the word "land" were eliminated, there would be no doubt whatever that that object would be attained. The effect of the words, as they stand in the Bill, is very doubtful. I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper to make clear what their meaning is. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will carefully give his attention to this point. Even if the words are made to mean what he desires them to mean, I should just like to make this point perfectly clear; it is very difficult to see what they will imply. Is this the meaning: that where land is agricultural land worth say £30 per acre, and that somebody would be willing to give £35 per acre to build cottages upon it, or a house, then that it is liable to Increment Value Duty? May I assume that is the interpretation? I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will contradict me if I am wrong, because I do not wish to waste time by arguing on a false basis. I am assuming that is the meaning, and that where land has a certain agricultural value the moment it attains a value higher than that agricultural value, however little higher, as in the case I have given from £30 to £35, that then it becomes liable for Increment Value Duty.
    There are many hon. Members interested in agriculture, and this is one of the most critical points in the whole Bill in regard to agriculture. In regard to Undeveloped Land Duty, all agricultural land, and all land which has a value of less than £50 per acre, is exempt, but that does not apply to Increment Value Duty, from which there is no such exemption. Land which is worth £10 for agricultural purposes and for which anybody would give £15 for any other purpose, is liable to Increment Value Duty, and therefore the whole of the agricultural land in the country is liable to Increment Value Duty the moment anybody would give anything for it for any purpose other than agriculture. That covers an immense area, because it is obvious to anybody who thinks for one moment that there is an immense proportion of the agricultural land of the country which somebody would give something a little higher than its agricultural value for some other purpose. Therefore the possibility opened up by the

    291
    form of the whole taxes in regard to agricultural land is most serious.
    I come to another point, and this also is most serious. The datum level from which this tax is to start is the value of the land on 30th April, 1909. See the consequences of that. A man has a piece of unimproved land, of which the site value is, say, £10 an acre. He sets to work upon it, plants a part of it, puts up farm buildings and cottages, cultivates it highly and turns it into a valuable farm worth £30 an acre. Then, at some subsequent date, through no action of his own, somebody is willing to give £35 or £40 for the farm for some purpose other than agriculture. It may be a factory, a horse-slaughtering place, a lunatic asylum; it does not matter what it is; it may be any purpose other than agriculture; but the moment the land acquires a value other than agricultural of, say, £35 an acre, Increment Value Duty becomes payable. This is a particularly hard case on death. Increment Value Duty is payable on the whole difference between the original value of £10 and the £35 or £40, and the owner gets no allowance whatever for his expenditure in raising the value from £10 to £30. I do not believe that many Members really appreciate the meaning of this proposal as it stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us over and over again that he desires to exempt agricultural land. A more absolute proof of the difficulties of carrying out this Bill could not be found than the attempts which have been going on for five or six months to exempt agricultural land, all of which have miserably failed. The facts I have stated clearly show that agricultural land is to be heavily burdened. ["No."] Who will spend large sums in improving agricultural land if he is liable to lose the benefit of it by the land being immediately taken for some other purpose, and to be charged Increment Value Duty on the difference in value? This proposal has to be read with other Acts of Parliament. Under the Small Holdings Act the county council has power, with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, without any appeal to the ordinary courts of law, to take land for small holdings. A man may lose his land and the improvements upon it, and if it can be proved that the land, although it is going to be used for an agricultural purpose, has a higher value for some other purpose, he will have to pay Increment Value Duty upon it. The position in which an agricultural owner is put
    292
    by these different Acts of Parliament, and particularly by this measure, is one which will clearly prevent him from developing his land to the best advantage. It must be the wish of every Member interested in agriculture that there should be the same exemption from Increment Value Duty as there is from Undeveloped Land Duty. If there is a £50 limit against Undeveloped Land Duty, there should also be a £50 limit against Increment Value Duty. There is also a provision that Undeveloped Land Duty shall be charged only on that part of the value which exceeds the agricultural value. A similar provision ought to be made with regard to Increment Value Duty. The only simple way of clearing agricultural land from the duty is to accept my Amendment. If the Government will not do that, I think they are bound, if they intend to fulfil their pledges, to exempt agricultural land, to undertake, first, to insert a £50 limit against Increment Value Duty, and, secondly, that no part of the value which is agricultural shall be charged Increment Value Duty. That is to say, that the datum level from which the Increment Value Duty is to start, instead of being the chance datum level of 30th April, 1909, shall be the datum level of the agricultural value of the land when Increment Value Duty is first charged. If these two things are done the Government will have gone some way towards fulfilling their pledge; but if they do not do this, or, better still, accept my Amendment, it will be vain to say on the platform that agricultural land has been exempted from Increment Value Duty.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): As I have not heard the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, I hope he will pardon me if I do not deal with some points to which he may have referred before I came in. The Clause proposes to give a very substantial exemption in favour of agricultural land. It exempts certainly all agricultural value while the land is properly described as agricultural land. But when the land passes from the category of agricultural into the quite well-defined category of building land, then Increment Value Duty attaches. It attaches in respect of its building value. When once the land has passed into the category of building land it is valued as such, and as a whole. There may be conceivable exceptions from the proposition that I am about to lay down, namely, that building value is in excess of agricultural value. People will not build

    293
    on land as long as its value without building is greater than it would be if the land were devoted to building; therefore, as soon as the land begins to have a building value over and above its agricultural value, it really passes out of the category of agricultural land. While the land is purely agricultural, it is not subject to Increment Value Duty at all. That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman describes as a hopeless failure to confer any benefit whatever on the agriculture owner. I confess that language like that is difficult to deal with. The Clause may be subject to further criticisms which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not made; but as it stands, it is accepted almost universally by Members representing agricultural constituencies and agricultural interests. I do not say that it satisfies those Members who object to the Increment Value Duty altogether. What is the demand put forward by this Amendment? The hon. and gallant Gentleman intimated that he has in mind something short of the extreme request made in his Amendment, but I can deal only with the Amendment. He asks that if land is now used as agricultural land, no matter how great the value that may hereafter attach to it by reason of its demand for building purposes, the increment is not to be taxed. That is the abolition of the Increment Value Duty altogether, because naturally land, until it reaches the value necessary for building purposes, is agricultural only, and normally used for agricultural purposes. That normal use, according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is to protect it from taxation when the land is wanted no longer for its normal use, but for some other permanent interest of the community. That is not a reasonable demand. It is not a demand put forward in the fair interests of agriculture. It is a demand which aims at the root of the tax, and the Bill, and one which, therefore, the Government cannot accept.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not even got within the fringe of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amendment. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend ever even claimed for a moment that these proposals of the Government were inadequate, or had hopelessly failed to give any relief at all to agricultural land. That was not the claim. What the claim was was that the Government do not carry out what they said, that all agricultural land was to be
    294
    exempted from Increment Value Duty. I take it there are two points arising on this Clause. One is as to whether the Clause actively carries out what the Government expressed to be their intention, and the other is as to whether, as a matter of fact, in charging Increment Value Duty on some of this land they will not be really charging it on a value which is due to its agricultural and not to its building value. Take the case of land which might be worth £10 an acre when the original site value was fixed, and which might subsequently by high farming and intensive cultivation be improved so as to be worth perhaps £30 an acre, while for building purposes it might be worth £35 an acre. In charging Increment Value Duty on this land, however, they would charge it, not upon the difference between the existing agricultural value and the building value, but upon the difference between the unimproved value of the land as agricultural land and its building value, and to that extent they would be charging it on the improvements which the owner of the land had himself put into the soil. That is a point of very considerable importance and substance which the Attorney-General has not appreciated in his reply. At all events, he has made no endeavour whatever to answer it.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS: I think the objection goes even further than has been stated. I wish the House would turn to the Clause. The only land exempted is land that has no higher value than its value for agriculture. Take a concrete case. Assume that land is worth £50 an acre for agriculture and £1 for sporting rights. It has a higher value than its value for agricultural purposes. Land all over the Kingdom has some value for something outside agriculture, however small it may be. As soon as that value is proved every acre of land in the country is taken outside this Clause. Now, I do not believe that is the intention of the Government. I entirely agree that under the Clause you are bound to collect a tax on building land. All I want to make clear is that the Government ought not to tax land that is intended to be excluded merely by reason of the wording of the Clause. May I call attention to the Amendment standing in my name? If that were adopted the only land you would tax would be land which possessed a higher value than its value for agriculture. And I believe that really is the intention of the Government. I do certainly say that that is what we understood on this side of the

    295
    House, and I am pretty certain I am right in my construction of this Clause. I am perfectly certain that anyone looking at this Clause would say that as soon as land has got the smallest value in excess of agricultural value then it comes outside this Clause and is not entitled to be exempted. I think the point wants further reconsideration, and I press it upon the attention of the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has raised a point that I thought would have been the real point which the Opposition would have raised on this Clause. We cannot accept his words, but we will suggest words to meet his point of view. There is no difference at all in substance between us. The point was raised in Debate by one of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, who pointed out what he conceived to be a defect in the drafting of this Clause. I do not quite take that view. At the same time, if there is any doubt in the matter, and it appears that the Clause is open to misinterpretation, it is obviously desirable that it should be made perfectly clear, and we are perfectly willing to accept any words to that effect. I do not think the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman will do, but words have been considered, and we are perfectly willing to suggest an alternative.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Where do the words come in?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At the end. I think they are in the form of a proviso. We have had a great deal of discussion, and we have had negotiations with two learned Gentlemen, the Member for Glasgow and the Member for Edinburgh. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is a matter of a totally different character. We cannot possibly accept his Amendment. All building land starts its operations as agricultural land. You might have land worth £1,000 an acre for building purposes used for agricultural purposes for the time being, and it would escape. We cannot really accept the Amendment. I do not think its purport is what is really desired by Members who represent agricultural constituencies. What they are really afraid of is that the criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Durham may have some substance in it, and that land used for agricultural purposes may have value
    296
    for sporting or other similar purposes over and above agricultural value—for all agricultural land has a certain sporting value, if it is only a shilling an acre. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman says that if it has any value for sporting purposes it has a value higher than for agricultural purposes. It is not the intention of the Government to exclude land of that kind, otherwise you might exclude nine-tenths of the agricultural land of the country, possibly more. Therefore, the idea is this——
    ROYAL ASSENT:—Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went, and, having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

    1. Judicature (Rule Committee) Act, 1909.

    2. Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act, 1909.

    3. Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, 1909.

    4. Board of Trade Act, 1909.

    5. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1909.

    6. Assistant Postmaster-General. Act, 1909.

    7. Metropolitan Ambulances Act, 1909.

    8. Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) Act, 1909.

    9. Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1909.

    10. Naval Establishments in British Possessions Act, 1909.

    11. Telegraph (Arbitration) Act, 1909.

    12. Irish Handloom Weavers Act, 1909.

    13. Trade Boards Act, 1909.

    14. Irvine Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1909.

    15. Whittington Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    16. Bridgend Hope English Baptist Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    17. Marshall's Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    18. Lichfield and Longdon Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    19. Dewsbury and Batley Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    20. Wortley Congregational Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1909.

    21. Hamilton Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1909.

    297

    22. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1909.

    23. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1909.

    24. Lune Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1909.

    25. Kilkenny, Castlecomer, and Athy Railway Act, 1909.

    26. Bury Corporation Act, 1909.

    27. Edgware and Hampstead Railway Act, 1909.

    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE (continuing his speech): I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Durham, which is identical with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. I agree that if there is any ambiguity the Clause ought to be made perfectly clear. In my judgment, however, it is clear enough. Most of the land in England would have a certain value, and if there is any value outside the agricultural value the land will be deprived of the benefit of this exemption. That is the intention of the Government, and we are perfectly prepared to introduce words to make that clear, and if the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment now the Attorney-General will move his words at once.
    Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the words now suggested?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. and learned Friend has got them.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that point had better be raised on a later Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was dealing only with that one point. I understand now that the hon. and gallant Member means to press his Amendment, therefore I shall proceed to deal with it, making it quite clear that we shall be prepared to meet the hon. Member for Durham either by the acceptance of his Amendment or by an Amendment of our own, which will answer the same purpose. The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member would simply mean that we might as well not proceed with the Land Clauses at all, because all the building land of the country, or most of it, at the present moment is land being used for agricultural purposes. It may be worth £2,000 or £3,000 an acre, but so long as it is used for
    298
    agricultural purposes under this Amendment you would never get from it any Land Duty or Increment Duty. That is not the intention of Parliament. I know it is perfectly right from the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member, and that is his way of destroying the whole of the Land Taxes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I say that I offered to withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to treat the Increment Value Duty as he has done the Undeveloped Land Duty?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not the point raised by this Amendment. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite realises what his Amendment means. If you omit the word he proposes the Clause will read: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land." That means as long as it is used for agricultural purposes you cannot charge Increment Duty with respect to practically the whole of the land of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That at any rate is the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has placed on the Paper. He now suggests that we should narrow it by the addition of some words of which he has given us no notice, and which he will find it exceedingly difficult to draft. As a matter of fact, I think we have really met the point raised in Clause 25. The case which was given by the Noble Lord was that of land of the value of £10 per acre. That must be really waste land. I do not know that you can even call it agricultural land in the ordinary sense of the term. Let us assume they drain it, and it becomes worth about £30 per acre. It is improved not merely for agricultural, but also for building purposes.
    4.0 P.M.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed the point. The point was that by improved cultivation the soil would be so improved that the value of the land would be increased. It might not be a question of drainage at all. The land may be increased in value by the erection of farm buildings and by superior cultivation. Those buildings would be of no value at all for building purposes.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not altogether accurate. Surely land of that kind is much more valuable on which to build a villa with a garden than if it had not been improved. I should not have thought there was the slightest doubt

    299
    about that. If the improved value is not attributable to the expenditure of the owner, then there is absolutely no reason why credit should be given for it. The owner gets full credit to the extent to which the land is improved for other purposes, and drainage works would be a case in point. That is the sort of case which the Noble Lord would find more applicable to the particular criticism which he has directed against this Clause. He will find that in a case of that kind the land by draining will be converted, first, into agricultural land, and then also into building land; and credit will be given for all that increment attributable to the expenditure, and a deduction will be made for it. I think, therefore, the Government have met the point in so far as it is possible to meet it by this means. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) asked why we do not start at £50. That, of course, would be perfectly unfair. Take land worth £59 per acre for agricultural purposes. The owner sells it for building purposes at £79 per acre, and pays Increment Value Duty on £20 per acre. Then take land worth only £10 per acre, and sold for £55 per acre. The owner would only pay Increment Value Duty on £5. Surely that is an inequality and an injustice. The man who has got poorer land pays less than the man who has more valuable land. That would be the case if the Amendment were adopted. There is really no reason for that at all and the only suggestion the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made is one that would produce inequality and injustice. The Amendment we have down on the Paper is certainly the fairest. We have excluded all agricultural land in the ordinary accepted sense of the term. Supposing agricultural and building land was put up to auction. The auctioneer would say about this class of land, "Here is valuable agricultural land," and about that class of land, "Here is valuable building land, which is subject to this tax." The valuable agricultural land would all be excepted. That is all we propose to do, and that is all we are doing.
    Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: It is perfectly true that the excision of these words would exclude from the Increment Value Duty a great deal of land which the House agrees should be subject to it, but, so far as I understand his numerous speeches on this question, my right hon. Friend has again and again pledged us that the Increment Value Duty should not
    300
    fall upon agricultural improvements or upon agricultural values. I am left in the dark as to what words may be ultimately suggested by the Attorney-General, but I think that what has been stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), and the illustrations which he and the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) have given, are absolutely unanswerable. I am well acquainted with land in Essex, and I know land in both Essex and Suffolk which has been sold for £4 or £5 an acre within the last 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a positive pledge in the earlier stages of this discussion that there should be a recognition of the new value of such land, and that it would be amply protected. I do not think as the Clause stands there is any protection given at all. Perhaps I have misunderstood my right hon. Friend, but the recovery value is of enormous importance, and I have no doubt that the £20 increase to which the hon. and gallant Member referred would be due perhaps both to the actual improvements of the tenant or occupier and to the improvement generally in the conditions of agriculture. We had on Clause 2 a definite understanding that good husbandry, works of a permanent character, or personal expenditure of that kind, should be excluded absolutely from the tax. I think that ought to be borne in mind. We had an illustration given from the other side of land which has risen in value from £10 to £35. You might in the original value of £10 have no building value whatsoever, and of the subsequent value of £35, £20 would be due to the recovery value and the owners' or tenants' improvements and £5 to the fact that there might be a greater demand for that land for other purposes. I do not think it is fair, because there is a greater demand by £5 per acre for that land for other purposes that we should have Increment Value Duty charged upon the whole rise of £25. That is an absolute plain injustice, and the Clause ought to be amended so as to preclude any injustice of that kind. The simplest way of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion would be the adoption in the Clause, Sub-section (2) of the principle of Section 17 as it now stands. If that could be introduced into the Clause, and the Increment Value Duty fall only upon the difference between the original building value and the subsequent building value,

    301
    excluding strictly and entirely agricultural improvements, I think we shall be doing what is wise and proper.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We are not often assisted in these Debates from the Back Benches opposite, but the speech of the hon. Baronet has, I think, materially contributed to the assistance of the Committee. I confess, listening very carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I really could not make up my mind whether for once his natural acumen had deserted him and he was really unable to understand the material point at issue, or whether, on the contrary, he understood it so well that he thought the best thing he could do was to pass it by on the other side. He dressed up a bogey which he presented as the object of my hon. and gallant Friend and others who have spoken, and which he had no difficulty in demolishing at once. He suggested that the effect and object of their proposal would be to exempt all land which happened to be in use for agriculture, whether it was proper agricultural land or not, although it might have a building value and was urgently required for building purposes, and even although it might have a monopoly value for building purposes, perhaps a hundred times or many hundred times greater than its value if used for agriculture. An Opposition trying to amend a Government Bill is under great difficulty. We have not the opportunity of consulting the skilled draftsman of the Government. We have put our Amendment in the best form of words we can to meet what we think represents, I cannot say the common opinion of the House, but a widespread opinion, not only on this side of the House, but, as shown by the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Channing), on both sides of the House. We put down an Amendment to raise the question, and surely it is not too much to ask, if we make good our point, that the Government should make use of the skill of their draftsman to find words which will do what is shown to be fair. I think I may possibly, before I sit down, go so far as to suggest words myself. I shall do so as an honest effort to arrive at a solution, I beg the Government not to reject them with ridicule. We do not want, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, to exempt all land in present use for agriculture whatever building value it may have. I, for one, am opposed to the Increment Tax. I opposed the Resolutions,
    302
    and I opposed the tax as strongly as I could in Committee, but this is not the stage to repeat that portion of the fight. Accepting the general decision that there is to be an Increment Value Duty, what we have to do is to consider under what terms it ought to be levied and what exemptions ought to be made, and, whilst we are not now desirous of excluding all the land used for agriculture, we are seeking to exclude the agricultural value of all land. I think that is the distinction drawn by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. If you do not do that you will see what happens the moment that land which is being used bonâ fide for agriculture has any building value in excess of its then actual agricultural value. It becomes liable to Increment Duty—Increment Duty not merely on the excess value which is due to its building possibilities, but also on any agricultural value which has been added to the land by the recovery of agriculture since the original valuation in 1909. To express the thing in another way, if I may take the words of my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) beside me, what we want to do is to alter the date, to start in this case of agricultural land not with the value which it happens to have in 1909, but with its agricultural value at the time you assess it for taxation, and to tax it for increment on the difference between its agricultural value at that moment and its then building value, and not on the difference between its agricultural value at the beginning of 1909 and its building value. If you do not do that, you tax agricultural values, and you tax them very seriously. You inflict a great injury on the agricultural interest. See what happens! Take the illustration which has already been given of a piece of land of the value of £10, which goes up in value to £30, thanks to agricultural recovery or improvements, and then has an additional value of from £1 to £5 for building purposes. In 1909 the value of the land for agricultural purposes was £10. By improvements in cultivation, and by the recovery of agricultural values, it has become worth £30 for agricultural purposes within a period of ten years. But in that time it has also acquired a building increment value of £5. Its agricultural increment is £20, and its building increment £5, but you are going to tax it on the £20 in addition to the £5. You are not merely taxing the excess building value over the agricultural value, you are taxing the whole accrued agricultural

    303
    increased value which has taken place in those ten years. It may be very doubtful, with a very slight building value over the agricultural value, if it would be of any advantage at all to the community for the land to be built upon. It may be true of any particular plot that it may have this additional value put upon it for the use of half an acre or even an acre of the land. An offer may be made for a particular plot on these terms, but it would be quite impossible to treat the farm or estate, as a whole, in that way. You make it almost impossible to keep the land as agricultural land if you charge increment value on it—if you charge on the added agricultural value as well as on the building value.
    I think you inflict in so doing a very great hardship, which it is not intended to inflict upon agriculture, without any corresponding advantage, even from your own point of view, because the kind of case that we are putting is not the kind hon. Members have in mind when they talk of land being held up which is urgently needed for building purposes. That kind of land has a building value out of all proportion to its agricultural value at any moment, and if the land were really so needed for building purposes as to have that kind of monopoly value, then you have a very heavy tax, even if you consent to exclude the agricultural value altogether and start from the top instead of from the bottom agricultural value. I will mention one case in illustration of the hardship which we think you will inflict, unless you are careful to introduce some modification. Take the case of districts where colonies of small holders are successfully established. There is one in my own Constituency—Catshill. There is another at Evesham, and there are a number in Lincolnshire. That kind of cultivation brings added agricultural value to the land. That is one of the reasons why, I suppose, we all wish to encourage such cultivation as much as possible. It has another effect. It involves additional labour being employed on the land. It tends to bring population to the district, and gradually the agricultural development gives a building value to the land—not to the whole of the land but to particular plots which happen to have a frontage. Go to one of these districts and take land where, before the colony of small holders was established, no man would have erected a cottage or little house, because there was no demand for it. People come forward
    304
    and offer to buy the land at a little more than its present agricultural value. They do not offer to buy the whole of the land, but they ask for particular plots here and there in order to put up cottages, the demand for which has arisen solely through the agricultural development that has taken place in the district, in consequence of the more intensive cultivation. Do the Government really intend that small smallholders—some of whom are purchasing owners under previous legislation—should be subject to Increment Tax on the value of their land if a man comes along and says, "You give me a quarter of an acre or a building plot on your frontage and I will pay you for it £1, £2, or even £5 per acre more than its agricultural value at the time the offer is made"? Is the holder or purchasing owner to be taxed not on the difference between the building value so offered and the agricultural value at the moment, but on the difference between the building value so offered and what was the agricultural value on 30th April, 1909? If you do mean that, you are going to tax a great many people whom you have hitherto tried to lull into a sense of security by persuading them that no tax will fall upon them. If you challenge me to say why, if there is to be a tax of this kind, this man should be exempt from it and others should have to pay it, I do not quite know but that I should be rather hard put to it to find a logical reason for it. But you have always assured these people that they should not be taxed, and I think I have proved that you are going to tax them unless you do what has been urged by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hills) and supported by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Northamptonshire, and take your tax not on the whole value of the land the moment it has a building value in excess of its agricultural value, but on the difference between its building value and its agricultural value at the time you assess your duty.
    I have said I will venture to suggest some words with this object. I have not had much opportunity of discussing them with my hon. Friends around me. We are always ready to admit that merely to leave the Clause as it is amended, while protecting those whom we wish to protect, would carry that protection a great deal further than at this stage we can expect to do. I suggest that these words shall be left out, but that the other part of the Clause should be slightly amended, and

    305
    that the Clause should be made to read—"the Increment Value shall not be charged in respect of the agricultural value of land." I believe that exactly meets the point we have raised, and certainly, as far as I can see, it would meet the objections which the Government have taken to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. I have no pride of authorship in the words. I throw them out for what they are worth, for the consideration of the Government and of the House. What I do urge strongly is that you should meet this case. You have already endeavoured to meet some cases of hardship, but you have left countless other hardships behind. Here is one in point which will arise under your Bill. If you cannot accept such words as those suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, then you ought to put forward others. You are not justified in confining your reply to the simple statement that these words will not do.
    Mr. JAMES TOMKINSON: There appears to be a general desire on both sides of the House to arrive at some agreement as to the form of words to be adopted. The point at issue has been very lucidly put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me to be this. You have a piece of land worth £10 per acre, and by the recovery of agriculture its value goes up to £30. It also has a small additional value for building purposes. Under these circumstances I should hope that the £20 added to the value of the land by individual exertions, by good husbandry, and by the expenditure of capital or brains, might be reckoned in the value before the Increment Tax is charged. That, I think, would be fair, and it would be carrying out the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire. (Sir F. Channing). Let us go a little further and take another illustration. Take the case of agricultural land worth £1 per acre, and situated half a mile or a mile from a town. That town grows, and the value of that land, solely by reason of the growth of the town and the proximity of buildings, becomes even greater for agricultural purposes. It can be turned into orchards, or market gardens, or nursery gardens, and it is worth £5 or £6 an acre, and the capital value of it has immensely increased, not to £30, but to £100, and the question is what is to be the point at which the Increment Duty is to be charged? I do not go so far as to say that land which has in-
    306
    creased in value from £20 to £100 or £150 an acre by the town coming out should be the datum line on which the value is to be taken, and that increment should be charged on £100 or £150; but what I should like is that increased agricultural value given to the land, not by the growth of the town or other circumstances, but from the individual effort of the good farmer or occupier, so far as it can be, should be exempt.
    Mr. R. L. EVERETT: I think we shall carry out what we all desire and what is fair if we add a few words to Clause 7 at the end. This Clause says, "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," and then we should go further and say, "If such land becomes chargeable then the agricultural value shall be exempt." It seems to me that if those words were accepted we should have a reasonable solution of the difficulty.
    Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: What we are desirous of is that the Government should accept the view of the two right hon. Gentlemen on my left, which has been supported by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. What my right hon. Friends said just now was this: They do not want to exclude all agricultural land, they want to exclude the agricultural value of all land, and I really do not know what can be said against that. As far as I am concerned I am perfectly frank on the subject, and I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman goes further than that. What I have always desired to see is agricultural land excluded altogether so long as it is used for agricultural purposes at all, but then the answer that we get to that is, "Oh, if that is so, then you allow land which possesses a great building value to escape altogether." In the first place I do not believe that ever would happen. I cannot conceive why people in their own interest should be so exceedingly foolish as to continue to cultivate as agricultural land and make a very small profit indeed from it, even under the best of circumstances, land from which according to that objection they might be able to derive an enormous value at any time they please. I remember perfectly well on the second reading of this Bill, which is now, I believe, five or six months ago, pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he

    307
    imposed an Increment Duty on land he was really doing something which was wholly and totally incompatible with one of the professed objects of Radical policy which they have held out before the country for years, and that is to restore, as far as possible, a large population to the land and to do everything within their power to increase, encourage and promote small holdings in this country of every possible description. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have known at that time that it is in the neighbourhood of towns and where there is a possibility of land acquiring a building value at some time or another—it is under those conditions, or where there are exceptional facilities for rural transport, that holdings of that character can only be expected really to flourish to the degree that hon. Gentlemen in all portions of this House desire to see.
    The right hon. Gentleman took no notice whatever of the observations I made at that time, nor do I think he has ever attempted to answer even what I should call the charge which I bring against him and his Radical Friends on that side of the House, that while for years they have been professing to hold up to the country as one of their very greatest ideals of policy that they are most desirous in every way, and by every method, to increase, encourage, and promote the great growth of small holdings in this country, by their Bill they still aim, notwithstanding all their concessions, what I regard as a great blow at that particular kind of agricultural renaissance. It is not denied, and it never has been denied, that the holders of small holdings or market gardens, or any holdings of that description in the neighbourhood of a town, do possess a possible building value which you are going to tax even while the land is still being used as agricultural land. I do not know, I am sure, how hon. and right hon. Gentlemen reconcile to themselves these two very different kinds of policy. All I can say is, for my part, I wish to see myself—speaking for myself only—I wish to see land of that character and description so long as it is being genuinely used for agricultural purposes exempted from the new Land Taxes which you are imposing upon it, and when you tell me that if such a policy as that is accepted all the land in the country must be excluded, and that building land of the greatest possible value will get off from taxation which it ought to pay, on the
    308
    plea that it is being used as agricultural land, I must say that is an idea which seems to me to be absolutely absurd for the reasons I gave at the commencement of my observations. I cannot imagine anybody in the world being fool enough to make such a sacrifice.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. C. F. G. Masterman): The right hon. Gentleman demands the courtesy of a reply, and I should like to point out that of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken opposite he is the only one who really made a speech strictly relevant to the Amendment. He does want what the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer says he does not want, he wishes all the high-valued land in the neighbourhood of towns to escape from increment taxation altogether. That I thought had been rejected several times in Committee, and I thought that this Amendment—I myself having been present at several of these agricultural debates—was the result of a general agreement. At any rate, it was offered first by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a long agricultural debate, and accepted with some acclamation. It was explained afterwards, when it came up as a new clause and when he explained what he really intended to do with it, especially on the point to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite alluded, the whole House gave a kind of triumphant cheer, and went home exceedingly contented with itself and the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We had not had an opportunity of looking at the gift-horse.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In any case it is evident, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that the Amendment is only offered as raising a debate. I suppose it will hardly be pressed to a Division; no one imagines it can be accepted, and I would suggest that it would be expedient in that case that the general Debate should be accepted, and we should go on to another question, namely, the exception or proviso which my hon. and learned Friend is going to propose. I must honestly confess I am not convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Take, for example, the case of Catshill, which is an historic centre which I have visited, as well as others, and which is doing work which we all wish to encourage. Here is land which has increased in value owing to the operation of the small holdings policy under the Act of

    309
    1892, under which the small holders themselves own and occupy their land, and therefore are exempt from the Increment Tax under Clause 8.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Some own and some is let.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a great part of it is owned and occupied by the small holders. If it is not, they do not pay; the owner pays. But they have attracted a small holdings industry and they have attracted a demand for houses, and the demand for houses is on the neighbouring land. That is a demand which is not in the least degree due to the owners of the neighbouring land, who parted with their land with great reluctance in order that Catshill might be established. They suddenly find in their neighbourhood a building value for their land for which they are not responsible, and the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not charge this unearned increment on that land when they sell it for that purpose.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, no. If I made that proposal that would strike at the whole principle of the Unearned Increment Tax, and therefore at this stage I carefully refrained from making that suggestion. What I supported, and what the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Everett) also supported, was not that you should not charge Increment Duty on building value but you should not charge it on agricultural value, and that the datum line from which you started should be the top level of agricultural value.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Surely in the case I have mentioned the agricultural value has vanished altogether in the building land. The land is wanted to build a cottage, but it is valued in 1909 at a certain site value apart from agricultural value. The owner now sells it for a cottage to be built, and the whole increase has been an increase from the site value in 1909. The agricultural value is the alternative in the case of the building value, and the agricultural value is gone when he sold his land under those conditions for building purposes. The land is valued now at £30 an acre. There may be a recovery which may make the value for agricultural purposes £80, but he is selling it for £100 an acre for cottages to be built, and in consequence the whole value which he receives is building value which has gone up from the first site valuation in 1909. That seems to me to be the answer to that and any similar
    310
    case. The right hon. Gentleman announced in his speech, in the instance that he took, that the building increment on the land he had in mind was the difference between the original £10 and the £35. That is what we are taking 20 per cent. of. If, however, the land goes up through recovery or through improved agriculture we do not touch it unless it comes into the category of building land, and there is a measurable building value greater than any agricultural increment. It is from that building value that we deduct one-fifth.
    Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: I think the hon. Gentleman has entirely forgotten the whole case which the Government has made on which they based this tax. It is that increment is due, not to the cultivation of the owner or occupier, but to the action of the community, and he is going to wipe all that out. What we are asking him to do is to differentiate between increment which is due to the action of the owner or occupier and the increment which is due to the action of the community, as hon. Members opposite like to put it. Let them by all means charge him the duty on so much as is due to the action of the community, but let them find words to exempt so much of the increment as is due to the improved cultivation by the owner or farmer or to the natural recovery in the value of the land. It is perfectly absurd to say that the building increment starts from the datum line of the almost prairie value of 1909. I rather gathered from the interjection of the Attorney-General during the speech of my right hon. Friend that he was very sympathetic to the case he was endeavouring to make. Now the hon. Gentleman has struck a discordant note, and if the Government persist in the attitude which the hon. Gentleman has just taken up it will undoubtedly discourage owners of land from developing it for agricultural purposes. I know the Government do not intend to take that line. I am sure the Attorney-General is much more sympathetic to this proposal than his colleague.
    Sir W. ROBSON: No, no.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I assumed a difference of opinion because the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just delivered was quite out of accord with the interjection of the Attorney-General during the speech of my hon. Friend below me.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The only signs of assent that I made while the right hon.

    311
    Gentleman was speaking were not in relation at all to the merits of the Amendment, but rather to the convenience of raising other proposals upon this Amendment to which they are not strictly germane.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: That is not the sense in which we understood it. At all events, I press once more that the Government should introduce some words, quite apart from the words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said will be introduced to make the Clause clear, to meet the case of the agricultural owner who develops his land by improved methods of cultivation. It is not right and fair that the Increment Duty should be charged on increment due to his efforts or to the recovery of land, as well as to the increment due to the action of the community. A point was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that drainage operations and improved methods of cultivation, which improves the value for agricultural purposes, also increased the building value. That very often is not the case at all. In some cases quite the opposite is true. There are many beautiful parts of the country where building value does, or may at some future time, exist, but which would be entirely destroyed if improved methods of cultivation brought that land under the plough. I do not think we must allow an argument like that to pass unchallenged. I hope the Government will reconsider this point and bring in some words, because I am certain that equity and justice demand it.
    Sir LUKE WHITE: I hope the Government will make it clear that they do not intend under this Bill to charge Increment Duty on the recovery value of agricultural land. I should like to put to the Attorney-General a concrete case. Take a farm to-day worth £50 an acre. In the course of a few years, by intensive cultivation and by methods of farming which up to the present have not been adopted, that land may have increased in value, and may be worth £80 an acre, and that is its utmost value for agricultural purposes. Assuming that it is sold to-day at £50 an acre, it is then sold at £80 an acre. We will assume that it is still let at a sum which is the economic rent for agricultural purposes alone. Being declared to be still agricultural land, there will be no Increment Duty. I am assuming that in a few years' time it becomes building land and is worth £100 an acre. Will the Government say that in that case,
    312
    when the land is sold at £100 an acre, they are going to charge the new owner Increment Duty over and above the £50 an acre or over and above the £80 an acre? If the purchaser has purchased at £80 an acre and the Attorney-General acknowledged that, it being agricultural land, there would be no Increment Duty, is this subsequent purchaser at £100 to have to pay Increment Duty as between £50 and £100? According to the Bill I cannot understand how that can be done. The purchaser at £80 an acre on his deed of conveyance would get a stamp which denoted that that land would be free from Increment Duty at £80 an acre, being agricultural land. How can the Government say, a year after that the owner, purchasing at £100 an acre, should have to pay the difference between £50 and £100? I do not think it is a right step to take as regards agricultural land, and I appeal to the Government that they should say once for all whether they intend to tax land only over and above its value for agricultural purposes or whether they intend to tax agricultural land, which they would be doing in the case I have mentioned. I hope the Attorney-General will make it clear, because at present one does not know what the Amendment is which the Attorney-General is going to propose, but I hope we shall have these words before us before we go to a Division in order that we may see what is in the mind of the Government.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not think the Government can allow us to remain in a position of doubt. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) distinctly stated that when there became a building value it swept away all the agricultural value which had accrued since the datum line of 1909. That is contrary, it seems to me, to explicit statements made both inside and outside the House. I think it was the Prime Minister himself who distinctly told us that recovery value and value due to improvement should be franked and that agricultural land should have that advantage of getting an enhanced value and that that value should attach to it and should therefore attach to the exemption which it obtains. The President of the Board of Agriculture has again and again, outside the House, stated distinctly that every value which accrues to agricultural land, as agricultural, is protected under the concessions which have been given by the Government. Now we are left in this position, that the last speaker on behalf of the Government says

    313
    the moment the building value is advanced that sweeps away all those accrued values which were distinctly promised to us by responsible Members of the Government. We must ask that some statement should be made in order that we may be informed that the matter, which is being quite as much pressed from the other side of the House as from this, shall not be left in a state of indecision, and that we shall not proceed to a Division without knowing exactly where we are.
    Mr. N. W. HELME: In the words as printed in Clause 7 the House had a thorough assurance that no Increment Duty would be charged upon land so long as its value was derived from agriculture. In the North of England agricultural land is of much greater value than £10, £20, or £30 an acre. Being in Swaledale some days ago, I found some land seven miles from any considerable town had been sold at £100 an acre. Therefore, we understand the words to mean here that the value for agricultural purposes will be free from Increment Value Duty. Assuming the land which the hon. Gentleman quoted at the beginning of the Debate was only worth £10 to-day, and became worth £30 from the recovery in values and the improvement for agricultural purposes, and supposing that land is sold. If the purchaser of to-day made a contract for the purchase of that agricultural estate at £30 an acre the Government would settle with the vendor the question as to whether there was any Increment Duty to be paid on that transfer. If it was agricultural land, according to the words of this Clause, it is impossible for any claim to be substantiated that Increment Duty should be paid. Supposing the owner comes into possession of that estate on the basis of £30 an acre, which is paid as purchase money, and it remains as agricultural land for a number of years, but ultimately a portion of that land is building land, then, of course, Increment Duty will be paid. We want to know now whether that Increment Duty will be charged on the difference over and above the £30. Supposing this remains agricultural land for a generation or two, and ultimately it passes through three or four owners' hands. We want the Government to put into definite form the statement which the House accepted in good faith in the words of Clause 7. My opinion is that no court of law could possibly support the Increment Duty on any other value, taking these words, than the value for agricultural purposes.
    314
    I hope the Government will make the point which is now before the House clear.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. D. S. WATERLOW: It seems to me that the issue is narrowed down to a small point. So far as I can gather from previous speakers, everybody will be satisfied with an Amendment to the effect of that proposed. Really what we want is that agricultural value shall be value on which no claim is made to arise in respect of increment for other purposes. What we want is that no agricultural value which may have accrued between 1909, and, say, 1912 through the industry of the person cultivating the land shall be considered in arriving at increment value. I think if some words like these could be inserted they would meet the point: "The agricultural value shall be its value at the date of any claim which may be made for increment value arising from other purposes." I think these words would meet the wishes which have been expressed as to exempting agricultural land from increment value.
    Mr. P. S. FOSTER: We have heard just now from an hon. Member an instance of land which has an agricultural value of £50, and which, owing to recovery, had gone up to £80. That land is sold, and it is exempted from Increment Duty because the improved value is in respect of recovery only. Supposing that a neighbouring plot has not been sold at that particular time, but is sold a few years afterwards at £100? There is a building value in respect of that land which has brought it up from £80 to £100. Are you going to take the increment value on the second lot as between £50 and £100 as purely building value when you know that the part formerly sold has had an increment for agricultural purposes arising from purely natural causes?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the point which I dealt with in the Debate with respect to the datum line, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. S. Foster) has really not asked a new question at all. As long as the land is purely agricultural land there is no duty charged at all, but the moment it passes from the category of agricultural land into the category of building land it is treated like any other increment, and the Increment Duty will be charged upon it.
    Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: I wish to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by the datum line. I understand

    315
    that it is with respect to the datum line that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has been pressing for a definition all through the discussion. When the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Masterman) certainly gave us to understand that on any one of these examples which have been given to the House Increment Duty would be charged in respect of the sum which represents the difference between the valuation this year and the price at which the land changes hands for building purposes, and it is against that proposal, because of its unfairness, that every speech this afternoon has been directed. I think it is most unreasonable that the Government should leave us without an answer to this question. The hon. Member for South-West Warwick (Mr. P. S. Foster) repeated the question because no answer had been forthcoming. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no answer to the question. He spoke of the datum line, but that is an unknown line. It is perfectly clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not know what it means. I shall certainly vote against the Government in this and other Divisions—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not for the first time."] No, it is not the first time, but it is for the same reason. It is because time after time I have sat here and heard cogent and powerful arguments and illustrations addressed to the Government to which they have given no answer.
    Mr. JAMES PARKER: I understand that the opponents of the tax do not object to these concessions in so far as they are intended to relieve the agricultural industry from any burdens which might be imposed by the tax. Now it is suggested that not only should agriculture be relieved from the burdens that might be imposed by the tax, but that with respect to the increased values accruing to land it is to be possible for the landowners to take them up to any amount, and that the amount on which the tax is to be laid is some fancy value which may have been created in the interval, and which is called agricultural value. I will give an illustration of what I mean. A sells a piece of land to B at £10 an acre in 1909. In 1912 it has a value of £25 an acre. Ostensibly the land is sold by A to B for agricultural purposes, but, when he buys the land, B knows that it is coming into the building market. In
    316
    1915 the land is sold for £30 an acre. Is the increment value to be charged on £5, which represents the difference between £25 and £30, though it is a transaction where it is quite obvious to any person that £30 an acre was not agricultural value at all? I submit that there is only one way in which you can effectually gauge these values, and that is by taking the agricultural value in a given year and working from it. I think the concessions which the Government have already given are quite sufficient in so far as they relieve agriculture.
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Hitchin Division (Mr. Bertram) that the datum line is uncertain. It is clear that it starts with the valuation. I do not propose to enter at present into the question how the valuation is to be made.
    I will give an illustration. Take the case of property worth £50 an acre which at the time of the valuation has not got a building value. It is an improving agricultural property, and the value goes up from £50 to £70. At the end of five years it is beginning to have a building value. Its building value may be only £60 an acre, whereas the agricultural value is £70 an acre. Clearly no duty will be payable on that increment. Time goes on, and the building value catches up the agricultural value, both being £70. Still no Increment Duty will be payable. As soon as the building value goes even a shilling beyond the agricultural value, you pay Increment Duty not on the difference between the agricultural value and the building value, but on the difference between the datum line value and the building value. It seems to me that that is not acting perfectly fairly to all interests. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Helme) instanced a case where there may have been intermediate sales. The original owner may have sold the land at £50 to purchaser A, and purchaser A may have sold to B at £70, and though the land at that price may have a building value, no Increment Duty has to be paid. Purchaser B escapes, but purchaser C, who buys at, say, £71, has to pay not merely Increment Duty on the difference between £70 and £71, but on the difference between £50 and £71. I cannot justify that. I cannot vote for the Amendment now before the House, but I think we ought to have some form of Amendment which will deal with such a case as that which has been instanced. I do not

    317
    wish to defend all agricultural land from paying Increment Duty, but I do say that a man who has increased the value of his property for agricultural purposes should not be taxed because that land may have a value for other purposes. There are, so to say, two alternative values at the time of a sale—one for agricultural purposes and the other for building purposes. There should be something done
    to give protection to the landowner whose property has increased in value for agricultural purposes. While I cannot support this Amendment, if another should be moved dealing with that matter I shall feel myself obliged to support it.
    Question put, "That the words, 'while that land has no higher value,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 76.

    Division No. 813.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Agnew, George William

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Alden, Percy

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Gulland, John W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Radford, G. H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

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

    Rees, J. D.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Robinson, S.

    Beale, W. P.

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

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Beauchamp, E.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rowlands, J.

    Brace, William

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Branch, James

    Hodge, John

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Holland, Sir William Henry

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

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Sears, J. E.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Seely, Colonel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Bytes, William Pollard

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Clough, William

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Tomkinson, James

    Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Duckworth Sir James

    Macoherson, J. T.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Essex, R. W.

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

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Massie, J.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Falconer, J

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Napier, T. B.

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

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Ginnell, L.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    NOES.

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Foster, P. S.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, J.

    Renwick, George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gretton, John

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Bertram, Julius

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Euroett, Coutts, W.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

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

    Hills, J. W.

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clark, George Smith

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Younger, George

    Doughty, Sir George

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Fell, Arthur

    Mr. PRETYMANmoved, after the word "value" ["no higher value"], to insert the words "for any other purpose."
    I understand that there is an alternative proposal before the House, and I only move this Amendment formally in order that we may understand clearly what is the intention of the Government.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The words that I was about to suggest come at the end of the Clause. They are: "Provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes or other purposes dependent upon its use as agricultural land shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes only, except where the value for any such purpose exceeds the agricultural value of the land." That exactly meets the point that was raised. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that were the Clause strictly enforced it would mean that wherever you get a value higher than the value for agricultural purposes alone the man loses the benefit of the exemption. Now, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, a value for sporting purposes or some similar purpose not present in our minds may hereafter be discovered, which was not foreseen by my draftsman of the Bill, and this may enable the Inland Revenue to say, "Your land has now a higher value than its value for agricultural purposes, and, therefore, it is not to be exempt." The proviso prevents that. I am not going to suggest that this proviso meets what some of my hon. Friends regard as a difficulty, namely, that of making a deduction from building value under the name of agricultural value,
    320
    because that is really what they have been asking. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Clause should read that Increment Value Duty should not be charged with respect of the agricultural value of land. That would still leave the ambiguity which gives rise to so much trouble, because we contend that we are not charging Increment Value Duty in respect of agricultural land. We contend, in fact, that we satisfy those words. But this is how the ambiguity arises. You have agricultural land value, say, on 30th April, 1909, at £30 an acre. You then have a value due to better husbandry, or it may be a value due to the general recovery of agricultural values throughout the country. So long as the land remains agricultural those additional agricultural values are not taxed. But there comes a moment when the building value exceeds the agricultural value, then the moment that that arises I treat the land as having passed into a different category. That is the principle of the Bill. The moment that the land passes into the category of building value, then it goes outside the exemption that we have provided for agricultural value, and it is treated as building value alone. Hon. Members will understand that I am endeavouring to state this perfectly clearly. It is not the interest of anybody that there should be any ambiguity or misconception. Some difficulties have arisen owing to the use of agricultural land in more than one sense. When land passes into being building land, then we proceed to treat it as building land. That is how the Clause

    321
    would stand if the proviso is carried. But we have safeguarded ourselves and safeguarded agriculturists against any increase of value due to causes which are really quasi-agricultural, operating to take the land out of the scope of the exemption. That is as far as we think we ought to want to go. We ought not to be called upon to give any deduction from building value—that is really what is sought—because agricultural value runs parallel. But once the land comes to be building land, then it is subject to the tax.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the learned Attorney-General has absolutely clearly stated the position. Certainly none of my hon. Friends have pretended to have any doubt as to the effect of the Bill. It was an hon. Gentleman sitting on that side of the House who for the first time became aware of what the intention of the Government was, who was horrified to find it so, and begged to be reassured that he was mistaken, and that the Government did not intend anything so grave. My hon. Friend moved his Amendment formally in order to learn what the Attorney-General proposed with a view to meeting the difficulty. I think if my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment that the Attorney-General could then move his, and we could discuss the Attorney-General's proposal, and how it carries out the Government's intention. Then I understand that the hon. Member for a Division of Suffolk has handed in an Amendment of which he gave notice which would certainly satisfy me. I would accept it in place of the words I had suggested. When we come to his Amendment we might resume the discussion on which the Attorney-General has just touched. I think it would be rather inconvenient if we now renewed on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the discussion on the Attorney-General's proposal. I think it would be better if my hon. and gallant Friend withdrew his Amendment and the Attorney-General moved his Amendment. We could discuss that, and we could reserve the other question until the hon. Member for Suffolk moves his Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it would be more convenient to this side of the House if the rather complicated Amendment of the Attorney-General had been put into our hands before. We on the Front Opposition Bench always supply copies of our Amendments, and, in the case of that which has been submitted by the Attorney-General, it is rather difficult to appreciate
    322
    the exact bearing of the words he proposes. Of course, I hope they will fulfil the purpose which I have in view, but, if they do not, and I have withdrawn my Amendment, we should be in a rather difficult position. I hope the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman will fulfil my purpose. My Amendment on the Paper is for the insertion of the words "for any other purpose," which I think would really carry out what the Attorney-General has in view very much more shortly. It would have been very much more easy for us if we had been supplied with a copy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment before, but, assuming that it will carry out my intention, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I now beg to move the words which I have previously read to the Committee. I acknowledge the inconvenience of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken, but there was so much conversation and discussion upon the precise terms of the Amendment that it was settled rather late. I had better read the words again—"Provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes or other purposes dependent upon its use as agricultural land shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes only, except where the value for any such purpose exceeds the agricultural value of the land." I have already stated what is intended by the Amendment. It has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh that on the Clause as it now stands any slight addition to the value of agricultural land for sporting purposes would come within the words of the Clause, and would give it a higher value than the value for agricultural purposes only, and it would cease to have exemption. To meet that, the Amendment provides that any value like sporting purposes shall be treated as agricultural value, and therefore will come within the exemption. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes a rather different Amendment; he wishes to insert the words, "for any other purpose." That would make the Clause read, "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value for any other purpose than its value for agricultural purposes only." I think the proviso we have chosen is more precise. It is not intended among "other purposes" to exclude building value. When this

    323
    Clause was first decided in Committee everybody agreed that when the land began to have a building value it should then be taxed. The objection to the Clause was confined entirely to the case of land having additional sporting value. We have, therefore, limited the words of our Amendment to the criticism which was levied against the Clause. We could scarely accept the words "for any other purpose," because they would include building purposes, and they might give rise to difficulty in construing the law. We have confined our Amendment to the objection made to the Clause. We think it sufficient to meet that objection, and that it is better than the adoption of words which might give rise to difficulty.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to know the exact meaning of the words "dependent upon its use as agricultural land." I do not quite follow how that would work out. The land has value which depends upon its use as agricultural land. Take the case of sporting rights. The value of sporting rights is not dependent upon the use of the land as agricultural land; on the contrary, you may have very valuable sporting rights on land which is not agricultural land at all, but which is only of a purely waste character. Surely the proper words to use are "consistent with," and not "dependent upon." The Amendment would then read—"Provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes or other purposes consistent with its use as agricultural land."
    Sir W. ROBSON: Of course these two phrases have been very carefully considered, and we have chosen the words "dependent upon" rather than the words "consistent with." The latter words might possibly be construed as covering building value, because you may have land which may lie for some time before it comes into building, but which yet for some time may have a prospective building value. For some time building land is "consistent with" the temporary use of the land as agricultural land. I think the words "dependent upon" are more definite. It is difficult to choose between words of that character, but I think "dependent upon" is a phrase better adapted to our purpose than the words "consistent with." Undoubtedly sporting rights are dependent upon the use of land as agricultural land.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It may be that the words "consistent with" are
    324
    too wide, but that does not prove that the words "dependent upon" are the right words; I frankly confess I am not prepared to suggest others. I do not think the Attorney-General, however, answered the specific question of my Noble Friend as to the inconvenience of the use of the words "dependent upon." If you use those words, then sporting rights must be "dependent upon" agricultural use of the land only, but if the land ceases to be cultivated the sporting rights will cease to have a value. Under the words of the Amendment they must depend on the continuation of the cultivation of the land. What you mean I think is that the sporting rights would cease if the land were developed, and that in that case they are dependent on the continuation of the land in its undeveloped condition. But you cannot surely say that sporting rights in every case are dependent upon the continuation of the agricultural use of the land. Is it not true that if you let land go to waste in a great many cases the sporting rights become more valuable, because the head of game would be greater? My point is that if you use the words "dependent upon," it means dependent upon the use of the land as agricultural land, and that the sporting rights would cease if the land ceased to be used for agricultural purposes. What I think you mean is to include values which would be sacrificed if the land were developed. These are two different things, and I do not think that the answer given by the Attorney-General will cover the case mentioned by my Noble Friend. It will be open to anyone to argue that the sporting rights will not be in the least affected if the land ceased to be cultivated; on the contrary, if it were not for the farm crops, and the work on the land, there would be a much bigger head of game, and the sporting rights would have a higher value. Therefore it cannot be said that these sporting rights are dependent on the agricultural use of the land.
    Mr. W. H. DICKINSON: It is rather unfortunate that we have not had an opportunity on this side of the House of seeing the words proposed by the Attorney-General. They seem to go a great deal further than anything that was in the minds of those who have taken part in this discussion. I understand that the land which is used for sporting purposes is to be dealt with as agricultural land. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is very difficult for us to understand what the words do

    325
    actually mean. I take it that sporting purposes are independent of other purposes, and that land used for sporting purposes is to be deemed for the purposes of the Clause as agricultural land. Land which is going to be used for a race-course is land used for sporting purposes, and it would undoubtedly acquire very great value from the very fact of its being used as a race-course. Would that land used for such a purpose come within the exemption? The words, as they were read, distinctly leave sporting purposes as dependent on the agricultural use of the land—"provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes or other purpose is dependent upon its use as agricultural land shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes." Therefore, sporting purposes, as I read these words, stand alone. I would ask whether land used for a race-course, or land used for coursing, or land used for pigeon shooting, or, to go further, which is still more important, land which is used for the purposes of a grouse moor—a purpose perfectly consistent with an agricultural use for feeding sheep is an agricultural purpose—are going to be brought into this exemption? If they are I think the Government are going a great deal further than is agreeable to many of us.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I suggest that the point might be met by turning the words round and exempting purposes for which the land is no longer suitable when it becomes the subject of increment value?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that would at all meet the case, for the simple reason that in that case no Increment Value Duty would arise until the land had ceased to be used for agricultural purposes. That, surely, is not the intention in any case. The moment the land becomes building land in the ordinary sense of the word, then I agree Increment Duty arises. That is why we use the words "dependent upon." The words "consistent with" might mean that the land would only become subject to Increment Duty if it became absolutely subject to building operations. That is why we adopted the words "dependent upon" for this purpose.
    The case mentioned by my hon. Friend—that of the deer forest—would be a case of excess of value for purposes other than agricultural, and it would certainly be subject to increment value. We do not want, merely owing to the fact that there is a sporting element, to exclude agricultural
    326
    land from the benefit of this Clause, but if the value for sporting purposes exceeds its agricultural value, and if, as in the case mentioned by the Noble Lord, it becomes a mere wilderness and is used purely for sporting purposes, that is not agricultural land.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the case we want. What I want to suggest is the case we want to protect is the case of bonâ fide agricultural land so used and cultivated, and that it will not be charged, because it has a sporting value if that sporting value is dependent on its use as agricultural land. If the land were allowed to go to waste the sporting rights would still remain, but we do not want it to go to waste. We want to protect it while it is bonâ fide being used, and you will not do it by this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Sporting purposes are specifically mentioned. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested just now there were other purposes, but he could not mention any. I think he suggested the amenity. A man might say, "It is a very desirable situation, and I rather like the farm." If a man pays a little more because he likes the situation that is not agricultural value. The man pays more for that particular farm because it has a farm-house, and he wants it for agricultural purposes. That is really the sort of case we want to protect.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: You want the word "for."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We do not object at all to the insertion of that, but it is rather to cover the two or three other cases. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) may rest assured a case of purely sporting rights will not be protected. The ordinary case of a deer forest or a grouse moor will not be protected. We really considered that point. All we want to do is to protect purely agricultural land. I think we have done so. We have gone out of our way with the view of doing so without admitting Amendments which would absolutely destroy the whole of the tax.
    Question, "That the words 'Provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes or for other purposes dependent upon its use as agricultural land shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes only except where the value for any such purpose exceeds the agricultural value of the land' be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEYmoved at the end of the Clause to insert the words "Provided that the duty shall in no case be charged on any sum in excess of the difference between the agricultural value at the time the duty becomes payable, and the total value of the land."
    I trust that on reconsideration the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that there is a certain unfairness or hardship in charging a man what is after all on his own improvements, because although we may say that the land is building land, yet such land does not suddenly alter its character. The land is the same, the only difference is that at a certain moment it is held to have passed its agricultural value, and as soon as that has taken place Increment Duty becomes payable. The man will say, "I made this land more valuable by my energy and enterprise," and the only addition which has been created by communal action is, in the case we have taken of the £10, from £30 to £35, so that the only communal value is £5 over and above the £30 which the man himself created. It is perfectly true that the building value is £35 and the original value is £10, and possibly even if the land were allowed to go back to the £10 value the building value would still be £35. It might be an advantage to the builder to allow the land to go back to its original undeveloped state, and it might be an economy to him that it had never been developed agriculturally, yet there would be this £30 value which he has created, and he will say it is rather hard because of the slight added value over and above the agricultural value that he should be charged on a value the greater part of which he has created.
    Mr. EVERETT: I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment. Its object is to carry out the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think also by the Prime Minister, that the recovery value of agricultural land was not to be taxed. It appears to me that that was an excellent promise. I was present when we agreed on this Clause, but I confess the point did not occur to me then that it does not protect the recovery value of agricultural land, which, I think, the owners of agricultural land are fairly and honestly entitled to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that agricultural land was somewhat near the bottom of the ladder and that recovery was possible, and said that he had no desire to lay taxation on that recovery value. I
    328
    ask him to be good enough to do to his agricultural friends the justice that I feel confident he will do, and to accept these words, so that when agricultural land becomes building land only that part of its value shall be charged with the tax which is outside the recovery value as agricultural land. That appears to me to be perfectly equitable and fair.
    These new taxes are becoming probably a part of the taxation machinery permanently, and it is eminently desirable that each one of them should be made as fair as it possibly can be. This Increment Tax, no doubt, has aspects which make it very attractive to the general public, and there are many cases where large values come to the land without any contribution to them by the effort of the owner. That is no reason at all why you should charge Increment Duty upon improved agricultural value due to the industry and intelligence of the cultivator, or due to the general improvement in the times. There is every prospect of a rise in prices, and as prices rise the normal value of agricultural land will rise with them. The owner of that land is surely entitled to claim that recovery value, and that he shall not be deprived of it. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown such goodwill towards the agricultural class, and whose mind is so fair in its general composition, will accept this Amendment, and will make this part of the Clause protect recovery value.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am afraid in dealing with this question I may lay myself open to the charge of repetition, but really this question has given rise to so much misapprehension that I think a little repetition may be pardoned. It will give an opportunity to those who have not followed the structure of the Bill the opportunity to think over it again. These matters do involve a certain degree of perplexity. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I have yet to see the legislation that does not, and I do not know that I should like to see the legislation that does not. My hon. Friend wishes to protect the recovery value, we say that the recovery value is abundantly and amply protected. So long as the land is agricultural no increment is charged on recovery value, and no increment is charged on good husbandry while the land is agricultural, but now the land begins to be wanted by the community for another purpose, and the idea of these taxes is not merely that they are a fair and proper source of revenue, but also that they tend

    329
    to safeguard the public against the undue holding up of the land. This agricultural land comes to have a building value in excess of its agricultural value. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment spoke by way of illustration of a case in which agricultural land got a building value £5 in excess of its value for agricultural purposes. "Now," said he, "that extra £5 is the only value for which communal effort is responsible." That really shows a misconception of the nature of building value. Building value and agricultural value run for some distance parallel with each other. Your land for agricultural purposes is worth, say, £30 or £40. Nobody wants it for building, though for every plot some price would be given. Then comes an agricultural increment of £30 or £40, and there the agricultural increment stops. But the town is growing; perhaps it is the growth of the town that has given to the land its additional agricultural value for accommodation purposes. Then the demand for building begins to exceed the demand for accommodation purposes. But the value of the land for building is not the extra £5 above the agricultural value. If the agricultural value has risen to £50, and there is an excess of £5 for building value, the building value is £55; in other words, the land has passed into a different category, and has become building land instead of agricultural land.
    Do not let us be misled by these illustrations, which appear to indicate that building value runs in such small sums as £5. The amounts are generally much larger, so that the fanciful cases of hardship will probably have no existence whatever. The moment the land comes into a different category we treat it as building land, and not as agricultural land, and, of course, we charge Increment Value Duty upon the datum line of 30th April, 1909. An hon. Friend of mine who spoke just now thought it very discourteous and, indeed, outrageous, on the part of the Government that we did not tell him what the datum line of value was. It scarcely occurred to any Member of the Government to tell a lawyer, who has been attending these Debates with such care and attention, and, indeed, has voted against the Government several times, that the datum line above which Increment Value Duty is to attach is fixed as the value on 30th April, 1909. I thought everybody knew that. I certainly thought it was well known to those who had voted against the
    330
    Government; but as I find that they have not paid that attention to the Bill which would have enabled them to ascertain that elementary fact, I cannot help hoping that on reconsideration of the Bill they will vote with the Government instead of against it. Anyhow, it is a perfectly well-known and elementary fact in connection with the Bill that we charge Increment Value Duty on building value as from 30th April, 1909. My hon. Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division says that that is charging on recovery value. It is not; it is charging on building value, and nothing but building value. It is quite true that the agricultural value is superseded; it is ignored the moment the land comes into a new category.
    That is the explanation of the scheme of the Bill, and I cannot understand how those who accepted this Clause can possibly have misunderstood it. It may be complicated to those who listened to the Debate without following the text or the general scheme of the Bill; but it is perfectly clear to those Members on our side of the House who heard the Government Clause read, to whom it was submitted, by whom it was considered, and by whom also it was cordially accepted. I cannot believe that any Members representing agricultural divisions who made this agreement with the Government can now say that they did not understand the elementary factors of the situation with which they were dealing. It would be a reflection, not, I am sure, upon their good faith, but upon their intelligence, which I should be the last man in the world to make. The Amendment immediately before us ignores all the considerations to which I have just referred. It wishes to take not the datum line of 30th April, 1909, but an unfixed, capricious datum line of what may be the agricultural value at the time the building value comes under assessment. That is a quite impracticable proposal. It would really mean that, instead of putting Increment Value Duty on the whole of the building value, we should be making a deduction from the building value in respect of the agricultural value which was merged in the building value.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General, in some criticisms addressed to an hon. Member on his own side of the House, observed that that hon. Member has been such a constant attendant on and listener to our Debates that he had been obliged frequently to

    331
    vote against the Government. I cannot help regretting that a larger proportion of the majority in this House have not been in the same constant attendance.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not repeated the exact phrase I used.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that the hon. Member had been so constant in attendance on the Debates that he had often been obliged to vote against the Government. However, if the Attorney-General disclaims the statement, I will only say that if more hon. Members had followed these Debates I think more would have voted against the proposals of the Government. The reason why the Government maintain their big majority is that Members, having accepted the general principle, do not trouble to come here to watch over its application, and, therefore, they do not become aware of the inconsistencies and injustices of the Government's scheme, or even of what that scheme is. They are thus naturally able to rise at this late stage, and express themselves as wholly taken by surprise by what, as the Attorney-General says, everybody who has followed the course of the Debates has known all along was the intention of the Government. But I must qualify that statement to this extent. In regard to this particular matter the Government from a certain point in the Committee stage announced their intention of putting down a clause which would absolutely protect agricultural value, and when thereafter any Amendment raised that question, we were always told that that would be covered by the Clause which the Government had promised.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I read the words at once in the course of the Debate.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then we were always referred to this Clause. It is perfectly clear that it does not protect all agricultural value. What it does is to protect agricultural value as long as the land has no other value; but that protection ceases the moment the land acquires any greater value. There is that amount of excuse for Members who did not at first see what the effect of this Clause would be. I am not suggesting anything in the nature of breach of faith, but while the Government have perhaps verbally kept their promise, they have not given the full protection which sanguine
    332
    Members anticipated they intended to-give. Let the House re-examine the Clause as stated by the Government. There is no excuse any longer for any Member not knowing what he is doing when he votes against this Amendment. The Government say that agricultural land may go on increasing in value, either by what is called agricultural recovery or by the exertions of the proprietor or cultivator, or by the growth of population, but, as long as it has no greater value for other purposes than its value for agricultural purposes, they will not tax that increased value. The moment, however, it has a greater value for other purposes they will impose Increment Value Duty, not on the difference between its value for agricultural purposes then and its greater value for other purposes, but on the difference between its value for other purposes and its agricultural value on 30th April last. Various illustrations have been given of the hardship involved in this proposal, but I think the clearest and most striking was that contributed by the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division (Sir Luke White). It often happens that the clearest way of bringing out an injustice is to suppose a sale and transfer of the property at the period under review, but the injustice is just the same if the property remains in the same hands. The hon. Member took agricultural land which on 30th April last was worth £50 an acre. That is the datum level from which increment is to be calculated whenever Increment Value Duty becomes due. As long as that land is purely agricultural, no Increment Value Duty is due. The land in the course of years rises to £80 in value for agricultural purposes. That is an increment of £30, but as it is for agricultural purposes no Increment Value Duty is payable. The owner sells the property and receives £80 an acre for it as an agricultural property. A few years pass; the agricultural value is still £80, but there has arisen a building value of £100. Under their scheme the Government are entitled to tax that land for increment, but on what are they going to tax it? The added value given to the land by the growth of the community is £20, the difference between £80 and £100; but what the Government are going to tax is not £20, but £50, the difference between the datum level of 30th April, 1909, and the high value it has then reached. The purchaser has paid £80 for the land as agricultural land. You are going to tax him not merely on the additional £20

    333
    building value, but on the £30 agricultural value for which he has paid. Is there any justice in that, or is it possibly consistent with the statement that you are protecting agricultural values? The proposal is equally unjust if the land remains in the same hands. Put aside the recovery value. Take the case of land like Evesham, land worth, I suppose, originally something like 30s. or £2 an acre. It is developed as a market gardens the ground covered with fruit trees, fruit bushes, it is very highly cultivated, and gathers there by degrees a very considerable population. By reason of their coming together, and so producing a much greater bulk they get lower railway rates and better facilities for a good market. Therefore, they gain an indirect advantage. That land rises in value agriculturally. You do not charge so long as it has no other value, but the moment it has any value in excess of agriculture you are going to charge, not merely on the excess building value, but on all the added agricultural value! And that although a great portion of the agricultural value would be necessarily destroyed in developing the land for building. Take the case put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheshire (Mr. A. L. Stanley) who spoke of land covered with orchards and fruit bushes, and of a high agricultural value in the neighbourhood of towns. What happens when you develop it? The first thing you have to do is to cut away all those trees. The builder will have to pay the value of those trees, or he will not get the agriculturist to sell, for it would not be worth his while to sell. He has to pay all that value which he has then to destroy. Then you are going to tax him. Is not that an absurd thing to do? Is it not a grossly unjust thing? Is there a single Member sitting on the opposite benches when he has professed to describe this tax to his constituents who has had the courage or the frankness to tell them that this is what the Government proposal is? They do not know it. That is their only defence. Not a single Member, I venture to say, can, in pointing this out to his constituents, defend the tax. The only justification given at this stage of our proceedings from the Government side of the House for their not having defended it is that they themselves do not know the tax. Well, you know it now! What are you going to do? Support that injustice, or help us to do away with it?
    Mr. E. J. SOARES: I am one of those who at any rate thinks that he understood
    334
    this Clause when it first appeared on the Paper, and I am under the impression that I understand it now. In my humble opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in adhering to this Clause, has fully and amply kept the promises he made with regard to the exclusion of the value of agricultural land. What is the position? Remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never said for one moment that he would exclude the value of building land. What he promised to do was to exclude the value of agricultural land. Let us take an example. First of all you have agricultural land worth £20 an acre. By continuous good farming it rises to £30 an acre. Then it is sold. No increment value is payable at all, because that is owing to continuous good farming. Owing to the gradual recovery of agricultural prices the land rises from £30 to £50. Here again no Increment Duty is payable at all, because there is no tax on agricultural value. But then you have another state of things altogether. Later on this land changes from the category of agricultural land and becomes building land. When it comes to building land, to what is its value owing? In no way to the inherent quality of the soil or to what has been done to it, for it does not matter what kind of soil it is? The value of that land is then owing not to what the man has done who has farmed it, but to the community. It is owing to the people who are working around that land and who want it to build upon. Then that land is sold as building land. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought fit to do so, he could have said, "I am going to put Increment Duty upon the whole of that building land." He does not do so. He goes even further than anticipated. He gives the purchaser a boon. He says, "You may take from that building value the agricultural value up to a datum line." That is in the nature of a boon. Therefore there can be no doubt whatever in my mind that at any rate agricultural value in every shape and in every form is excluded from this increment.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: I am very reluctant to interfere in this family dispute between the Members of the Government and their agricultural supporters, because personally I cannot quite see the equity of the main proposal. I cannot myself see why agricultural value should be taken as sacred and other values made liable to special taxation. I thought we were told yesterday that land was so different from other

    335
    forms of property that it was justifiable to take the landlord's property away slice by slice, on the Chinese principle. Now to-day we learn that the possession of that property is to be counted as sacred, as are the funds and other investments. It does seem to me rather a peculiar case. Surely if the Government adhere to their view in this matter a very distinct injustice, as I read the Bill, may arise. I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not here at present, because I was interested to hear him say yesterday that this was a perfectly simple and ideal tax, while to-day he acknowledges that it is so complex that he is not surprised that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House do not fully understand it. Suppose you have two men side by side owning agricultural land. One cultivates the land well, and the other badly. The value of the one man's land rises for agricultural purposes. The value of the other man's land remains stationary, say at £20 an acre. The one rises to £50 an acre, but for building purposes they both have the same value. As I read the Bill the one man is not allowed to deduct from the site value for building purposes any expenditure upon the land for agricultural purposes, consequently the expenditure on good farming that the good cultivator has made on his land for agricultural purposes would be liable to taxation under this Increment Tax. I submit that with all deference, because I frankly confess I am one of the many people who cannot understand this complex tax.
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I am bound to say that the land taxation under this Bill is at the present time in a collossal muddle. There are certainly gentlemen opposite, like the hon. Member for Barn-staple (Mr. Soares), who tell us that they are satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fulfilled his promise to exclude agricultural land. I have come to the conclusion that agricultural land, at least for five miles around a town, will be taxed under this Bill notwithstanding the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to accept. During the discussion several attempts have been made to remove out of the minds of some here the impression that has been made by the alterations. I want to put a case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are multitudes of such cases all over England. Suppose a village, four or five miles from a thriving town, has at present a large
    336
    agricultural population, growing the ordinary kind of food that is grown by ordinary agriculturists. The value of that land is about £30 an acre. Suppose—as is the case where growing towns are—that the market garden owner and the small holder begin to grow other kinds of food for a particular district near which this village is situated, and so the land grows in value from £30 an acre to £60 an acre. Shortly after that, say, one or two persons come to the conclusion that as this village is comparatively near the town where their business is, that they would like to live there. They go and buy one or two sites of land to put up houses. They pay £100 an acre for it. These first two cases are clearly cases of agricultural value. But a third case, I suppose, would be a case of building value? Is it to be assumed that because certain sites of land in that village have made a building value of £100 an acre, that the assessable value under your valuation will bring all that land in that village—especially that adjoining the main roads—into the category of building land? That is the point. Will that be the period when it will be supposed that this land will pass from agricultural land to building land? I understand that is the case, because the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, in a reply, clearly indicated that that would be the case—that it would be considered building value and not agricultural value if such sites were bought. Very well then. It seems that when that land came to be bought for the purposes of building there will be the extra value created, or supposed to be created, which will bring all that agricultural land into the category of building land. If it is brought into the category of building land you are going to tax the person who cultivates it, or owns agricultural land. Therefore I submit that whatever Amendments have been accepted up till now, the Government are going by this Bill as it stands to tax increment values in the towns, and to make agriculturists pay a tax which at the present time they are not paying.
    We heard a moment or two ago from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General that there was an arrangement with the agricultural Members on that side of the House with regard to these Land Taxes. I suppose that is the first time the House has learnt of it. It is most interesting to learn that there has been any such arrangement as that when nearly every agricultural Member on that side of

    337
    the House allows that, for the first time, it has dawned upon him that agricultural land in some form or other is going to be taxed! I should like to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Northampton if he was a party to that agreement?
    An HON. MEMBER: He says he knows nothing about it."
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I should like also to ask the hon. Member for the Buck-rose Division if he knows anything of the arrangement whereby the Liberal Members representing agricultural districts have been bound down by a certain agreement made with the Government in regard to these particular taxes, especially as they now do not seem to understand them? I hope that they will have the courage to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman behind me. I think he has stated his case very fairly. Although I do not believe that even the Amendment will remove the possibility of agricultural land under certain considerations being taxed, yet at the same time it will go some way in that direction. Especially it will remove the anomaly that if land sold at £50 an acre grows to £80 or to a £100, it is to be taxed on the £50 instead of on the £80 or a £100, as it should be. Be that as it may, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the courage of their convictions on this occasion, and vote for the Amendment, which will go in some direction to relieve agricultural land from the possibility of this tax.
    Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: There is one point which occurs to me in connection with this matter which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend, not in any factious spirit, but from the point of view of expediency. The object of this Bill is to promote building in towns. Will the course which my right hon. Friend is taking not rather tend to militate against that object? Let me take a concrete illustration which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester. I assume that he means that the agricultural land valued at £50 an acre remains in the same hands throughout? Supposing that recovery took place from £50 to £80: As long as that land is sold for agricultural purposes only, no Increment Duty will be paid, but the moment it is sold for building purposes Increment Duty will become due and one-fifth of the difference between £50 and £80 will be paid either by the buyer or the seller, according to arrangements, if the land is
    338
    sold for building purposes, whereas as long as it is sold for agricultural purposes no Increment Duty will be paid. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think it is so. So long as the land is sold for agricultural purposes no Increment Duty is due, but if it is sold for the price, say, of £80, Increment Duty becomes due.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of the land being sold. It may be sold or used for agricultural purposes, but if it is capable of development for building purposes, it has a value for building purposes greater than its agricultural value, Increment Duty will become due.
    Mr. A. TAYLOR: Surely so long as it is used for agricultural purposes no Increment Duty will become due? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes, it will.]
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that the last speech shows how things stand. The hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Austin Taylor) is one of the most valuable Members of the House, but his speech shows he has wholly failed to understand the purport and effect of this Clause. I must say I think the Government have some reason to complain of their supporters; they are only just beginning to understand their Bill. I agree it is a complex Bill, but we have had it before us now for some months, and the principle of the Bill ought to be comprehensible to hon. Members opposite. The only reason they do not understand it is because they have persistently declined to try to understand it, having, I suspect, a kind of lurking feeling that if they did understand it they would find it really impossible to support it. The hon. Member who has just sat down thinks that the question of whether land is exempt or not entirely depends on the purpose for which that is used or sold. Is depends upon neither one nor the other. The whole question is this: Do the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in their valuation think that the value of the land is due to its capabilities for building purposes or to its capabilities for agricultural purposes? That is the whole question, no matter what it is used for or sold for. I understand the Government to say that they desire to exempt agriculture from the burden of this tax. I agree with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox). I have never been able to understand the reason on which this theory of the Government is based. Why do the Government desire to exempt agriculture. I think if we could get at the

    339
    reason of it we could understand why the hon. Member for Toxteth fell into the mistake he did, and we could point out also that the Government, in point of fact, are not relieving agriculture.
    I heard a good deal said about the recovery value and the distinction between communal value and recovery. I cannot understand what people mean by saying it is quite right to tax communal value and quite wrong to tax recovery value. I do not, I confess, comprehend very readily what recovery value means, but, if I understand it at all, it means that owing to a world demand or a local demand for agriculture, the value of agricultural produce goes up. It has nothing to do with the owner at all, yet that is to be exempt because it is called recovery value, but if it comes about that a number of people come and live in the neighbourhood or that somebody opens a golf course that is not to be exempt because it is communal value. I do not see the slightest difference between the two, and therefore I do not myself think that the Government can possibly justify the exemption of agricultural land on some obscure theory of recovery value. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Soares) seemed to think that it had something to do with the inherent qualities of the soil. I do understand income derived from the inherent qualities of the soil, but it does not seem to me to be any reason for making a distinction between that form of increment and others. The only reason you can give exemption for agricultural land, it seems to me, is that it is already heavily burdened, and that the industry requires assistance from the State. If that is the case I say it is not open to argument this Clause does not exempt agricultural land. It is quite plain land may go on being used as agricultural land and occupied only for the purposes and employed only for the purposes of agriculture and may yet be subject to these duties. It is not a question of whether it is used for agriculture or not.
    The Government have adopted a different principle in dealing with increment and in dealing with undeveloped land. I do not in the least know why. In undeveloped land they accept the principle of the Amendment we are now discussing, but in dealing with Increment Duty I do not believe they know why they have refused to accept it. If hon. Members will but consider the numerous cases which have been cited to the House it is quite plain that agricultural land will have to
    340
    bear the burden of this tax. Take the £35 case. There is no doubt whatever that in the case of agricultural land which has an agricultural value of £30 and a building value of £35, but which goes, on being used for agricultural purposes only that the burden falls upon that land, and therefore the burden falls upon the industry of agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but the only difference is that instead of being taxed on the difference, in proportioning your tax to the improvement of the land qua agricultural land, you tax it more heavily, because you take into consideration the building value of the land as well. Therefore, it seems plain beyond all possibility of argument that this Clause does not free agriculture, and I do not understand why the Government claim it does.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is practically the second discussion we have had this afternoon upon this identical point, because the Debate upon the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) specifically raised this very point, and, therefore, I think I am entitled to appeal to the House to come to a decision as soon as possible. But I think the House will expect the Government to say something in reply to the speeches which have been delivered. What is the position in regard to agricultural land? First of all let us have the narrative of what happened. The Government first introduced into their Bill an arrangement slightly complicated, but which in their judgment would have had the effect of protecting agricultural land from taxation in the shape of increment for what was really recovery of prices owing to the very depressed condition of agriculture. That meant, converting it into figures, that agricultural land will be allowed a margin of 40 per cent. for recovery before you ever charged increment. That was regarded as a very sufficient safeguard for the agricultural land of the country. Hon. Members opposite and hon. Members representing agricultural districts in Ireland and hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies on the Government side were not satisfied with that. My first proposal was one which was to effect pure recovery. But we were told that hon. Members infinitely preferred words that would exempt purely agricultural land altogether. These were the two methods of dealing with the matter. There is something to be said to what has fallen from the Noble Lord, and

    341
    there are some things which he said with which I agree. But the House was anxious in all parts of it to exempt agricultural land, and the Government were very anxious to carry out that idea. These are the two methods. One was recovery and the second was that purely agricultural land should be exempted altogether. In order to do that you had to find some means of dividing the land of the country into building land and agricultural land; that is, land that is purely agricultural land whose value was purely agricultural, depending either on the inherent qualities of the soil or upon the agricultural improvements effected. The other class was the class of land whose value depended not upon its agricultural qualities, whether inherent or improved, but upon the fact that it was near some aggregation of people.
    We used the word "communal," but the meaning really was that it was near a town or some important industrial centre. One hon. Gentleman suggested that all land within a mile of an urban district should be free. We have gone further than that. All land within a hundred yards of the town, if its value is purely agricultural, is exempt. We have gone beyond all the alternative suggestions raised by the hon. Members on the other side. But it does not matter what you lay down, you will always find something which is just across the border that will give the appearance of a hard case. An agreement was arrived at, and I read the words out in the course of the discussion. Hon. Members from Ireland who are interested in the matter as representing agricultural communities got up and said they were satisfied. Hon. Members upon this side of the House accepted the agreement. I do not say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it satisfactory. Of course they were fighting the whole of the Increment Duty, and they naturally supported anything that would cut down the Increment Duty. But certainly Members from Ireland and hon. Members on this side expressed satisfaction at the words that were read out on behalf of the Government. Well, now, supposing we accepted the suggestion put forward by an hon. Friend of mine, that instead of excluding purely agricultural land we provided that land within a mile of an urban district should be excluded. You might have had land just outside purely agricultural not really as valuable as the land on the other side of the line, and not even as valuable for building pur-
    342
    poses. You may get much more valuable building land within three miles of a town than within a mile. Supposing we had accepted that Amendment. We should always have had hard cases just on the border line. It does not matter what principle you lay down either in regard to this or any other tax; you are bound to have hard cases. During the last 19 years I have never heard a Budget introduced in which hard cases did not arise with regard to the Income Tax, and the moment you accept an Amendment you find other hard cases just across the border line. It is impossible in laying down these rules to cover every conceivable case where there is a shade of difference. I think the first view taken by my hon. Friends of these words was the best, and I am afraid they have been deluded by this discussion. We have had two or three long Debates upon this subject, and now, after four or five months, my hon. Friends have discovered this great hardship. I really think they must come to the conclusion that their first impressions were right, which, after four or five months' reflection, they were perfectly satisfied with, and just in an impulsive moment, after listening to the passionate oratory of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, they have been deluded into the belief that they are suffering from a hardship. But they are really not. All purely agricultural land in this country is exempted from all these taxes. The hon. Member for Preston asks why should this be so, and the Noble Lord opposite asks the same question. That is not the point, because it has been done practically with the assent of the whole House. I agree that there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Preston. Agricultural land is exempted. I am aware that agriculture is not represented merely on one side of the House, as I have discovered in the course of this Debate. I agree with what has been said. This is a Parliamentary arrangement, and it is also a Parliamentary situation. We have decided to exempt purely agricultural land, but the moment it passes from the category of agricultural land to building land it ceases to enjoy the privileges of agricultural land. You may be able to find cases with just a shade of difference where there may be an appearance of hardship, but those shades of difference very rarely are substantiated by the actual facts of the situation. When land passes from agricultural to building land it is not a matter of

    343
    £5 or £10, but you run into hundreds of pounds. I am sure my hon. Friends who slept in peace for the last six months not merely upon the vague assurances of the Government, but on a reflection of the actual words on the Paper, will find that there is no cause for anxiety as regards agricultural land.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that all agricultural land is excluded from all these taxes. That cannot be so, because there must be land used as agricultural land near towns which is taxed on which the people who grow food for this country are taxed. It is perfectly absurd to say that agricultural
    land is not taxed. There is another very serious thing which apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen, and that is that people living near towns will not cultivate their lands highly because they know when it is supposed to be building land it will be taken from them, and the money they have spent will be lost. They will be taxed because they have spent their money on improving the land. Therefore it is absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that under his Bill agricultural land is not taxed.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes 218.

    Division No. 814.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Forster, Henry William

    Percy, Earl

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Foster, P. S.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balcarres, Lord

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gardner, Ernest

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beauchamp, E.

    Gordon, J.

    Renwick, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gretton, John

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Haddock, George B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bertram, Julius

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clark, George Smith

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Moore, William

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lyulph Stanley and Mr. Everett.

    Fell, Arthur

    Oddy, John James

    NOES.

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Alden, Percy

    Bennett, E. N.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Brace, William

    Clough, William

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Branch, James

    Cobbold, Feilx Thornley

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brigg, John

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Brooke, Stopford

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

    Barker, Sir John

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Pryce, J. Annan

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Beale, W. P.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Bell, Richard

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Elibank, Master of

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Essex, R. W.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Falconer, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Sears, J. E.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Seely, Colonel

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Shackleton, David James

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford).

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Maclean, Donald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Glover, Thomas

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Callum, John M.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Steadman, W. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Massie, J.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gulland John W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Myer, Horatio

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Napier, T. B.

    Tomkinson, James

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Toulmin, George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Verney, F. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

    O'Grady, J.

    Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Malley, William

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hodge, John

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Radford, G. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Jenkins, J.

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

    Wilson, J. W. Worcestershire, N.)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Keating, M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Robinson, S.

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

    CLAUSE 8.—(Exemption of Small Houses and Properties in Owner's Occupation.)
    (1) Increment Value Duty shall not be charged on the increment value of any land, being the site of a dwelling-house, where immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected the house was, and had been for twelve months previously, used by the owner thereof as his residence, and the annual value of the house, as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, does not exceed—

    (a) in the case of a house situated in the administrative county of London, forty pounds; and

    (b) in the case of a house situated in a borough or urban district with a popu-
    346
    lation according to the last-published Census for the time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six pounds; and

    (c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, sixteen pounds.

    (2) Increment Value Duty shall not be charged on the increment value of any agricultural land where, immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected, the land was, and had been for twelve months previously, occupied and cultivated by the owner thereof, and the total amount of that land, together with any other land belonging to the same owner, does not exceed fifty acres, and the average total value of the land does not exceed seventy-five pounds per acre:
    Provided that the exemption under this provision shall not apply to any land occupied together with a dwelling-house the annual value of which, as adopted for Income Tax under Schedule A, exceeds thirty pounds.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section—

    (a) the expression "owner" includes a person who holds land under a lease which was originally granted for a term of fifty years or more; but in such a case nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty so far as it is payable in respect of any other interest in the land other than that leasehold interest; and

    (b) the site of a dwelling-house shall include any land valued together with the house for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty.

    (4) Any Increment Value Duty which would, but for this Section, be charged shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of the duty, be deemed to have been paid.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERmoved, in Subsection (1), to leave out all the words from the word "residence" ["used by the owner thereof as his residence"] to the end of the Sub-section.
    The Amendment I have to propose is very simple and very clear. Clause 8 exempts from the Increment Value Duty the site of any dwelling-house in which the owner resides and has resided for 12 months, and, so far, I agree with it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer adds modifications to exclude from the benefits of the Clause all houses over £40 per annum in London, or £26 per annum in county boroughs or urban districts of 50,000 inhabitants, or over £16 in rural parts. If exemption is to be given to a man because he resides in his own house, I am at a loss to understand why any distinction should be drawn between the man whose house is of the value of £40 and the man whose house is of the value of £42, or even £100 a year. We have had repeated declarations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I always like to believe him, because I believe he intends to be accurate—that it is only the unearned increment which it is intended should be taxed. Last night an Amendment was moved to insert the word "unearned," and he could not accept it because he said the provisions of the Bill clearly defined that the tax was only to be charged in the case
    348
    of unearned increment. He is somewhat mistaken in that, especially with regard to this particular case. The increment in the value of a house in which the owner has resided for a number of years can scarcely be called unearned. It is due, if anything, to the increased amenities which the resident owner has accumulated during his residence, and he is surely entitled to the benefit of that increment. If the increment in the case of a house of £40 a year and under in which the owner resides is to be exempt on the ground that it is unearned, why is not the increment which attaches to a house of over £40 a year in which the owner resides also unearned? Is it to be said that any increment in value in the case of a man who lives in a house of £35 a year is earned and that the increment in the case of a man who lives in a house of a higher value is not earned? The contrary is the case. It is more likely that any increment in value of a house of over £40 a year would arise from the action of the resident owner and the amenities increased by him. I should like to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in saying that they only intend to tax unearned increment, the grounds upon which he distinguishes the increment attaching to a house of under £40 as being earned and the increment attaching to a house of above £40 as being unearned. There can be no logical reason for any such differentiation. I do not wish to impute impure or political motives, but there is a natural bias in parties. I do not say that my party any more than other parties is free from that bias, but I can see a reason in political bias for extending an exemption to a class of supporters who may be presumed to reside in houses of less value than £40 a year, and for penalising those who reside in houses of a higher denomination, and who may, perhaps, be supporters of another party. I may mention the case of a builder who takes, we will say, a plot of 20 acres, intending ultimately to build upon it. He builds a house and resides in it. He builds perhaps on four acres a certain number of houses, and his capital, energy, labour, and pains increase the value of the land. He proposes to take in hand the building on another five acres a few years afterwards. That is treated under this Bill as unearned increment, whereas, I maintain, the owner, by residing in one house and by building other houses, has earned the increased value of the next five acres by his capital, brains, energy, and attention. Therefore the principle which

    349
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer so earnestly repeated for the hundredth time last night, that increment is only to be charged on that which is unearned, has already been abolished. It does not apply to this Clause.
    Mr. ARTHUR FELLseconded the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Baronet really knows the history of this Clause, otherwise he would not have moved the Amendment. The Clause was introduced after some considerable pressure brought to bear upon the Government from both sides of the House in favour of the exemption of the small owner and the owner of the small dwelling house. It was adopted without any opposition. If you exempt both the small and the great owner, then who is left to be taxed?
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: This applies only to resident owners.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, but the small resident owner; that is the point. It is introduced entirely in order to meet that case, and now the hon. Baronet wants me to extend the exemption not merely to small working-class dwellings but to property in Park-lane or anywhere else. That is not the object of this Clause. It is entirely outside the object of the Clause, and it would be absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. COX: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will not take this opportunity of justifying the Clause, because I cannot imagine a more grossly unfair exemption than that made. This is a Clause to protect small people. Supposing a working man is doing well enough to go on living in his own house which he has bought, then he is exempt from the tax, but, supposing he is unfortunate, loses his work, and has to live in a smaller house and take in lodgers, then he will become liable.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEdissented.
    Mr. COX: Certainly, because he is no longer resident.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Surely my hon. Friend does not imagine the occupier pays the tax. It is paid by the owner.
    Mr. COX: But he still remains the owner. Surely it is possible for a working man to leave his house and to let it to someone else. That constantly happens, and, just because a man has been un-
    350
    fortunate, he is to be subject to this tax. And this is an exemption put forward to assist small men!
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The logic of the hon. Gentleman has enabled him to point to a most serious defect in this Clause. I suppose all of us would be glad to see more working men owning their houses. At any time work may fail them, and they may have to remove. Thereupon, they may, or may not, be able to dispose of their houses, and they may, or may not, wish to do so. They may wish to keep their houses, hoping to go back to them later. If they cease to reside in their houses in order to follow their work, they at once, no matter how poor they may be, become subject to the tax. That, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, has nothing to do with this Amendment, because that blot would still remain, even if the Amendment were carried. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think that that dispenses with the necessity of his making any reply. He may have to make a reply elsewhere if he does not make it here. I do not suppose my hon. Friend (Sir Henry Kimber) anticipated that the Government would accept this Amendment. It would make the Clause a little better and more logical, but, as the Clause meets the great bulk and the Amendment is intended to benefit the smaller number, the Government do not attach any importance to it. The Clause, as it stands, is a perfectly illogical clause throughout. It is perfectly illogical in its exemptions. These exemptions are only given because there are so many voters who will be affected. That is the method on which the Government have proceeded in regard to this Clause, and, indeed, to many others. A Parliamentary situation is created, and, thereupon, the Government hastens to see how it can still tax the few while finding some provision which will let out the more numerous class of voters. Reason, justice, and logic have nothing whatever to do with the case. It is a Parliamentary and electoral situation which is the sole anxiety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that if this tax is right there is no logical ground for this exemption. But still we have the Clause, my hon. Friend seeks to improve it, and, if he carries his Amendment to a Division, I shall vote with him.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERmoved, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "and the average total value of the land does not exceed £75 per acre."
    I suppose this Amendment will meet the same kind of objection. The Sub-section provides that the "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged on the increment value of any agricultural land where, immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected, the land was, and had been for twelve months previously, occupied and cultivated by the owner thereof, and the total amount of that land, together with any other land belonging to the same owner, does not exceed fifty acres." So far I am agreed with the Subsection, but the remainder limits the benefit to cases where the total value of the land does not exceed £75 per acre. I am at a loss to understand why, if the principle is good for the exemption of land at all, it should be limited to land of the value of only £75 per acre. Why should it not extend to land valued at £76 or even £100? I extend my Amendment also to striking out the proviso which follows: "That the exemption under this provision shall not apply to any land occupied, together with a dwelling-house, the annual value of which, as adopted for Income Tax under Schedule A, exceeds £30." I had put down these Amendments to be moved separately, but for some good reason I suppose at the Table, they have been put together as one Amendment. I am quite willing that they shall be so dealt with for the sake of brevity. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain why this limitation of the exemption is fixed at land valued at £75 per acre?
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This raises exactly the same point as the last Amendment. It merely applies to small holders of land instead of to householders. I do not want to go into the question whether or not it is logical or right. There are scores of examples in our legislation where we have made exemptions of this kind—exemptions which act against the symmetry of the Bill, but which are, nevertheless, in the interests of poor men.
    Mr. COX: I regret that the hon. Member has not taken advantage of this opportunity to explain the principle underlying this Clause. He says the object is to exempt small men. Surely a man who owns is better off than a man who rents
    352
    the land. It has been suggested that the tax is paid by the owner, but that argument cannot be put forward by the Government, because in another part of the Bill they have exempted golf links and sporting lands from the tax when occupied for those purposes, although the owner pays the tax. They thereby imply that though the tax falls on the owner, it may react on the occupier. Is it not the same in the case of agricultural land? I suppose the real answer is that there are a good many small owners in Ireland.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved to add at the end of Sub-section (2): "(3) Where a dwelling-house is valued for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A together with other land, and it is necessary for the purpose of this Section to determine the annual value of the dwelling-house, the total annual value shall be divided between the dwelling-house and the other land in such manner as the Commissioners may determine."
    In Sub-section (2) it is provided that the exemption under this provision shall not apply to any land occupied together with a dwelling-house the annual value of which, as adopted for Income Tax under Schedule A, exceeds thirty pounds. Hence it becomes necessary to ascertain exactly the value of the house, and we therefore empower the Commissioners to value it apart from the other land. Of course, there will be a full right of appeal.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (6), to leave out the words, "any land valued together with the house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty," and to insert instead thereof the words, "offices, courts, and yards, and gardens not exceeding one acre in extent, occupied together with the dwelling-house."
    As the Inhabited House Duty does not apply to Ireland, we, instead of making the definition by reference, propose to incorporate here the words of the Act itself.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Special Provision for Increment Value Duty in the Case of Land Used for Games and Recreation.)
    Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land which is held by any body corporate or unincorporate, without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof, bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which as originally made could not be determined for a period of at least five years or under other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used, without prejudice, however, to the collection of the duty on any other occasion.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILmoved, after the words "collected on," to insert the words "death or." I desire later to move to leave out the words "held by any body corporate or unincorporate without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof" and to insert instead thereof the word "used."
    The effect of these Amendments will be that the Clause will read as follows: "Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on death or any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land which is used bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation," etc. The object of this Amendment is to put the individual, as regards Increment Value Duty on football and cricket grounds in the same position as the Government propose to put any body, corporate or unincorporate. I represent a football constituency, and therefore have a special interest in this question. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should wish to make any difference between the individual and a body corporate or unincorporate. After all, the playing of football and cricket is a public purpose, and if the Government propose that a company without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof, should be exempt from Increment Value Duty when it supplies a football or cricket ground, I cannot understand why an individual who equally helps a public purpose by supplying such a ground should not also be exempt in a similar way from paying Increment Value Duty. I cannot help commenting in this relation on the
    354
    extremely limited nature of the exceptions which the Government are here making. If it is a good thing to make an exception at all in favour of football or cricket, for which there is a good deal to be said, I do not think they ought to curtail it and cut it down in this excessively careful fashion. If a body, corporate or unincorporate, is to be given this exemption, certainly the individual ought also to have it. I very, much regret that to a great extent what the Government appear to be giving on the one hand in favour of the playing of these and similar games they are taking away with the other hand. I do not at all follow the justice or reason of making an exception as regards bodies, corporate or unincorporate, and refusing to make an exception in favour of the individual who serves an equally useful public purpose. I earnestly ask the Government to put such an individual in the same position as the bodies corporate or unincorporate are put in this Clause.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSseconded the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This is an Amendment which was very fully debated in Committee, and which goes far beyond the appeal which was made to us in the name of the sporting clubs of this country, with whom I am in negotiation on this matter of exemption. They never asked, and they do not ask, in the case of an individual that at the time of his death his successors should be exempted from Increment Duty because the land happens to be used for the time being for games. What they did ask for was that where there were corporations, especially corporations for the purpose of promoting recreation, passing from the one end of the scale to the other, from such an institution as the Marylebone Cricket Club to the London Playing Fields—that where those existed they should be exempted from the ordinary corporation tax until the land is sold. I am asked why there is this distinction between the individual and the corporation. The corporation never dies, and corporations, for the most part, connected with games are holding land for the purpose of continuing games, and, indeed, we were told that there are in Scotland some corporations who hold land under trust deeds, and this land must be used for games so long as anyone wants it for that purpose, so great is the devotion to the sport in Scotland. I would point out that there are Amendments on the Paper which exempt the individual from the Undeveloped Land Duty

    355
    entirely if he can fulfil these conditions, either that he makes a lease of more than five years in duration or that he satisfies the Commissioners that the land will continue to be so used for games. As far as the individual is concerned, however, I would point out that there is no security that the son will carry out the desires of his father in connection with games, and that land, if we give this exemption, may escape Increment Duty altogether for a very large number of years. I think that we should not go any further than we have in meeting the demand which is made.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I really cannot follow the hon. Gentleman. No doubt the special representatives who waited on him had in their minds such cases as the Marylebone Cricket Club and similar great institutions, and I am very glad that the Government see their way to do something to meet them, but my interest is greater in the hundreds and thousands of little cricket and football clubs throughout the country. You may inflict a great hardship on a body like the Marylebone Cricket Club by your taxation, but I do not think you would prevent their having their ground or playing cricket and having the kind of matches which some of us are accustomed to see. But you may do a great injury, and you are doing a great injury under your Bill as it stands, to thousands of little football and cricket clubs, not merely in our villages, but in the neighbourhood of our great towns, and who have to play upon land which will be subject to your taxation. It is not all required for building now, but undoubtedly you put upon the owner of the land the strongest possible temptation, and, indeed, you say it is his duty to give notice to these clubs at the earliest moment that he is going to build over his land as soon as possible.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: You are referring to the Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This applies equally to the Increment Duty, but what I am referring to is that the Government say it would be unjust to impose the Undeveloped Land Duty but it is not unjust to impose the Increment Duty. Surely the two things stand together. They ought to exempt them from both or from neither. The Government defend their Bill in sections. They say here, "We will not and it would be absurd to do so," and they pass to another Clause and they say
    356
    there, "We will and it would be absurd not to," but they give no reasons for the distinction which they draw, and I say it is imposisble to find a reason for the distinction in this case. You cannot find a reason for refusing to do here what you do in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty or for refusing to do for the private individual what you are doing for these corporations and companies. Why on earth the individual is to be less favourably treated than great corporations the hon. Member has not attempted to explain. I think it is impossible to justify it, and I do urge the Government, for the sake of all these playing fields, which it is difficult enough to get now, which it becomes increasingly difficult to get in the neighbourhood of our great towns, and which are so important to the youth of those towns, to the healthy life and the physique of the population, and I may say to the good conduct of the towns—I do urge the Government to reconsider their determination.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman began his speech under the impression that land devoted to games and other forms of recreation would be subject in all cases to the Undeveloped Land Duty?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think that was the case till an interruption was made, but I accept his assurance, of course.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That would be inexcusable if I had done so, because we had just been specifically reminded that that was not so.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Now the right hon. Gentleman has chosen a much less defensible line of attack, and says, why, if in the case of undeveloped land you exempt it from the tax even in the case of individual persons, have you not done it in the case of the Increment Duty? What we have done in the case of the Increment Duty is that we have really provided that which is a bonus, if not a bonus a benefit, in the case of land which is given up to games. He speaks as if we had put some disadvantage upon owners of land in respect to so much of their land which they have devoted to games, but Increment Duty is only chargeable in the case of sales. Increment Duty is charged when you part with the land or on death, but if it is held by a body corporate it is subject to a payment of an equivalent of the Increment Duty on

    357
    periodical occasions. It is pointed out to us that you may have a company devoting land to games and yet be required to pay periodical duties, and we exempt it from that periodical duty; but, of course, that does not extend to the occasion when they are selling. It is very desirable in the interest of sport, I may point out, that you should charge Increment Value Duty when the land comes to be sold. I say we have done sport extremely well in this case. First, in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty, which would fall upon the owners and would be a burden upon them, we have relieved those corporations when the land is being used for games. Then in regard to the Increment Duty, it would be a detriment or a disadvantage to the clubs which used the ground if the corporate body were compelled to pay this periodical duty. What reason is there for carrying it any further, and for exempting at death any more than we have exempted it. It would be absurd to make an exemption from this particular form of Death Duty in favour of sport or anything else.
    Mr. W. PEEL: Really after listening to the Attorney-General I do not feel any wiser as to the reasons in regard to this exemption. The larger portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was directed to an Amendment which did not exist, and it is only in the last part of his speech that he dealt with an Amendment which did exist. When I listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary who opposed this first I thought the best answer to his speech was made in an ejaculatory interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said there was no exemption now to those corporations where the land was sold, and it passed away from the purpose for which it was used. The whole purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that they should not exempt it in the case of death, because they did not know what the successors or heir would do with it, and that is an exact answer to that argument, because if it passes away from that purpose the exemption no long applies, and in that case what possible ground can be left for making this distinction between individuals and bodies corporate? I think it is absurd to give the exemption to the Marylebone Cricket Club, and not give it to the ordinary clubs, and if the Attorney-General thinks this Amendment goes a little too far he might, I suggest, introduce
    358
    another Amendment in another place which might effectually deal with it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I only wish to say one word about the Attorney-General's speech, and, speaking very respectfully, I really do not think he realised what the Amendment was he was dealing with. It only deals with death; therefore the whole part of his speech which dealt with the question of sale was quite beside the point. The only question is whether it is desirable or not desirable to exempt recreation land from the Increment Duty. That is the only point raised by this Amendment. Why do you exempt recreation land at all? Because you want to get recreation land, and you are afraid that your tax will induce corporations to say that they will turn their land into money. Is that not precisely the same effect produced by your Increment Death Duty? A man has land near a town, and from the motive of charitable feeling or some enlightened self-interest, he devotes a certain portion of it to a recreation ground. If his heir has got to pay 20 per cent. on that land the immediate consequence will be that he will sell the land, and he will say, "I do not see why, instead of keeping this land free and foregoing any rent, I should not turn it into money, and relieve myself from the payment of 20 per cent. Increment Duty." Evidently the result will be that there will be fewer recreation grounds. I understand the view, though I do not agree with it, that these recreation grounds are not entitled to special exemption. That is not the view of the Bill. Then the Attorney-General said if we make no exemption of this kind in the case of Increment Death Duties we ought to make it in the case of ordinary Death Duty. You do not make it in the case of ordinary duty under the Death Duties Act. Here you do in the case of land held by corporations, and you do not in the case of land held by a private individual. I thought it was common ground that the Corporation Duty was for corporations the same as the Death Duty for individuals. I thought the period of 15 years was specially selected with a view to conform to the ordinary duration of a life. It is ridiculous to say if a man takes the trouble to register a company under the Companies Act, and to transfer the recreation ground to the company so registered there shall be no duty, while if he keeps it in his own hands and it descends to his son then there shall be 20 per cent. duty on the increment value.

    359
    The thing appears absolutely ridiculous, and I cannot understand why the Government have not accepted the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 196.

    Division No. 815.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

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

    Foster, P. S.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Renwick, George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, J.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Gretton, John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hodge, John

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Keswick, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Oddy, John James

    Fell, Arthur

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Burdett-Coutts and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Forster, Henry William

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    NOES.

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

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kelley, George D.

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

    Elibank, Master of

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Allen, A Acland (Christchurch)

    Erskine, David C.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Astbury, John Meir

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Falconer, J.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lupton, Arnold

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barker, Sir John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Maclean, Donald

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Ginnell, L.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bell, Richard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Black, Arthur W.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Brace, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Brigg, John

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Bright, J. A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Morse, L. L.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Napier, T. B.

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

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

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cameron, Robert

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Cleland, J. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rees, J. D.

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

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cox, Harold

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robinson, S.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Sears, J. E.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Seely, Colonel

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Shackleton, David James

    Tomkinson, James

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Toulmin, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Walters, John Tudor

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

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Question, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSmoved to leave out the word "is" ["if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used"], and to insert instead thereof the words "has been."
    8.0 P.M.
    The whole of this Clause deals with a matter which would appear from the present condition of the House to be one of minor interest, but which, in my opinion, is one of the most important matters dealt with in this Bill. It cannot be denied, speaking generally, with regard to the subject-matter of this Clause, that as regards land used for games and recreation by the youth and the young manhood of the poorer classes of London, the land taxation proposals in this Bill will greatly curtail their enjoyment of such grounds. I consider that that is a very serious result of the Bill. If it is true that the provisions of the Bill will have that result, I have further to say that the exemption embodied in this Clause will be of little or no use to these classes. My Amendments have for their object to get rid of the condition attached to the exemption of a five years' agreement, and I move these Amendments on behalf of the enormously large unorganised class of poorer clubs, which have nothing to do with Lord's Cricket Ground, which are not provided with grounds by the Playing Fields Association, and which, I believe, were unable to send any representatives to the Under-Secretary to make their case known to him. In my opinion it was incumbent upon those who framed this proposal to frame it with some knowledge of the conditions of the life of the young working classes in London, and my claim is that this Clause is drawn in complete ignorance of the conditions under which they live and the conditions under which they gain their recreation. To attach this condition of a five years' agreement to the exemption is really to nullify its use to these poorer clubs. With whom is such an agreement for five years to be made? Of course, there are plenty of old-established cricket and football clubs in existence
    362
    which might be supposed to have sufficient corporate existence and authority to make an agreement with, but for the most part those clubs which sent their representatives to the Under-Secretary are well provided for. Anyone who wants really to help those who have the most urgent need for help must look to the small clubs which are formed from year to year, which have little organisation, which have no constituted authority with whom to deal, and no certainty of a five years' life, but which, none the less, do represent a very large, continuous element and proportion of the poorer youth of the population of London. All these will be excluded from the enjoyment of ground, the user of which is dependent upon the exemption in this Clause with that condition of a five years' agreement attached, if you insist upon a five years' agreement, you make it impossible for the owner or the body who holds the ground to exercise just that discrimination which, if rightly used, will enable him to give opportunities to the most necessitous cases. That follows almost logically from what I previously said about these clubs not having a continuous or prolonged existence which would enable them to make agreements. I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Masterman) that that is a class which includes an enormous number of the poor of London, whose case has not been represented to him, or, if their case has been represented to him, he has deliberately left out any extension of the exemption to their urgent requirements. I beg to move my first Amendment. I will read the Clause as it would stand after this and the other Amendments have been made, "bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land has been so used for a period of at least five years, or that it is probable that the land will continue to be so used," and so on.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member had a perfect right to plead the case of the particular class of people whom he has been dealing with in his speech, but he has no right to say that they were not fully recognised by me. I have for ten years of my life been engaged in connection with these clubs. He has no right to say that we have not considered the representation which was specially made to us as to the condition of these clubs in the neighbourhood of big cities. The provision which finally resulted with regard to these clubs was made specifically and directly, not in favour of the rich clubs which could look after themselves, but in favour of the particular class of clubs which the hon. Member has described, and whose circumstances necessitate some such exemption. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the Clause. The whole question is important, not only on account of its bearing in regard to the Increment Value Duty, but also in regard to the duty on undeveloped land. We do not say that the land which is to be exempted is to be under lease for a period of five years, or even under lease which at the commencement was for a period of five years. We offer two alternatives. The first is that there is exemption if a lease exists of which one, two, or three years are still to run at the time Increment Value Duty is collected. We recognise that the great majority of these clubs have nothing to do with a lease of that sort. They change from year to year, and very often the owner of the land is compelled to change them from year to year, and therefore we have put in the words "or under other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." That has nothing to do with five years at all. The Commissioners have only to be satisfied that this land will bonâ fide be used for games or other recreation. If they are satisfied, the land will be exempted from the Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: How do the Commissioners propose to satisfy themselves that the land will be used by the clubs I have referred to if there is no agreement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not see that that is helped by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is a difficult point. I believe that in an overwhelming majority of cases it will not be hard
    364
    to satisfy the Commissioners on the point. The Commissioners will give the clubs the benefit of a favourable decision on the point when that is possible. No one can suggest any better form of words than those in the Bill. The clubs change from year to year, and the land is gradually increasing in building value. The only possible way of dealing with this matter is to leave the Commissioners to be satisfied by the landlord that it is his bonâ fide intention that the land will be so used. I cannot in the least see how the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman helps. It would be absurd to say that land that is rapidly developing as building land should be altogether exempted from Increment Value Duty because five years before Increment Value Duty has to be collected it had been used for the purpose of recreation.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: That is what the Clause says.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, that is not so. The fact that it has been used for recreation five years before might just give the exemption at the moment when, in 1914, the tax has to be paid, and, immediately after that, the Corporation might build on the land or render it unfit for being used for recreation purposes.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I point out this? The fact of an agreement existing and having, we will say, one year or six months to run, would exempt a body corporate from the duty. I say that would not apply to the vast number of clubs which could not enter into agreements.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is exactly cases of that kind this Clause will apply to. If the owner of the land will say that circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be used for such clubs, then we give the exemption. If any hon. Gentleman opposite can suggest better words to safeguard the interest of those clubs, I think we would be prepared to accept them, but we know of no other form of words which would better meet the case.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) say that the Amendment does not put these clubs in a better position. My hon. Friend suggests that any ground used for the purpose of games or recreation for a period of five years should be exempt from Increment Value Duty. In his reply the hon. Gentleman also dealt with the case of the duty on undeveloped land. We are discussing the two duties together, for the

    365
    same difficulty arises in both cases. I could give instance after instance to which my hon. Friend's Amendment would apply. A city company granted the other day ground which cost them £10,000 to a certain society for the purpose of being used for football grounds for the poorer classes. It was granted, not as freehold, but at 5s. a year rent. The society are tenants from year to year, and at any time the City company, without assigning any reason, can turn out the present occupants. Assuming that that land is laid out and used for five years for football grounds, this Clause, as it stands, would give no exemption at all, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend would give an exemption.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)indicated dissent.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I understand the First Lord of the Admiralty to suggest that that is not the case. He is no doubt going upon the words in the Clause—"other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." If the owner of the land some years hence intends to use it as building ground, the previous user of the land will be of no use. My hon. Friend proposes to say that where there is land honestly used for the recreation of the poorer classes for a period of five years, then that land shall be ipso facto free from Increment Land Duty, and also from Undeveloped Land Duty, until it ceases to be used in that way. It is because I think this matter, in its relation to the Undeveloped Land Duty, is important that I interpose for the purpose of pointing out that in many cases the Bill will hit those football clubs. When the Under-Secretary comes to look at this he will see that this Amendment of my hon. Friend will exempt a very much larger number of football grounds than are exempt at present.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I would ask the Under-Secretary whether this determination of the Commissioners as to probability is subject to appeal? From what I have read of Section 33, I take it that it is subject to appeal to referees, and I would like an express assurance on that point. The question here is rather difficult where it arises on the Undeveloped Land Tax. Under that tax any exemption will cost the Government a certain sum of money for the time that the exemption lasts. But under the Increment Duty it is only a postponement of the collection of the tax. Therefore, I
    366
    submit that there is no need for this reservation at all. If the land is sold by the corporation the whole of the Increment Duty will be collected on the occasion of sale. I understand the fear that the Government have in mind is that this user of the land for the purpose of games would be taken advantage of by the owners collusively, and that they would try to get rid of paying the tax. That may be true of Undeveloped Land Duty, but in the case of Increment Duty it is only a question of postponement. If they do put forward this plea elusively they will pay in the end. Because when they do sell they will have to pay, and therefore the only question is the date of the collection of the Increment Tax. It is not a recurrent but a cumulative tax, and the occasion, therefore, does not very much matter. Therefore, I cannot see that any exemption as to probability is needed. If they do sell and realise then they will have the tax so wide that there will be no necessity of putting in this very ambiguous Section about probability at all. If they realise they will have to pay, and if they do not realise and the ground is used for games, then so long as it is used for games they will not pay. Therefore, the fears of the Government are perfectly groundless, because any quasi fraudulent action will be defeated without any need of these words at all.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a pity to put in all these extraordinarily minute provisions and counter provisions which make it so impossible to anybody really to interpret what is meant. My hon. Friend behind me has pointed out that this exemption itself is so limited that these subsequent sub-counter limitations are really unnecessary. In itself the tax is cumulative, so that the tax is only deferred in any case. The duty which would be taken on a periodical occasion or on death is not lost to the State; it is only deferred. How many cases are covered by this? They do not touch the private individuals at all. All they exempt is property owned by a body corporate. The point is so small that I may ask what is the necessity for all these restrictions on a concession? Here you have a concession which only operates in favour of a few clubs which happen to own their own land, or of a company, but not in favour of a private individual. Why a company should be treated differently from a private individual I cannot understand, but under

    367
    this Clause a company conducting any business whatever, which happens to allow games to be played on its land, is going to be exempted in in respect of that land, but it is not going to be exempted when it sells the land. The exemption itself is so limited that there is no advantage to the Government in inserting this further provision as to the circumstances in which it is probable that the land will continue to be so used. If you simply say that no periodical duty will be charged when the land is being bonâ fide used, and has been used for the last five years or for some considerable period for that purpose, it will be sufficient. The complications in this Bill are so extensive as to be puzzling. Surely simplicity is worth something.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think the hon. Gentleman has chosen not a very happy occasion for complaining of the narrowness of the restrictions put into the Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is their complication.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Here you have both breadth and simplicity. I could scarcely imagine restrictions put in wider terms than those which prevail under this Clause—in fact, I might otherwise feel somewhat alarmed at the challenge of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) when he invited his hon. Friend to supply any words more effective for the purpose in view. No one who speaks in favour of these clubs would desire to substitute Law Courts for Commissioners. The right of appeal is given in the cases specified in Clause 33. At the end of the Clause there is an appeal against any determination of the Commissioners.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: We are only discussing the question of increment value, but this is again a question of agricultural land. At the end of Clause 17 are the words: "The opinion of the Commissioners a? to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final, and not subject to any appeal."
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think it is far better that the Commissioners should determine these matters in their own discretion. I only wish to draw attention to the meaning of the words, namely, that the Commissioners, if they think it probable that the land will continue to be used for the purpose of recreation, then they may apply the Subjection. The hon. and gallant
    368
    Gentleman says the Sub-section does not cover a great number of cases. That may be right enough, but it is a different point, so far as the case is covered by this Subsection. I say that certainly you could not have a restriction more generously expressed than we have it here, namely, that whenever the Commissioners think fit and proper, the land may be continued to be used for recreation purposes.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Provision as to Claims for Deductions.)
    A person shall not be entitled to claim any deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of any land on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes payable if the deduction is one which could have been, but was not, claimed for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land, or was one which could have been, but was not, claimed by that person or a predecessor in title of that person for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of the land on any previous occasion for the collection of Increment Value Duty in respect of the land.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved to leave out all the words from the word "land" ["ascertaining the original site value of the land"] to the end of the Clause.
    This is a very important extension of the exemption conferred by Clause 12. That Clause, hon. Gentlemen will remember, contains this provision: "A person shall not be entitled to claim any deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of any land on any occasion on which any Increment Value Duty becomes payable, if the direction is one which could have been, but was not, claimed for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land." As the Clause originally stood there followed the words—"or was one which could have been, but was not, claimed by that person or a predecessor in title of that person for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of the land on any previous occasion for the collection of Increment Value Duty in respect of the land." In other words, the Clause as it originally stood was not merely to ensure that all proper deductions should be claimed when the original site value was made, but there was a bar to any subsequent claim in respect of that land. It also barred claims which might have been put up by persons who had been in

    369
    possession of the land since the original site value was made, and those persons had omitted to claim the deductions which they might have claimed and which might have endured for the benefit of subsequent owners. We have struck out that limitation by omitting the words at the end of the Clause, "or was one which could have been but was not claimed by that person or a predecessor in title," etc.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Reversion Duty.)
    (1) On the determination of any lease of land there shall be charged, levied, and paid, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by reason of the determination of the lease a duty, called Reversion Duty, at the rate of one pound for every full ten pounds of that value.
    (2) For the purposes of this Section the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines, subject to the deduction of any part of the total value which is attributable to any works of a permanent character executed by the lessor and of all compensation payable by such lessor at the determination of the lease, exceeds the total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease, to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in consideration of the lease, but where the lessor is not the freeholder the value of the benefit as so ascertained shall be reduced in proportion to the amount by which the value of his interest is less than the value of the freehold.
    Lord ROBERT CECILmoved, after the word "land" ["On the determination of any lease of land"], to insert the words "granted after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine."
    I am quite conscious that the question raised by this Amendment was discussed on the Committee stage, but I should like to submit my point shortly. We have been constantly assured by the Government that one of the great principles of Increment Value Duty is that it does not attack any increment which had accrued before 30th April, 1909. But when you come to Reversion Duty, for some reason which has never really been explained to the House, that principle has been abandoned, and it is proposed to tax
    370
    the increment—for it is put forward as another form of increment—and it is to be taxed even though it has accrued before the date of the Act coming into operation. There are many arguments which have been used to defend the position of the Government as to Increment Duties, but they are much less strong than can be used with reference to the Reversion Duty, which arises in this way: A man makes an agreement with another who holds the land on a certain rent. On the expiry of the lease, if it turns out that the land might have been let at a higher rent than the rent at which it was let, then under the provisions of the Act the lessor is deemed to have obtained an increment value which is subject to the tax. The whole of that increment depends necessarily upon the agreement which he has made with the outgoing tenant, because it is quite clear that if he first let the land at a rack rent and not at a small rent, then on the termination of the lease no increment would accrue at all. He will get no advantage at all if he has let the land at the full value which it has. Obviously then he will not have anything much to-get, and he cannot get more out of the land than that which has already been given. It is only, therefore, in the case where, for some reason or another, he has not let the land at a rack rent that this increment arises at all. That being so, it is really a case in which the Government seek to obtain some money from an individual who is fettered by the contract into which he has entered. We have had many declarations from the Government that they disapprove of any legislation which breaks existing contracts. But this legislation clearly does that. Here is a man who, if he were allowed to start afresh, could easily so arrange his contract with his lessee that no Reversion Duty would accrue, no advantage would accrue, on the determination of the lease; but because in ignorance, necessary ignorance of the legislation that was intended, he made a particular contract, it may be 50 or 60 years ago, therefore he may be taxed. I do think that is a very unfair position in which to put anybody under all the circumstances. When we come to consider the nature of the facts, I think it is still more unfair than it would otherwise be, because this alleged increment is really a figment of the Government's imagination, or it may be a pure figment of the Government's imagination. There may be no increment whatever. It may be that instead of taking the whole period during the

    371
    tenancy of the lease, for reasons which are excellent to the owner of the land, he has deferred a certain portion of his profit until the end of the lease. He lets the land very much below its full rack-rent value, because he desires it to be developed by a builder; he does not wish to hamper the development by imposing a heavy rent. I daresay that is ultimately in his interest, but it would also be in the interest of those who desire to develop the land. Therefore he allows—it is the ordinary practice—the building lessee to take the land at considerably less than its true market value, because at the end of the time he is to receive back his land with the buildings thereupon, and is then to be able to let it at an increased rent. In other words, he defers, intentionally and deliberately, a certain portion of the profit which, as long as private property in land is recognised, he is entitled to get for the purpose of subsequently getting it at the end of the lease. It is only in those cases that this tax be comes operative at all. Why on earth it can be right to tax a man who does that, and to let off a man who insists on the full rent for every year for which the tenancy is current, has always passed my comprehension.
    I have never been able to understand how this particular tax could be defended. You may have cases, cases which exist in the development of big building estates, where a certain number of plots are let at a full rental. The remainder of the plots are let at very much less than the rental, not necessarily at a nominal rent, but at quite a small rent, and certain covenants are taken in respect of both portions. At the end of the term created those plots which have been let at their full value will not have to bear—or, rather, the owner, in respect of those plots, will not have to bear—a penny of taxes, because there will be no increase in the value of the land according to the machinery set up by the Government. But in those cases where he has let at less than the real value, for excellent reasons, on the very same estate at the same time and under precisely the same conditions, under the scheme of the Bill he will have to pay this tax. He will not be allowed as an alternative to put an end to his agreement, and make a fresh agreement which would enable him to make an agreement by which he would not he liable to the tax at all. I think the unfairness becomes patent when you observe how the Bill will operate hence-
    372
    forth or the moment it becomes law. Henceforward no one will make an agreement which will bring him within this tax. The land, instead of being let on long leases, will be let for 21 years, and in that case no Reversion Duty will be payable at all. If for some reason it becomes necessary to let on long lease, every landlord will take care that the utmost rent that can be exacted will be exacted, so that when the lease comes to an end no Reversion Duty will be payable. That is the operation of the Bill.
    My own belief is that nothing in the world the Government could have selected to do will have a more unfortunate effect, particularly in the urban districts. Everybody knows, I have heard of it in my capacity as representing an urban district, that one of the great grievances is precisely that when a tenant puts in money, builds up a business in a relatively short time, that at the end of the term he is liable to be turned out, and the land let over his head. I have always thought myself it was a very hard case, an exceptionally hard case, and one which I quite agree there is difficulty in devising machinery to meet, but if it could be possibly dealt with I think it is a case which deserves the attention of Parliament. But this Bill will make the thing far worse. The interest of landlords will now be to let their property on as short leases as possible, and this will give them far more opportunity and far more temptation to exert their rights harshly and severely at the end of the lease. I myself bitterly regret this particular proposal of the Government. I do not think it is going to be a great hardship on the landlord. It is not going to be very important, from a monetary point of view. I have not the exact figure before me, but I think the Chancellor estimated it as £300,000. He certainly does not expect, and he cannot expect, any increase from this particular tax. On the contrary, as the years go on, this tax must decrease very rapidly. It is going to do a great deal of harm to the tenant in urban districts, and it is going to be a most unfortunate tax from every point of view. I think if it is to be sanctioned at all the House ought to take care that it is not retrospective, and that it should only be imposed on leases which come into being after the date of the passing of this Act. For that reason I propose to insert those words.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I rise to second the Amendment. This is a tax in respect of a contract, as the Clause stands, made years ago. In the majority

    373
    of cases where anything substantial is to come from it, it would be a tax made on contracts entered into about 70 years ago. It appears to me that the tax itself proceeds upon a false assumption. My hon. and learned Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) has pointed out what it is, and I would put that false assumption in this way. The real consideration for the lease, to start with, included in cases where there is a sum of money paid, that sum as part of the consideration. The second part of the consideration, and the main part, was the rent payable under the lease year by year, and the third part was the right to the reversion with, we will say, the buildings upon it. In cases where those buildings are to be erected the tax would be a very considerable sum, but where this tax is going to fall with the greatest possible hardship on the taxpayer is in respect of those lands where building land was leased years ago, and where during the next period of years, while this tax is in operation, this lease runs out. I take the view that the consideration originally consisted of the three parts I have mentioned, and that the right to receive the land back, together with those improvements upon it in accordance with the covenant, was just as much part of the original consideration as any other part of that consideration. If I am right in that, adding up all those elements in the consideration in order to make the original consideration to start with as compared with what the value to-day would make, would result in a comparatively small tax.
    Everyone knows what is in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this tax. It is this, that there are a large number of landlords, especially in what are now urban districts, who have made these leases upon comparatively small rentals years ago, and which now, owing to the increase of the cities owing to the increased value, all property generally in those localities have attained a very considerable value, and it is a piece of that value that has been growing during the last 70 or 80 years, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now wants, and not, as in the case of the other taxes, a piece of the value that is going to accrue from this time forward. Therefore, unless this Amendment be adopted, the effect of the proposal will be to put a tax upon the subject-matter of contracts made years ago. My Noble and learned Friend (Lord R. Cecil) said that the increased value to-day would be part of the profit. I would prefer to say that
    374
    it is really part of the original consideration, and not necessarily profit at all. It may have been part of the original price which the man was entitled to get when the contract was originally made, without there being any element of profit in it whatever. Some of us do not think much of the leasehold system. I am one of those who consider the system of building leases to be a bad one, that it has been on the whole a curse to large portions of the country, and that it ought to be put an end to. But that would be the subject of an Enfranchisement Bill, and that is not the question before the House at present at all. Whatever may have been the reasons which originally caused that system to become so general in large portions of the country, those reasons no longer exist to the same extent. That, however, is not the point. If the leasehold system is a bad one, why do not the Government bring in a Bill to put an end to it? But they say that under the circumstances which have arisen landlords are coming in for money which they ought not to get. The argument used on the platform is practically that it is an immoral thing for this, that, or the other duke or landowner to be declining to-day to renew leases and coming in for immense values which he has personally done nothing to create. If you apply that to the existing state of affairs, the argument will be that this is a wrong system, which ought to be put an end to. "No," say the Government, "not at all. We so far approve of the system that we want a share of the plunder for ourselves." The Amendment simply proposes that the tax should be imposed in respect of leases made after the date of the Act. That would put this tax on the same footing as the other taxes in the Bill, and if people enter into these contracts then they will enter into them with their eyes open, knowing that one-tenth of the profit, if there is any, on paper or otherwise, at the end of the lease will fall in to the State. I look upon this tax as probably the most immediately remunerative of the Land Taxes, but possibly the one which will turn out to be worth little or nothing later on, because of the certain destruction of the leasehold system to which some Government will find it necessary to put an end. Upon these grounds I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This question was debated in the Committee stage. I do not know that even the Noble Lord has added anything fresh to the considerations

    375
    then urged in favour of the Amendment, and I am perfectly certain that I cannot add anything fresh in reply. The effect of the Amendment is that we should provide revenue for 80 years hence. I have been criticised because by these Land Taxes I am not providing much revenue this year, that my revenue will come next year; but the Noble Lord wishes to improve upon that. His idea is to provide revenue, not for this year or next year, but for 80 years hence. That is quite a, new idea of a Budget. A tax which will come into operation 80 years hence is of very little use to meet the immediate necessities of the hour. But the Noble Lord is not sure that it will produce anything 80 years hence. On the contrary, he rather suggested that one of his reasons for confining it to leases made after 30th April this year is to enable the parties "to make arrangements." That, of course, means arrangements to prevent the Reversion Duty from having any operation at all. Therefore, the Noble Lord's idea of a Budget is to put in words which will not provide anything this year, next year, or even 10, 20, or 50 years hence, but which may enable arrangements to be made so that at the end of 80 years the proposal will be perfectly illusory. That is a very grotesque notion of what a Budget ought to contain. The hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) takes exactly the same view of the leasehold system as I do, namely, that it is a thoroughly vicious system. I thought, when he came to express his own views, his speech was in favour of the Bill as it stands. He says, first of all, that this Reversion Duty is going to be the most immediately remunerative of all the taxes. But that is a very strong argument in its favour, because, after all, the first object of a Budget is to raise money. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman defended the Reversion Duty in its present form by suggesting that it will be a great success. His second argument is that the leasehold system is a very bad system, and that one effect of this tax will be to put an end to it. Therefore, he has advanced two conclusive arguments from my point of view in favour of the duty as it stands.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: He did not say so.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer for
    376
    himself. My experience of him is that he is quite capable of doing so; and he is not only capable of doing so, but always very ready to do so. What is meant by making complete arrangements is that the landlord will find it profitable to continue a system of this kind. I believe that, on the whole, the tax will produce a revenue for the next 60 or 70 years. In addition to that I think the effect will be a real deterrent upon the extension of this system of leasehold, which is a thoroughly bad one. The noble lord referred to builders.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I said nothing about builders.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I put down what the Noble Lord said.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I said the interest of the tenant.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I am using the words in the sense of the interest of the lessee. There is a certain class of persons who are forced to become lessees in order to secure land at all for building purposes. Their interest undoubtedly is to put an end to the system, because what does it mean? A man who builds a house upon a lease has considerable difficulty in raising money upon it. The Noble Lord cannot possibly deny that. He would not get anything like the same proportion as if the property were freehold. Mortgagees, too, are very shy of advancing money, because year by year the security is depreciating apart from the depreciation of the building. From the point of view of the lessee there could not be a worse system. In conclusion, let me say that it is suggested that the reversion is part of the consideration.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that though nominally that is so, it is not really so. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were prepared to say that in the vast majority of cases landlords are taking lower ground rents, then I think there would be something in it. But they are not. You simply have the landlord, who undoubtedly exacts the best ground rent he can without any regard to the fact that at the end of 60 or 70 years the property comes back to him.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman surely recognises that there are numberless cases of building schemes

    377
    where the rent is so low as to be practically nominal, and the only reason is that the reversion at the end is going to restore the property.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I deal with that case, which I have admitted, and have an Amendment on the Paper in connection with it. That is absolutely a bonâ fide case. There are cases—I heard of one in London the other day—where the rental of the leases was limited—something like a few shillings. The real consideration there was undoubtedly the reversion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is in all the other cases.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have an Amendment down to meet that case, but if the Noble Lord will take the majority of cases he will see that, after all, the landlord exacts a rack-rent. All the Noble Lord has got to do is simply to get the proper rents which are charged in similar circumstances in Scotland, where the lease is a perpetual one, with the charges made with the same class of land and the same class of town in England. He will find the rents in Scotland compare quite favourably with the rents in this country.
    A contract between individuals is no reason why the State should not tax. There are two cases. One is the case put by the hon. and learned Gentleman where there is an actual increase in the value. I referred to it before. When that lease was granted, the landlord got a rent of between £300 and £400. At the time the lease expired the land was worth more, and the landlord gets a rent of over £4,000 and a premium which runs into thousands. Surely that is a case where there is increment? There we will exact 10 per cent. There are other cases where you have no increment. The landlord gets the house which is really no part of the actual consideration. When the country is in need of money, when it has got to tax some property—to tax means in some shape or other—I cannot conceive any position more fair than to impose that taxation upon that property that accrues so easily to the landlord under those conditions.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has hardly endeavoured to give any justification for his objection to this Amendment. I can see no justification whatever for interference in this way in the bargain which has been made willingly by individuals by the lessor of the
    378
    ground so that it will come back to him at a future date. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the idea of the Budget, and says the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in need of cash. There are other ways of gaining money than by taking advantage of a contract which has been made willingly by two individuals; than that the State should step in and take a portion of the money which under no circumstances is due to it. With regard to the leasehold system, I have no doubt there are in it a great many defects. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that it embraces an arrangement which has been made for some years past, and will fall in some years to come. By far the great majority of leases in this country, the right hon. Gentleman knows, have been let for absolutely a nominal sum on the understanding that at the end of the 99 years the property would came back to the owner. It is quite understandable, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but as regards the principle it does not matter whether the rents are nominal or nearly nominal. The principle that seems to pervade the whole of this Bill is that it brings in a certain measure of money and puts some form of custom to an end. The leasehold system is a very old system, and to endeavour to step in between the contracting parties in order to raise a certain amount of money for the State is one of the most unjustifiable methods the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have resorted to. We know perfectly well the Government and the Treasury are in need of money, but to step in in this interfering manner in regard to an old custom and to endeavour to obtain 10 per cent. for the Government of money which really and honestly belongs to the individuals is, to say the least of it, a very unjustifiable course of policy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attempt to pursue. These leases are the result of a bargain made which has been agreeable to all parties concerned. Why is the right hon. Gentleman going to penalise one of the parties to the bargain? It is no answer for the State to say that a certain amount of benefit is going to accrue to one of the parties. That is no answer to their taking away 10 per cent. of it. I see no justification for such a course, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have endeavoured to justify his position. He has not done so, and I suppose he has not done so because there is no possibility of his doing so.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must say the Chancellor has not made a very good defence for this tax. His only defence is that it will bring money into the Exchequer, but that surely is not a sufficient defence. He has got to prove that the tax is a just and reasonable one, as well as proving that it will bring money into the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to show that this tax is just, but I think if he only looks at the exemptions that he himself is inserting he will see that it is not just. There are two principal exemptions in regard to this tax. One is that which has already been mentioned, namely, the one where the consideration is nominal. Where the consideration is nominal full allowance is to be given for the value of the contract to the builder. How are you going to draw the line between them and where the consideration is nearly nominal, as it commonly is? A large proportion of the large houses in London are built upon a 99 years' building lease. The original ground rent was about £5 a year, and upon these were built houses of very considerable value. The way this works out is this. A builder like Mr. Cubitt took a lease of an area of land. He built several houses under that lease. The consideration in most cases was about £5 per house, and the houses now are of a rateable value of from £700 to £800. On what possible principle of equity can you say that where the consideration was purely nominal, or was of peppercorn value, allowance is to be made for the contract to build, but where the consideration was £5 no allowance whatever was to be made? Take the case of two owners with 80 years to go. These two owners have made a contract to let a piece of land for building houses of equal value. One has exacted the peppercorn rent, the other has exacted a £5 ground rent on the contract to build. What is the relative position of these two men when the land falls in and they become liable to the tax? One of the owners will have to pay upon the difference between the capitalised £5 and the full value of the rent at the termination of the lease. The £5 capitalised is the only deduction he will be allowed to make. You multiply that £5 by 20 or 25 years, and you get £125 as the capital value, fixed by this Bill, of the land at the commencement of the lease. But now there is a house which is worth £800.
    That means an enormous tax upon that particular individual. Every owner who has let his land at a peppercorn rent is going to be allowed the whole cost of the
    380
    house, and his tax will be small. On what ground do you put a tax upon A on property let under exactly similar conditions to that of B, while you let B practically off with nothing. It is not sufficient to say that you are going to get money from it, and that it is going to be fruitful. Why call it a tax at all in these circumstances? Why should not the Chancellor say "A, C, and X are persons who can afford to pay me something. B, D, and Y are not, and I do not mean to send any demand note to them. But I will send to A, C, and X a demand to pay me £1,000." Why go through the form of calling it a reversion? It simply amounts to nothing less than that at the will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the moment a certain number of persons are sent a demand note exacting a large penal tax from them, while other persons in exactly similar positions are let off scot free. I say the exemptions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making affords an absolute and real condemnation of the whole principle of the tax.
    Then there is the other exemption which equally to my mind condemns the tax, and that is where the lease has been purchased at any time prior to 30th April last, and where there is less than 40 years to run at the time the lease was purchased, you give absolute exemption. What possible justification is there for that? These exemptions condemn the principle of the tax and show that you cannot apply it to anything approaching the area it attempts to cover. It means a few unfortunate individuals are to be arbitrarily selected and mulcted while the bulk of the property which you profess to tax gets off scot free. Upon whom is this tax really going to fall? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the answer yesterday when he said that when leases fall in, when a capital sum was required, the leaseholder would get it by exacting a premium. That is exactly what will happen. Every hon. Member knows that in an ordinary case in London ground landlords do not exact the full measure of the rack rental value. There is a margin. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] Well, that is not my experience. I know a case where since this Bill was introduced a lessee of a property in London renewing his lease had arranged provisional terms with the landowner, and the demand was made from him of an additional sum to carry this duty, and he had no choice but to pay it. Where a full rack rental value is exacted it is clear the burden cannot be put upon anybody else. Where the owner

    381
    is making an arrangement with his tenant to renew, and that tenant is much interested in renewing, and where the extreme full rack rental value is not exacted, it is a common case that this tax will simply be added on to the premiums which will have to be paid by the lessee, and this will aggravate the lessee's position and increase the burden placed upon him. Personally I dislike the leasehold system, and I think it is better to feu right out or to sell. I entirely agree with that method, and in any transactions with which I have been concerned I have always followed that principle. The leasehold system sounds pleasant at the beginning, but I think it ought to be a feu. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that where a man has so little money that he is obliged to borrow to build his house he will borrow to a greater advantage on a freehold than on a leasehold. What a man likes to have is an annual payment with a perpetual feu, because that is a great advantage. It is a very curious thing, but you will find in particular towns and districts they have their own system to which people are accustomed, and which they like to follow. You will find districts where nobody will look at anything but a freehold and where the leasehold is an exception. You will also find other districts where it is the custom to feu or to lease, and they do not
    like to depart from that system. The lawyers who negotiate the building leases and the bargains understand the system and are used to it, and things work smoothly if it is a perpetual feu.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that is a different matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: At any rate, the machinery is the same. If this proposal would not permit any injustice, and had the effect of creating future feus instead of terminable leases, it would be a very good thing, but I do not think it will have that effect at all. I honestly believe that the two exceptions to which I have referred are a real proof in themselves of the impractical, unjust, and arbitrary character of this tax, and, although I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires money, I think this tax is so bad in its principle that, great as the need is for money, he would be far wiser to leave this tax out altogether and take his money in the form of increment value. I think the proposals we are considering are very injurious, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 177.

    Division No. 816.]

    AYES.

    [9.20 p.m.

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

    Gordon, J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gretton, John

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Oddy, John James

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Doughty, Sir George

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Younger, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Fell, Arthur

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Gardner, Ernest

    Renwick, George

    NOES.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Brace, William

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Brigg, John

    Cleland, J. W.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bright, J. A.

    Clough, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

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

    Barker, Sir John

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Beale, W. P.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Beauchamp, E.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Bell, Richard

    Byles, William Pollard

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

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Keating, M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kelley, George D.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Robinson, S.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Falconer, J.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Maclean, Donald

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Sears, J. E.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Shackleton, David James

    Gibson, J. P.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Glendinning, R. G.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Morse, L. L.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Napier, T. B.

    Toulmin, George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Vivian, Henry

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hodge, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Radford, G. H.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Jardine. Sir J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Jenkins, J.

    Rees, J. D.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Drafting Amendment made.
    Mr. FELLmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:—
    "But no Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a lease where the owner of the reversion demises the premises included in the lease on the same terms and conditions as are contained in the lease which has determined and without receiving any fine or any other consideration for such demise."
    This is an Amendment to simplify and, I hope, to save expense in the working of this tax. The case it is intended to cover is that where a new lease is in identical terms with the old lease, and where there is no premium or any consideration of any kind. If an Amendment like this is not inserted, the value of the premises at the time of the granting of the old lease will have to be ascertained, and also the value of the premises when the new lease is granted, because, although the terms of the two leases are the same, there may be a difference of some kind if you capitalise the rent, owing to changes in the
    384
    value of money. The Amendment would not entail any great sacrifice, and it would simplify matters so much that I think if it were accepted it would be of very great advantage.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERseconded the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not know what sort of case the hon. Gentleman has got in his mind. There may be a case where the rent is so heavy that there is no accession of interest to the reversioner at the end of the lease, and the lease is renewed on the same terms; but I must say I have never heard of such a case, and of a landlord renewing a lease at a rent which was only referable to the site, and not to the buildings. That is a kind of case I have never heard of, and it seems to me quite inconceivable. There may be philanthropic landlords of that kind, but I must say they have not come my way.
    Mr. FELL: The second renewal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A second renewal of a lease would be a case where the landlord charged rent referable not merely to site, but to buildings as well. When it fell in there would be no value except increment value. There could, in a case of that kind, be no Reversion Duty. The only case where there can be Reversion Duty is one where the rent charged is in respect of the site, and where, when the lease falls in, the reversioner gets not only the site, but also the buildings. If these words were introduced, it would lead to complication instead of simplifying matters. There might be a suggestion that the reversion Duty would be applicable to cases where it is not applicable. I should, therefore, have thought there was no necessity for these words.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I speak with great diffidence on this matter, but surely the words of the Clause would apply to the case where the land and the houses on it formed the subject of the lease. When the lease fell in, the landlord, I submit, would be taxed on the whole benefit he might get, even supposing he did not choose to avail himself of that benefit. I am taking the case of land and houses upon it which are the subject of a lease. The lease falls in, and the owner has the power of renewing at an increased rent. Being an affable man, and having some consideration for his tenant, he determines not to avail himself of that benefit. I am taking the same terms as before. He would be taxed, not on the benefit he gets, but on the benefit he might get. In that case surely there would be a strong inducement to extort a rack rent, because whether it was exacted or not the landlord would be taxed on the benefit that might accrue to him. If he chooses to forego it he gets no advantage. He will have to pay just the same. That seems to me to be the construction of these words. Can the Attorney-General justify them or explain them in any other manner? Do they not, as they stand, offer a distinct inducement to the landlord at the termination of the lease to extract the uttermost rent, because, whether he does so or not, he will be taxed upon it?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have in mind a not uncommon case—one in which there have been poor buildings under the original lease which are not worth maintaining. When the lease falls in the owner will not renew it to the same individual, but he is willing to relet it to some other person at
    386
    the same ground rent, although the value is much higher, on condition that a better class of building is placed upon it.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Such a case as that is not covered by the words of this Amendment. Undoubtedly, in that case, there would be a very substantial consideration to the landlord, for the new tenant might be called upon to spend £10,000 in putting up a better class of building. That would be a very valuable consideration, so far as the landlord is concerned. But that case is not one covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Sub-section (2), after the word "value" ["by which the total value"], to insert the words, "as defined for the purpose of the general provisions of this Part of this Act relating to valuation."
    In the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "of a permanent character" ["executed by the lessor"].—[Sir W. Robson.]
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved, in the same Sub-section, after the word "executed" ["executed by the lessor"], to insert the words "or expenditure of a capital nature incurred" ["by the lessor"].
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: I should like to ask whether these words cover a case of this nature. I own a house which is let on a yearly tenancy at £200 a year. My tenant asks for a lease and wants me to carry out improvements at an expenditure of £500. He offers to pay an increased rent of £220 if I spend the £500, or to himself carry out the improvements at his own expense on my foregoing a certain portion of the rent. I accept the latter alternative, and agree to accept a reduced rent of £175 a year. At the end of the lease the house is returned to me, and its rental value is £220, the extra £20 being the added value in consequence of the outlay of £500. Now the money has really been spent by me, because I stood out of a certain portion of the rent for a number of years. In calculating the Reversion Duty I imagine the original rent will be put at £175 and the reversion rent at £220, apparently an annual increase of £45. But that increase will be nominal. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had in mind a case of this nature, and I should be glad to know the view of the Government in regard to it.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am not quite sure I exactly comprehend the full scope of the case put by my hon. Friend, but, so far as I can gather, I believe it is covered by the words of the Section, which are intended to define the value at the beginning of the lease and that at the end of the lease, and, having compared those two values, assess the duty on the difference between them. It would not be fair, of course, to tax the lessor on any value due to his own expenditure during the currency of the lease. A deduction will be allowed at the time when the tax comes to be assessed in respect of any part of the total value attributable to work executed or to expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the lessor.
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: May I point out that a subsequent Amendment specifically provides that it shall only apply to cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved?
    Sir W. ROBSON: That is a different point.
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: Not altogether, because the case I put forward is not one of nominal rent. I think it might be possible, reading the two Amendments together, to define the Section as applying only to cases where a nominal rent has been reserved.
    Sir W. ROBSON: These words relate to a deduction which is to be made when the tax comes to be imposed. The words introduced with regard to the nominal rent refer to the valuation of the land at the time the lease was made. That is a provision relating to a totally different state of things. If my hon. Friend has improved the value of his hereditament during the currency of the lease, by expenditure of his own, he is in that case entitled to a reduction, when the tax comes to be assessed, in respect of that expenditure.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think the case is covered by these words, which deal with capital expenditure incurred by a lessor. The case put by the hon. Member for the Eddisbury Division (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) is one in which the lessee incurred the capital expenditure and the lessor, in consequence of that expenditure, was content to accept a lower rent. He, in fact, made an allowance in the rent. In that case the capital expenditure was really incurred by the lessor. Although the Attorney-General may be very confident about it, I must say I think the case put by
    388
    my hon. Friend, where the expenditure has been made by the lessee, although the burden ultimately falls on the lessor, by reason of a diminution of the rent, is not covered by these words. I think other words are necessary in order to meet this.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The case put is really a case of expenditure by the landlord. He is invited by the tenant to incur expenditure on the premises, but, instead of doing so, he agrees to allow the tenant to incur the outlay, and accepts a lower rent. I think in that case the expenditure is really incurred by the lessor, and, therefore, the point is covered by these words.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not want to intervene in any way between what may be called the domestic difficulty which has arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and one of his supporters behind him, but the point which has been raised is one which comes before us every day where a house is let for some years, and instead of laying out a considerable sum of money on that house the landlord says to the tenant, "I will take considerably less rent if you put it in good repair. I will allow you a year or a year and a half rent." It is frequently done, and although that capital expenditure is really paid out of the pocket of the tenant, it is in fact and in equity a sum of money which the landlord has lost personally, and therefore it ought to be considered as the expenditure of the landlord or lessor. The Government promised to take the point into consideration, and the case is not governed at all by the words which are now proposed to be inserted. I, therefore, think this point is a very important one, and it is not covered by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir W. ROBSON: It is better than the old wording. It is only a drafting Amendment, and I do not intend to extend the scope.
    Amendment made.
    Drafting Amendment made.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved, after the word "lease" ["payments made in consideration of the lease"], to insert the words "(including, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, the value of any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings or to expend any sums upon the property)."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the words "in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved."

    389
    I will not repeat the arguments which have already been advanced on this point on proposals which are almost on all fours with the present, but suffice it to say that the Amendment means that the value of any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings clearly ought to be taken into account. If it has any value, then it ought to be taken into account, but the Government put down this Amendment in a shape in which they apply the relief only to cases in which a nominal rent only has been reserved. The application of the Amendment really is that in assessing this Reversion Duty, and making the owner of the property pay 10 per cent. of the value that comes to him at the end of the lease, it is provided that there is to be a deduction in finding out the one value and the other, and for the purpose of making the subtraction, in order to arrive at the value, there is to be taken into account the full value of the building covenant. In all cases where land is leased under a building covenant that building covenant is part of the price and the consideration, and if it has got any value why should it not be so computed and taken into account? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, will only take it into account in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, and will not take it into account in cases in which more than a nominal amount has been reserved. But what is a nominal rent in regard to one property is a very substantial rent in regard to another. We have been taught that a nominal rent is a peppercorn or a shilling, and does this mean a sum of money which is not to be collected at all, or what sum does it mean? Has anybody ever looked at a building lease in their lives without coming to the conclusion that every part of what the lessee has to do under the lease is part of the consideration or price? Of course it is. If there are costs to pay that is part of the price. If there is a line on renewal, that is part of the price and also the rent, and you have to capitalise the rent under this Bill to find out what part of the price is. But I contend, without fear of the statement being criticised by any surveyor or anyone who knows anything about real estate at all, that a building covenant is a part of the consideration for the lease. It is part of the price. Under these circumstances, why does the Government say it is only part of the price when there is a nominal rent? When there is a nominal rent it is practically the whole price, but it is just as much a part of the price, how-
    390
    ever big the rent may be. Why should not that be taken into account as well as any other part of the price that is included in the document? For that reason I move to leave out these restraining words in cases where there is a nominal rent only, because they have an effect tantamount to stating that a building lease is not part of the price in cases where there is more than a nominal rent. That statement is absolutely unfounded in fact, and it is unjust and unfair to repeat it in an Amendment of this kind.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTseconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We had a discussion on this subject, and I have nothing to add to what I said then. As a matter of fact, although a covenant to build is part of the nominal consideration, it really is only a nominal consideration. There are cases where the rent which is exacted is as a rule a rack rent—the largest rent that the landlord can exact. As a rule it is 10 or 15 times the agricultural value of the land. There is a covenant to build in each of these cases. It is not a real part of the consideration, but it is always inserted in the lease, and if these words are left out there will hardly be any revenue at all. It will only be 10 per cent. Increment Duty instead of 10 per cent. Reversion Duty, and for that reason I could not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the condemnation of his own tax. It destroys the whole basis on which the tax rests. There is no windfall here after the Chancellor's declaration. There is no unexpected advantage. What he is taxing is something that the man covenanted for, which was part of the bargain, and the Chancellor says unless he is allowed to tax that he will get no revenue whatever. I am quite content to leave the tax as explained by the Chancellor. For my part I shall vote against it for the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without adding another word to the Debate.
    Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: The speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered ten minutes ago rather contradicts what he has just now said. The covenant to erect buildings is a merely nominal consideration. We were previously discussing the case of where the lease is renewed on the same terms as regards rent, but with a covenant to erect buildings worth

    391
    £20,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that is a very valuable consideration. Of course the rent reserved for a 999 years' lease is greater than in the case of a 99 years' lease. The only reason for that is that there is a value attaching to the buildings which are to be erected. I cannot see the justification for ignoring that value, and I feel obliged to support the Amendment and to vote against the Government.
    10.0 P.M.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am amazed at the attitude of the Government to the Amendment. It is incredible that anyone could make the kind of speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. The Amendment says that where a nominal rent is reserved, certain deductions ought to be made in respect of covenants entered into at the beginning of the lease. He says that ought to be done where the nominal rent has been reserved. Why on earth should not it be done when any other than the nominal rent is reserved? What conceivable argument can there be? He says these covenants are of no value at all. Then why make the allowance for them when the nominal rent is reserved. What is the sense of it? There really is no sense. I really cannot understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can defend the Amendment as it stands. He has not defended it. We are not now asking as to whether there ought to be an allowance in respect of these covenants at all, but whether, granted that there ought to be an allowance when a nominal rent has
    been reserved, there ought not to be also an allowance when other than a nominal rent is reserved. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite wrong when he says these covenants are not worth anything, and that the landlord exacts the same rent, whether the covenants are put in or not. As a matter of fact, if the landlord desires to insert an onerous building covenant, he gets less rent. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously maintain that a landowner would go to a builder and say, "I propose to put upon you a very onerous covenant, and to ask you £100 ground rent, and I also propose an alternative form of lease in which there will be no onerous covenant, but I should not think of asking you more than £100 rent in spite of that fact." They would have him shut up as a lunatic immediately. The thing appears grotesque. It is true that if he has a very long lease all the covenants at the beginning of the lease are of comparatively little value in money at the end of the lease, and if the lease is long enough they will be of no value at all. That is the ordinary doctrine of present value and the discount of money. But they have some value, and this Reversion Duty refers not only to leases of 80 or 50 years, but to all leases over 21 years, and to say that an onerous covenant, even if accompanied by a substantial rent, is of no value in a lease of 22 years really is asking the House of Commons to believe something which is on the face of it incredible.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 64.

    Division No. 817.]

    AYES.

    [10.5 p.m.

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

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Astbury, John Meir

    Byles, William Pollard

    Falconer, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cameron, Robert

    Fenwick, Charles

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Barker, Sir John

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Clough, William

    Gibson, J. P.

    Beale, W. P.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Glover, Thomas

    Bell, Richard

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Gulland, John W.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

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

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Brace, William

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brigg, John

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Harvey, A. G. C. Rochdale)

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

    Erskine, David C.

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Essex, R. W.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Shackleton, David James

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Myer, Horatio

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hodge, John

    Napier, T. B.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nussey, Sir Wallans

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tomkinson, James

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Toulmin, George

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Verney, F. W.

    Jenkins, J.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Vivian, Henry

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Walters, John Tudor

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Keating, M.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Kelley, George D.

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

    Waterlow, D. S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Radford, G. H.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rees, J. D.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Lynch, H. B.

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

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Robinson, S.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

    NOES.

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Renwick, George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gretton, John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Sit Samuel Scott.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Forster, Henry William

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Foster, P. S.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment made: After the word "lease," to insert the words "(including, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, the value of any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings or to expend any sums upon the property.)"
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    394
    "and where at any time during the continuance of the lease a lessee has had an option of purchasing the lessor's interest the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall not be deemed to be greater than the amount by which the purchase money fixed under the option exceeds the value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease."
    I do not know whether the Government have considered this since the Committee stage, but it really is a most reasonable

    395
    Amendment. It is not at all an uncommon case for the lessee to prefer taking the lease himself where he has the option. It is quite common for the lessee to have the option of acquiring the freehold at the determination of the lease on certain terms, and it would be only reasonable that where the freehold is not so acquired these terms, on which it could have been acquired, shall be the subject of comparison. There can be no reason for penalising the lessor for a matter for which the lessee is responsible. Where the lessor insists upon taking the freehold, and refuses to give the lessee the option of acquiring it, the grounds upon which this tax is advocated may have some bearing, tout where he has given such option and it has not been exercised they have no bearing on it at all. This Amendment is so reasonable that I cannot think the Government will refuse it.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I can scarcely accept the hon. Gentleman's statement of the grounds on which this tax is advocated. I think that those grounds are now quite well appreciated by the House and by the country. Where the lessor derives some considerable and substantial benefit on the determination of the lease not due to any expenditure by him during the currency of the lease, that benefit seems to be a fit subject of contribution towards the needs of the State. That is, broadly speaking, the ground on which this tax is based. It has no relation whatever to the proposal made now. The hon. Gentleman says that where the lessor has given the lessee the option of purchase the measure of benefit to the lessor is not to be taken, as it is in this Bill, as the difference between the value at the time of the granting of the lease and the value at the expiration of the lease, but that a different measure should be adopted, namely, the difference between the value at the time of the granting of the lease and the amount of the purchase money fixed by the option. That is a matter that is totally irrelevant. The fact that he has chosen to give an option to purchase and that the lessee has chosen not to exercise it does not in any way affect the basis on which this tax is to be assessed. The two matters are totally incomparable, and there is no reason at all why the option should make any difference in the method of assessment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Exemptions from Reversion Duty and Allowances.)
    (1) Where, in the case of a reversion purchased before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the lease on which the reversion is expectant deter mines (otherwise than by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, not contained in the lease itself) within forty years of the date of the purchase, no Reversion Duty shall be charged under this Part of this Act on the determination of the lease.
    (2) No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of the lease of any land which is at the time of the determination agricultural land, nor on the determination of a lease, the original term of which did not exceed twenty-one years, nor shall Reversion Duty be charged where the interest of the lessor expectant on the determination of a lease is a leasehold in terest which does not exceed that number of years.
    (3) Where a lease of any land is determined before the expiration of the term of the lease by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, and a fresh lease of the land is then granted to the same lessee or his successor in title, the terms of which extends at least twenty-one years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired, the Commissioners shall make an allowance in respect of the Reversion Duty payable of two and a half per cent. of the duty for every year of the original term of the lease which is unexpired when the lease is determined, and any sum so allowed shall be treated as having been paid:
    Provided that the allowance shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the whole duty payable.
    (4) Where on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any increment value it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that Reversion Duty has been paid in respect of any benefit accruing to a lessor, or part of such a benefit, which is identical with the increment value, such sums as the Commissioners determine to have been paid in respect of the benefit or part of the benefit shall be treated as being also a payment on account of Increment Value Duty; and where on any occasion on which Reversion Duty is due in respect of any benefit accruing to a lessor, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that Increment Value Duty has been paid on any increment value which is identical

    397
    with that benefit or any part of that benefit, such sums as the Commissioners determine to have been paid in respect of that value shall be treated as being also a payment on account of the Reversion Duty in respect of that benefit or part of a benefit.
    (5) Where a reversion has been mortgaged before the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, and the mortgagee has foreclosed before the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines, the mortgagee shall not be liable to pay Reversion Duty except so far as the benefit accruing to him by reason of the determination of the lease exceeds the amount payable under the mortgage.
    Drafting Amendments made.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved, at end of Subsection (1), to insert the words "Provided that this exemption shall not apply where the lease is determined within forty years by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, whether express or implied, not contained in the lease itself, unless the lease would, apart from any such agreement, have determined within that period."
    Clause 14 provides that "Where in the case of a reversion purchased before the 30th April, 1909, the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines (otherwise than by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, not contained in the lease itself), within forty years of the date of the purchase, no reversion shall be charged under this Part of this Act on the determination of the lease." That, of course, is that an agreement is not to be allowed to defeat the purpose of the Clause. It occurred to somebody in Committee—and I think it was a very fair objection—that supposing the lease had been made before 30th April, 1909, and would in the ordinary course determine within 40 years from the date of the purchase of the reversion, in such a case as that the benefit of the exemption ought not to be lost.
    Drafting Amendments made.
    Sir W. ROBSONmoved, after the word "duty," to leave out the words "except so far as the benefit accruing to him by reason of," and to insert instead thereof the words "in excess of the amount by which the total value of the land at the time of."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I really do not think that the meaning of this is quite clear.
    Sir W. ROBSON: It is a mere change of phraseology, making the phraseology to be used correspond with that adopted in a subsequent Amendment. There is no difference whatever in substance.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Duty on Site Value of Undeveloped Land.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the site value of undeveloped land a duty, called Undeveloped Land Duty, at the rate of one halfpenny for every twenty shillings of that site value.
    (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon or by being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture:
    Provided that—

    (a) Where any land having been so developed reverts to the condition of undeveloped land within the meaning of this Section, and so remains for one year, it shall be treated as undeveloped land for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed; and

    (b) Where the owner of any land shows that he or his predecessors in title have spent sums at the rate of at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land on roads (including paving, curbing, metalling, and other works in connection with roads) or sewers, that land shall, for the purposes of this Section, not be treated as undeveloped land although it is not for the time being built upon or used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, but for the purposes of this provision no sums shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent.

    (3) For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty, the site value of undeveloped land shall be taken to be the value adopted as the original site value or,

    399
    where the site value has been ascertained under any subsequent periodical valuation of undeveloped land for the time being in force, the site value as so ascertained:
    Provided that where Increment Value Duty has been paid in respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land, the site value of that land shall, for the purposes of the assessment and collection of Undeveloped Land Duty, be reduced by a sum equal to five times the amount paid as Increment Value Duty.
    (4) For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty undeveloped land does not include the minerals.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "year" ["and paid for every financial year"], to insert the words "after the completion of the valuation of all the land of the United Kingdom as hereinafter provided."
    This would make the Clause read: "Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year, after the completion of the valuation of all the land of the United Kingdom, as hereinafter provided." At the present moment the Undeveloped Land Duty comes into force on 30th April, 1000, and it must be obvious to the Committee that a great many difficulties will present themselves. The whole of this portion of the Finance Bill depends on the valuation of the land, and the Government have admitted at last that the valuation of the land of this country is not such a simple and easy matter as they intended us to believe it was when this Finance Bill was introduced. It is obvious that at the present moment any duty which is to be charged on undeveloped land must be charged on a purely hypothetical basis. The valuation will certainly take more than two years. I should not be in order if I were to raise the question of the valuation, but I think I am entitled to say that when this valuation has taken place, and we do not know on what lines it will take place, that we shall receive a great deal of enlightenment as to the amount of undeveloped land. It is obvious if all the land is valued, the value will be of a far lesser degree than if the undeveloped land were valued by itself. If Undeveloped Land Duty is charged on land beginning from 30th April, 1909, there will be nothing but a hypothetical value, and consequently a tax may be charged which will not be lawful, and which may have to be refunded or to
    400
    be increased. I have no doubt we shall hear from the representative of the Government that it is a question of revenue. I do not believe that the Government looks forward to obtaining a very large revenue from this tax, and I do not think that the country and the Government will lose very much if they insert the words which I have proposed.
    Earl of RONALDSHAYseconded the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I rather gather from the tone of the Noble Lord in moving his Amendment that he does not regard it as one the Government would seriously accept. The Prime Minister, in explaining the valuation system some few weeks ago, explained that the estimate was that the valuation of all the land in the United Kingdom would not be completed until perhaps between three and four years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon-Members cheer that as if it were a fresh announcement made in the House of Commons; but it has been made again and again, and it is inscribed in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Therefore the effect of the Amendment would be that we would be budgetting from between three and a half and four years from this date in order to collect the tax on undeveloped land. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you are."] That is exactly what we are not doing. We are budgetting for a tax this year, and we have got estimates for the tax which will be got this year, and we made special arrangements in Clause 19 whereby arrears due on this year shall be paid in another year. I can assure the Noble Lord that the undeveloped land of the United Kingdom will be the first of the land of the United Kingdom which is valued when the valuation commences, and certainly the valuation of all the undeveloped land of the United Kingdom will take nothing like three and a half or four years. The Noble Lord suggests that we have no belief in obtaining any substantial revenue from the Undeveloped Land Tax, and that therefore we may as well accept his Amendment—that is to say, we might as well cut the Undeveloped Land Tax out of the Bill. That is not an Amendment we are likely to accept on the Report stage. As a matter of fact, we assume, and have very good reason for assuming that we shall get a substantial and increasing revenue from this particular tax.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to show some cause against the Amendment, but he has offered no justification for the course adopted by the Government. Just consider what that course is: The Government by this Clause propose that all the undeveloped land of the Kingdom shall be taxed. But they are absolutely unable to say what land is undeveloped or what is to be the amount of the tax until perhaps three years hence. It may be more than three years, but by a concession given in Committee, if they cannot make up their minds within three years what is the tax due this year they will lose their right to collect it. But for three years the subject may be left with this uncertain
    liability hanging over him, and he will be prevented from carrying out any transaction in the land which the Government profess to wish to see developed, because he will not know subject to what burdens he will be selling, and what obligations he should, therefore, impose upon the buyer. A more preposterous proposal for a Government to make to a business assembly it is impossible to conceive, and the only reason the proposal is tolerated here is that this House of Commons has so little of the quality of a business assembly.
    Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 183.

    Division No. 818.]

    AYES.

    [10.35 p.m.

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

    Gordon, J.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peet

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

    Renwick, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Keswick, William

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

    Cox, Harold

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Starkey, John R.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Foster, P. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    NOES.

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Glover, Thomas

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Clough, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Astbury, John Meir

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gulland, John W.

    Barker, Sir John

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

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Beale, W. P.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Bell, Richard

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Duckworth, Sir James

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Haslam, James, (Derbyshire)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Brace, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Brigg, John

    Elibank, Master of

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Bright, J. A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Brodie, H. C.

    Essex, R. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Falconer, J.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Hodge, John

    Byles, William Pollard

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Gibson, J. P.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Napier, T. B.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Nuttall, Harry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendall

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Keating, M.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Kelley, George D.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Tomkinson, James

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Toulmin, George

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Vivian, Henry

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

    Walsh, Stephen

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Rees, J. D.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Maclean, Donald

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Macpherson, J. T.

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

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robinson, S.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, M. S.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morse, L. L.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Seely, Colonel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.

    Myer, Horatio

    Shackleton, David James

    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, In Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["in respect of the site value of undeveloped land"], to insert the words "capable of being let with a covenant to build thereon immediately."
    The duty we are considering now is the Undeveloped Land Duty of a halfpenny per 20s. of the site value, or, in other words, it is about 5 per cent. of the capital, so that what is sought to be taken is 5 per cent. of the capital amount of the value of the undeveloped land of the country. Land which is worth less than £50 per acre and agricultural land except in so far as it is worth more than £50 per acre are exempt. If this tax is, as we are told it is, a tax to induce people to develop their undeveloped land, then as a matter of fairness it will be admitted by everyone it ought to be to induce people to develop land which is capable of being developed. It is evident it would be unfair to ask a man to pay this tax upon land unless that land was capable in fact of being developed. A penalty tax upon the owner of property because his land is undeveloped is fairly admissible if the land is capable of being developed. If it is not capable of being developed, then the penalty should not be inflicted, because it is not the man's fault. This is an Amendment which is capable of being understood by the simplest mind, and I will, therefore, content myself by simply mov-
    404
    ing the insertion of words to make it clear that the Undeveloped Land Tax shall be restricted to land which is undeveloped and which is "capable of being let with a covenant to build thereon immediately."
    Mr. STANIERseconded the Amendment.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. and learned Member asserted that this was an Amendment capable of being understood not merely by the Parliamentary mind but by the simple mind. I think this is about as unbusinesslike an Amendment as I have ever seen. Undeveloped land means land which is not being put to its best use, and where the value of it has not been adequately developed. The proper way is to devote land to the purposes for which it-would bring the greatest price and the most money. We are dealing, ex hypothesi, with land which is capable of being put to a better use than it is at present being used for, but the hon. and learned Member says that will not do at all.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I say it would do, but that is not what you say in the Bill.
    Sir W. ROBSON: That is what the word "undeveloped" conveys even to the simplest mind. This Amendment does not strike me as either businesslike or intelligible, and I do not think it com-

    405
    mends itself to the simplest mind. It is difficult to put a precise definition upon the word "undeveloped," and that difficulty applies to other words in the English language. I have noticed in many of the legislative efforts of this House quite a passion for definitions. I think, however, that you may very well carry that passion too far. You are obliged to use the English language in the ordinary and popular sense in your Acts of Parliament, and even then you have often to hedge it round with qualifications which to the very simple mind appear to be nothing but verbiage, but which are found to be something different when they come to be construed by those who have to administer the law. The word "undeveloped," like other general terms in the English language, is easy of explanation, but not very easy of definition; and who among business men would deny that, in construing them, it had better be left to practical men like the Commissioners, checked as they will be by the Court of Appeal. That is far better than taking some phrase like "a lease without a rental." That is the kind of phrase which is infinitely less businesslike, infinitely less precise, and infinitely less intelligible than the plain words we have used and which will be acted upon by the business men, checked by lawyers.
    Colonel WALKER: I would like to give a concrete case in reply to what the Attorney-General has said. In the centre of Widnes, opposite the town hall, there is a large space of land unoccupied. It has been unoccupied for many years, and has borne no rent to the people who own it. They have no chance of developing it. There are 700 empty houses in the town; the shops are not doing a good trade, and they do not want to build any more. There is no communication to this land by canal, railway, or river, and there is, therefore, nothing to bring manufacturers there. The owner cannot use it for any purpose whatsoever. How would you apply the argument just given in opposition to this Amendment to that concrete case?
    Mr. COX: The Attorney-General has gust told the House that these words are absolutely unintelligible. He and his allies have constantly in this House and up and down the country quoted in support of their propositions the minority Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on Local Taxation. I have that report in my hands. Lord Balfour says, "This tax should be confined to land which is intended to be
    406
    let, or could be let, with a covenant for immediate building."
    Sir W. ROBSON: Covenant to build what? What kind of building would satisfy this Amendment—a dog kennel?
    Mr. COX: Roth-taxes refer to uncovered land. Lord Balfour's Report referred to uncovered land, and the words of that Report are almost identical with the Amendment. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman opposite has used foolish words, so also has Lord Balfour, who has been so constantly quoted.
    Sir W. ROBSON: He was not drafting an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. COX: No, possibly he might have drafted it better than this Act. I regret my learned Friend did not deal a little more fully with the arguments used in support of the Amendment. The whole purpose of this tax, as I understand it, is to penalise individuals who do not use their land in a particular way. Why should individuals who hold up land be subject to a penal tax any more than individuals who hold up, let us say, draperies or groceries? [Interruption.] When a man buys land in the hope of profit, it is no more than a man who buys groceries in the hope of making a profit. It is a purely business transaction in each case, and, therefore, I insist on the analogy. We do not interfere with a man who buys a bale of cotton and holds it for a rise; why, then, should we interfere with a man who buys land for a rise? It is ah ordinary business transaction carried on by builders, and it is so far recognised as a legitimate transaction that the Inland Revenue officials—acting, I presume, in accordance with the law—make special provision for builders, whose business it is to buy land and hold it for a rise. It is treated by them as a legitimate business transaction. I have the particulars here of their course of procedure. A builder buys land and builds a house upon it. He sells the corpus of the property. The Inland Revenue authorities ask the price at which he bought the land and the cost of building, and the price at which he sells and the difference between the two is treated as profit. Do they tax that 20 per cent.? No, they do not even treat it as a separate transaction; they take into account all his transactions, those involving a loss as well as those bringing a profit; they strike a balance between the two, and that is taxed as earned income.

    407
    The Government now propose not only to tax the earned income, but while a man is unable to sell or develop his property he is to be subject to this penal tax. I say it is utterly indefensible. If there were any proof that a man was deliberately holding the land back there might be a case for penalising him. But here there is no case. My hon. Friend wishes to put in words which would require proof to be given of the opportunity to sell and refusal to sell. Does the Attorney-General really contend that you can make a market for land merely by putting a tax on it? If that is not his proposition then we are in this position: A man ex hypothesi cannot sell his land. What is going to happen? You are going to put a tax on him and then say, "Now sell it." But he cannot do it, because there is no market for it. Anyone with any knowledge of the building market knows that in every city and town there are hundreds and thousands of vacant houses. Where then is the justification for any man to put up new houses? Yet if he does not he is to be taxed. The Attorney-General just now said it was difficult to define undeveloped land. I believe we shall presently find that land developed to its uttermost, as market garden land will be subject to this tax, while land used as golf links will not be taxed. That is the method by which the Government propose to carry out the theory of their late Leader, that the land of England was to be the treasure house of the poor, and not the pleasure ground of the rich. Whatever may be said about this tax as a whole, it seems clear to me it is our bounden duty to protect the men who cannot sell their land from a tax which is intended to penalise those who can but will not sell it.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member who has just sat down has appreciated the depth of the faith which the Government have in regard to the virtues of taxation, and he realises that they seem to think in regard to land that you can tax it into cheapness, you can tax it into development, and you can tax it into demand. I do not wonder that it shocks the hon. Member who believed that the Government shared his somewhat antiquated economic notions, but he will see, and a wider circle will notice that the exponents of the old political economy are reduced to a very small number, and that the Government is as far from the wisdom of our
    408
    ancestors in that respect, and, I think, I might say further, than the most extreme of Tariff Reformers. I think the hon. Member also travelled rather far, much farther than this Amendment justified, and I do not propose at this stage to repeat the general objections to the taxes on land which fell from the hon. Member in that part of his discourse, although I heartily agree with him. But I must say a few words as to the speech of the Attorney-General. If I do so, may I preface them by a recollection of the extremely severe strain which is placed upon the hon. and learned Gentleman frequently during our Debates, and I am bound to say that I think his last performance was almost lukewarm, not from his inability to do very much better under far greater difficulties but from the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so driven and worked by the taskmasters who do not share his labours that he is as unable to do justice to himself as he is to the subject under discussion. Just consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. He said, in the first place, that the intention of this tax was to tax land which was not put to its best use. Has he asked himself for the purpose of this discussion or of enlightenment what the best use of this land is?
    For the purpose of this tax the best use of land must be the use by which you get the highest price—the use by which the owner can get the best advantage for himself, irrespective of the best advantage of the community, the amenities of the locality, or the convenience and comfort of those who live on the land. That is the best use, as defined by the Government, and henceforward if their Paradise comes to be realised, and under one of the ideals of the Under-Secretary of the Home Department—henceforward every owner of land is to be treated as criminal and penally taxed unless he puts his land to that purpose which will give him the greatest return. That is pretty good to start with; but then the Attorney-General goes on to say that we should be very unwise to attempt to define undeveloped land. Everybody, he says, knows what it means; it is capable of the easiest explanation, but he would indeed be an imprudent man who attempted to define it in a statute, much better leave it to the discretion of the eminent Commissioners to whom so much else is left, subject to an appeal to the court. Will the Attorney-General kindly look at Subsection (2) of the very Clause which we

    409
    are discussing? The next Sub-section which follows on the Paper is this:—
    "For the purpose of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by the erection of dwelling-houses——"
    Sub-section (2) is an attempt to give the definition which the Attorney-General says it would be so unwise to give. Did the Committee ever hear a Minister beg the House not to venture on the rash course of attempting to define in a statute the very-thing which the next Sub-section which the Government are going to propose does define? I really think the Attorney-General did not do himself justice. When we come to the definitions and exemptions I think we shall find that the task which the Government have undertaken is a rather difficult one, and that it is not so simple to say what undeveloped land is unless you accept the words, or the idea, propounded by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his colleagues in that Commission, and adopted by my hon. Friend in his Amendment, and say that undeveloped land is land which is capable of being let with a covenant to put these houses or buildings upon it at once. The real question which the Committee now has to decide is whether you are to tax as undeveloped land all that land exceeding £50 in value which has a building value, or whether you are to tax as undeveloped only such land as the owner could develop at the time you levy the tax if he wished to. We are not now discussing whether this is a good tax or not, but whether, granted that the tax is to be, you shall levy it only on the land which can be developed at the time at which you levy it, or whether you shall levy it on land which it is not in the power of the owner to develop at the time when you tax him for not developing it. On which side of that question justice lies I do not understand how there can be more than one opinion.
    Sir F. CHANNING: The Amendment expresses the purpose which I had in view in a later Amendment, and I rather prefer my own wording to this. The object I had in view in placing my own Amendment on the Paper was to express in definite terms the exact recommendation of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the Local Taxation Commission. The whole argument of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Report seems to me singularly conclusive to any fair-minded man who considers this question. It is that you should only place the new site rate upon uncovered land where that land is actually
    410
    ripe and the value immediately realisable. It seems to me that a great deal of scorn has been thrown needlessly on the Amendment, and the arguments which have been brought forward in order to justify it. The discussion has run a little wide of the point because of the constant use of the words "developed" and "undeveloped." The real point is—is it reasonable or unreasonable to impose the Undeveloped Duty upon a man's property when he cannot sell that property for the purpose of building. Are you to tax speculative and prospective values which are vague and indeterminate, or are you to impose your tax when the value is actually realisable and can be turned into pounds, shillings and pence for the actual purpose which you have in view? Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in his Report, goes on to say:—
    "This proposal has considerable advantages. It will avoid the injustice of taxing owners and occupiers of agricultural land upon a capital value which could not be realised in the form of animal interest"
    That sums up the whole thing. I would adduce this further argument which ought to have very great weight with hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. I went to Birmingham and heard the very remarkable speech of the Prime Minister with every word of which I heartily agree. He said in that speech:—
    "These taxes are very moderate in amount, levied on values actually realised or realisable on land which is not in any true sense of the term agricultural land."
    I think there is a substantial and arguable case for the Amendment.
    Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I was very sorry to hear the allusion made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I think the hon. Gentleman was elected as a supporter of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
    Mr. COX: I was elected to support Liberal principles.
    Sir JOHN BRUNNER: As long as the hon. Gentleman's declarations in support of Liberal principles please only the other side, I am entitled to hold my opinion on that point. If the hon. Gentleman had not been a supporter of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman he would not be here to-day. We have had an expression of pity from the hon. Member for Widnes (Colonel Walker) for the owners of a large extent of land in the county to which he referred. I have known that land as long as the hon. Member. For 40 years it has paid no rates and no taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] It is not developed yet.

    411
    It is time it was over. It may be that the owners of that land have lost their market. I have known the time when that land might have been sold for a very high price. It was because it was not offered in the market that the poor workmen around were crowded on land adjoining in cottages so miserable that they were condemned as unfit for human dwellings. I do not know whether the land referred to will be considered undeveloped land, and whether it will be subject to the tax. But do not let us have any crocodile tears over the owners of it; do not let us have an appeal to our pity for the men who have dealt with land with such results.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by an attack on a Member of his own side.
    Sir J. BRUNNER: Which side are you on?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member's interruption is exactly what I should have expected of him.
    Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I do not want your approval.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by an attack on the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox). All I can say is that the House of Commons, in my opinion, would be infinitely poorer by the absence of the hon. Member for Preston. Any hon. Members who do not realise that do not appreciate the true position which the House of Commons occupies. As for the rest of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, allow me to say this: He has made an attack on the owners of land for holding up land and not selling it. But that has nothing to do with this Amendment. The point of the Amendment is this: Is it fair to tax people who cannot sell? It may be true that the particular piece of land with which the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted, and which I do not know, was held up, and it may be right to prevent that, though I do not think it should be prevented by a tax; but this particular Amendment would not affect that particular land which ex hypothesi was land that could have been let. The question was whether it was fair to tax land which could not be let on the ground that it ought to be let.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 168.

    Division No. 819.]

    AYES.

    [11.20 p.m.

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Foster, P. S.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gordon, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Renwick, George

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Alston

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cox, Harold

    Keswick, William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Younger, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Fell, Arthur

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Stanler.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    NOES.

    Agnew, George William

    Barker, Sir John

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Beale, W. P.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Beauchamp, E.

    Brace, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Brigg, John

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Bright, J. A.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Rees, J. D.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hodge, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bytes, William Pollard

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robinson, S.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, M.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kelley, George D.

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

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Shackleton, David James

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    Maclean, Donald

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Essex, R. W.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Tomkinson, James

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Verney, F. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Falconer, J.

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

    Vivian, Henry

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Gibson, J. P.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Glover, Thomas

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morse, L. L.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Myer, Horatio

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Napier, T. B.

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    O'Grady, J.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

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

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Hedges, A. Paget

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Radford, G. H.

    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "being built upon or by being," and to insert instead thereof the words "the erection of dwelling-houses or of buildings for the purposes of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture (but including glass-houses or greenhouses), or is not otherwise."
    This is an Amendment I promised to make on the Report stage, and I think it was in consequence of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Abel Smith).
    Mr. ABEL SMITH: I would like to ask whether this covers land which is in the same occupation as that on which the glass-houses stand, and which is used in connection with the business? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, perhaps, aware that this is a very important industry in the district which I have the honour to
    414
    represent. A considerable portion of the land, though it has not actually glass-houses standing on it, is in the same occupation and is used in connection with the business. I think such men ought to be placed in the same position as the land on which the glass-houses actually stand. If I can have an assurance on that point, I shall be still more grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than I am at the present moment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is really a question of fact to be decided by the Commissioners whether land is developed by glass-houses exactly in the same way as in the case of a factory. Although there might be a piece of land outside the actual building, yet it would be said that the ground was covered by the factory. The same would apply in the case of a glass-house. There might be pieces of land not actually covered by the

    415
    glass-house, but which clearly were developed by it. That case would certainly be covered by the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr HAROLD COXmoved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "other than agriculture."
    This Amendment would have the effect of enabling to escape this tax people who have developed their land by the old-fashioned process of cultivating it. We have been assured even to-day that these taxes do not apply to agricultural land. As a matter of fact, they do. The words of the Clause, as amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are perfectly clear, that land is not to be considered developed unless it is being developed by some kind of industry except agriculture. I cannot understand why that exception should be made. Surely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that a market garden is most highly developed land. Yet we have this most extraordinary paradox, that you may have in a town a builder's yard, for example, with a few ladders, bits of timber, and stone lying about; that is to be treated as developed land, while the same land, if cultivated by a market gardener, and every inch of it made fruitful, will be undeveloped. That is an absolutely untenable position. Market gardeners, if they are not very numerous, are an appreciable body, and they are justifiably indignant at the treatment which has been meted out to them. I have had letters from market gardeners all over the country, saying that it is most unjust that they should spend a large amount of capital in developing their land and then be subject to a tax as if the land were undeveloped. One man writes very effectively, "My land is virtually a factory for the production of fruit, flowers, and vegetables. Why should that be taxed while a factory for the production of iron or steel goods is not?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has attempted to meet this point by exempting glass-houses. But he has not given the least indication whether land surrounding glass-houses is to be exempted. ["Yes, he has."] I heard his speech just now. He said that that would be a matter for the Commissioners. Is that quite fair to the Commissioners? Are the Commissioners to
    416
    have no guidance as to the amount of land that is to go with a greenhouse. There are market gardens where there are no green-houses: are they to be taxed? If not, is a man cultivating a market garden without a green-house to be able to escape the tax by putting up a green-house? Why limit it to market gardens? I do not think the House realises the enormous injustice it is doing, and the departure it is making from principles which all Liberals accepted before the election. My right hon. Friend below the Gangway, who does not know much about the affairs of my Constituency, took upon himself to lecture me for what he called departing from the principles of the late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. So far from departing from them, I was quoting with entire agreement what Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said.
    Sir J. BRUNNER: An unworthy sneer.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to impute motives to me. Neither the fact of his age nor the fact that he derives his wealth from other sources than land gives him that right. I was quoting with entire agreement and approval the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's statement that he wished the land of this country to be used as the treasure-ground of the poor rather than as the pleasure-ground of the rich. That is also my principle. That is not the principle of the Government. The Government have provided in this Bill that if land is let to a rich man to provide a house or a pleasure-garden he may have five acres free from tax. If the same land is let to a poor man to cultivate for a market garden or for a small holding it will be subject to taxation. This Government, which professes to carry out the principles of the late. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and does not do so has provided that if land is let to a wealthy golf club to amuse themselves upon it will be exempt from taxation, but that the same land let to a small holder to produce food for his fellow-creatures will be subject to taxation. I think, therefore, I was perfectly justified in quoting that diction from the late Leader of the Liberal party. It is hon. Members on the front Bench who have departed from it. I appeal, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and to admit that it is still possible to develop the land of England in other ways than by building upon it houses that are not wanted.
    Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I am very glad to have the opportunity of seconding the Amendment. I would be the first to admit

    417
    that there have been many concessions, and that large classes of people likely to be injured by these taxes have been exempted. But I feel that these exemptions will certainly throw a still more lurid light upon the injustices and anomalies of this tax. We have been assured from Land's End to John o' Groats that this tax will remedy some of the many admitted defects of our land system; that it will prevent overcrowding in our large cities, and last, but not least, we have been assured that agricultural land has been exempted from the tax. That statement has been loudly echoed on a hundred platforms in every agricultural constituency in the country—why or wherefore no person can say. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not make that statement purely for the paltry purposes of party.
    Mr. A. LUPTON: Hear, hear; I agree with that!
    Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: Personally, I am most anxious that no new burdens should be put on the greatest industry of this country. I had hoped that the Government might have dealt with the question of rating and with the question of local taxation, and that the greatest industry of this country, just now struggling under heavy burdens, might have obtained some relief. But if this tax becomes law, instead of giving relief to that industry you are actually, to my mind, imposing further burdens upon it. This tax lays down the principle that land is to be taxed, provided, and provided only, that it is used for agricultural purposes. Any other industry is excluded. Land may be used for the ancient game of blind man's buff or the historic game of marbles, while if the same land is put to the best advantage and used for agricultural purposes or as a market garden it is to be harassed and crippled by taxation. The powers of this Bill will enable the Commissioners to tax large blocks of agricultural land in the vicinity of towns, and to say that a large portion of that land is ripe for building at a particular time and at a particular price. Owners of land will be taxed because their land may have a dormant building value. The theory of the Chancellor seems to be that land in this country exists for the erection of tenements, or to be planted with factories, while, as a matter of fact, the vast proportion of the land of this country is used for another purpose. I should like to give an illustration of the way this tax will work.
    418
    Take the case of land adjacent to a town. The Commissioners descend upon the owner and say, "This land has a site value," and the wretched owner is immediately taxed. Supposing, as is quite probable, that the population of that town remove, owing to the closing down of a mine or the shutting up of some great business, or because some factory disappears. With the disappearance of the population the site value also disappears. What will happen when the site value disappears? The man will have paid the tax for a number of years, but he will get no repayment. There are no provisions in the Bill for repayment to the agricultural owner in such circumstances as this. As we know, the building site value in such a case as that must be of a speculative character. This is one of the instances of ungotten gains like ungotten minerals. Land near a town, we are told, has what might be called an alternative value; it has what is called its site value and its agricultural value. The site value and the agricultural value are really a combination which it is impossible to separate. Proximity to a railway or propinquity to a market affects the site. The Commissioners may say it is a commercial site, or it may have an excellent site value and a residence or a public-house or an assembly rooms. Who is to decide this? Are these conundrums to be left to the Commissioners? The Commissioners will decide. No doubt the Commissioners will cover a multitude of sins. In cases of that kind you might just as well, to my mind, ask the Commissioners to value the Limehouse speech, or to determine whether it was the personality of the right hon. Gentleman or merely the personalities on that occasion which nearly seduced the "Daily Mail" from its allegiance to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have been told that agricultural land is not to be taxed. I was surprised to hear that amazing statement made by an hon. Member at a Budget meeting recently, and I was almost tempted to contradict the statement, but I thought it might spoil the harmony of the proceedings. There was another reason why I did not intervene, and it was because I felt my hon. Friend did not believe it himself.
    I am told that in regard to a matter of this kind if you continue to repeat an argument the process of mental aberration becomes complete. I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite, for instance, honestly and sincerely believe that under Tariff Reform

    419
    the foreigner will pay the tax. The point, however, which I want to make is that it is very cold comfort to the agriculturist to be told over and over again that he is not going to be taxed on his land as an agriculturist, but will be taxed as a potential builder. It is still worse if he refuses to pay this tax, because he will have to cut down his plum and pear trees, and pull down the walls round his orchard in order that the land may be used, not merely for building purposes, but for some subsidiary industry. It might be required, for instance, by some wealthy manure merchant, who might be able to claim this agricultural land in order to erect corrugated iron sheds to manufacture manure. Take, for example, an acre of agricultural land near a town. Suppose this land brings in 40s. per acre per annum. It would be quite fair to deduct for local rates and taxes the sum of 10s. an the £. That will leave the owner the balance of £1 per annum profit. The Commissioners might say that the taxable site value of this piece of land is £120, and, according to the Bill, he will have to pay 5s. on the land; that is to say, if he keeps his land as agricultural land, a quarter of his profits will disappear. If the Commissioners in their excess of zeal declare that the taxable site value is £480 he will have to pay £1, that is to say, the whole of the profit will entirely disappear. I honestly think it will pass the wit of man or the humour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to convince such an agriculturist as I have described that he is not being taxed. If this man's land is wanted for overcrowding, I agree that you should give to the locality compulsory powers. This tax, to my mind, is most certainly a tax on one of the greatest industries in this country. It is a tax on agriculture, and I only wish I could go down to my constituency and assure them that this is not a tax on agriculture. If I did make that assertion I should be placing the case before them with a maximum of audacity and a minimum of veracity.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No one would have imagined from the two last speeches, rather bitter in tone, with very elaborate and studied attacks upon the Government, that the subject-matter of the attack was a concession made by the Government, and admitted to be a full redemption of a pledge which was given. The hon. Gentleman says these Amendments cast a lurid light upon the Bill itself. I think such
    420
    criticisms casts an exceedingly clear light upon the methods of those who criticise this Clause. I would suggest to the hon. Member that before he criticises the Bill he might as well read it. He was good enough to say that he presided at a meeting of the Budget League, where he allowed false statements to be made without correcting them. Is he quite sure? Unless he is better informed about what transpired there than he is about what he criticises to-night, I think he had better, before he makes those statements, read the Bill once, twice, or three times. He may then have an elementary knowledge of it. I will give an illustration from what he said. He said the Commissioners, for whom he has the greatest contempt, though, as a matter of fact, some of them are among the ablest officials any Government is ever likely to have—and those who know something about them will corroborate that—may value land now let at £2 per acre at £120, and that means this poor individual will have to pay 5s. If the hon. Member had only read the Bill, he would have known that the whole agricultural value would be deducted in the first instance. He is just about 90 per cent. wrong in his figures. He quoted that as an illustration, and, if that is a fair sample of the knowledge he has got about the Bill, and if he is 90 per cent. wrong in all his information, I would still advise him before he makes another speech to give a little more time to the study of the Bill.
    Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I was quite aware that you deduct the agricultural value from the site value. I said the Commissioners might assess the taxable value at £120, having made that deduction.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am within the recollection of the House. What he said was, as I think he will find to-morrow, on reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the Commissioners might value the land at £120. I am very glad the information I have given him with regard to the Bill has led him now to correct his statement. The hon. Gentleman may say that is what he intended to say, but I am quite within the recollection of the House. I assure him, if that is what he intended to say, I have nothing to add, but, at any rate, that is certainly not the impression he conveyed to the House. Let us take the second point. He said, "Here you are taxing industry; you are taxing market gardeners and small holders." There is another part of the

    421
    Bill which he does not seem to have read—that part by which the small holder occupying a holding up to £500 value is exempted. Was the hon. Gentleman aware of that? If he was, does he not think it would only have been fair for him to have stated it? As he said, when a man is not the owner he is not taxed: it is the owner who is taxed. It is not the market gardener or the small holder who is taxed: it is the landlord. The hon. Member is confusing two things. He seems to think that the interest of the industry is mixed up with the rent of the landlord. That is quite a mistake. A mere tax on rent is not an interference with the market gardener; it makes no difference to him whether the money goes to the State or into the pockets of the landlord. It is not a burden on the market gardener at all; it is purely a tax on the rent received by the landlord.
    With regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) it is the same question as has already been debated three or four times, and the speech in support of it is one which I have
    heard at least 50 times. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that if we say to a man, "You shall use every bit of your land for agricultural purposes, although it may be building land," the effect will be that there will be no land at all subject to these taxes. My hon. Friend naturally opposes the whole of the land taxes. But such opposition is not a proper subject for an Amendment at this stage. It should be raised in a second or third reading Debate. This Amendment cuts out all land from the taxes, and if it is carried it will not be possible to impose any land tax at all under this Bill. My hon. Friend knows that perfectly well. Purely agricultural land is not to be taxed at all; it is only when the land is converted into building land that for the first time it is taxed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston goes to the root of the whole Bill, and the Government cannot possibly accept it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 820.]

    AYES.

    [11.59 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jenkins, J.

    Agnew, George William

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Elibank, Master of

    Kelley, George D.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Essex, R. W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Barker, Sir John

    Falconer, James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Barnes, G. N.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lupton, Arnold

    Beale, W. P.

    Gibson, James Puckering

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Brace, William

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Brigg, John

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Bright, J. A.

    Gulland, John W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Brodie, H. C.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morse, L. L.

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Byles, William Pollard

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

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

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

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hodge, John

    Robinson, S.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hyde, Clarendon

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

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Shackleton, David James

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Walsh, Stephen

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomasson, Franklin

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir Edward Strachey.

    Verney, F. W.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Wilkie, Alexander

    NOES.

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

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, J.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gretton, John

    Renwick, George

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kerry, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Keswick, William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Forster, Henry William

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harold Cox and Mr. Agar-Robartes.

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned until to-morrow."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: It is monstrous that this Bill should be taken at this time of night. To take one Bill alone which is to be renewed——
  Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no discussion on any individual Bill on the second reading.
  Mr. HAY: The Schedule contains a Bill relating to wireless telegraphy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be discussed on the second reading.
  Mr. HAY: There ought to be an opportunity on the second reading of dealing with the recent arrangement which the Postmaster-General has entered into with regard to wireless telegraphy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: They cannot be diseased on the second reading of this Bill.
  424
  The proper opportunity to discuss them is when they are reached on the Schedule.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): It is quite reasonable and proper that an opportunity should be given for discussing the Bills mentioned in the Schedule. It is perfectly plain that there are several Bills which must be continued. We will give sufficient notice for the Committee stage, so that the different Bills may be discussed. I hope that on the footing that we undertake to give proper notice of the Committee stage, the hon. Member will not now object to the second reading.
  Mr. HAY: I hope it will be clearly understood that it would not be regarded as a reasonable opportunity for discussion if the Committee stage were taken after midnight. This Bill should be taken an the light of day in order that the various measures mentioned in the Schedule may be discussed. If it is taken in the early hours of the morning the whole discussion will be nothing less than a farce.
  Mr. HALDANE: I cannot promise that it will be taken in the way suggested, but we will do our best.
  Lord BALCARRES: The Agricultural Rates Act is mentioned in the Schedule, and it is only in the first clause of the Bill

  425
  that the date limit of that measure is dealt with. That Act is to be prolonged for a period of nine months only, and I am informed by persons conversant with local rating that that will cause a certain amount of difficulty owing to the hiatus of three months at the end of the present financial year. We cannot discuss the date to which it is to be prolonged on the Schedule, and we cannot discuss it on Clause 1. I cannot help thinking it should be discussed on the second reading of the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Why not discuss it on Clause 1 in Committee? It is mentioned in Clause 1.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am really asking guidance on the point. The date to which the Act is to be continued will not conform with the ordinary financial year. If it can be discussed on Clause 1 we will do so at that time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should have thought that all matters could be discussed on the Schedule. The principle of the Bill is the only matter that can be discussed on the second reading. The question whether certain Bills should be continued can be discussed on the Schedule. I think the House has no doubt about that. If you want to take exception to certain Bills, it is when those Bills which are mentioned either in the first Clause or the Schedule come before the Committee.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not think there is any desire to deprive the Government of the opportunity of getting the second reading stage of this Bill now, if we could have the assurance which the Secretary of State for War very nearly gay If we could have an assurance in clearer language that reasonable notice would be given and reasonable time allowed the second reading might now be taken. But, if not, I think I can promise the right hon. Gentleman some little amusement.
  Mr. HALDANE: We will certainly undertake to give reasonable notice. As regards the time it is not easy to find it at this period of the Session but I can promise that I will consult with my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and we will do our best.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: An entirely new departure is being taken this year in reference to the renewal of expiring Bills. The Agricultural Rates Act is only being re-
  426
  newed for nine instead of twelve months. This will create certain difficulties with local authorities in striking rates, as they will not know why they will receive grants for nine or twelve months.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Twenty-two minutes after Twelve of the clock till to-morrow (Thursday).

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
FINANCE BILL.
  LEGACIES TO CORPORATE BODIES.
  LEGACIES TO CORPORATE BODIES.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Books of Stamps.
  Books of Stamps.
  Postal Sub-Offices (Classification).
  Postal Sub-Offices (Classification).
  Rural Postmen (Postal Orders).
  Rural Postmen (Postal Orders).
  Postcards.
  Postcards.
  Poisons and Pharmacy Act (Licences).
  Poisons and Pharmacy Act (Licences).
  Board of Works, Ireland (Gardeners and Labourers).
  Board of Works, Ireland (Gardeners and Labourers).
  Public Expenditure (Ireland).
  Public Expenditure (Ireland).
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Devonshire Estate, Conna, County Cork.
  Devonshire Estate, Conna, County Cork.
  Land Commission (Recovery of Costs).
  Land Commission (Recovery of Costs).
  Creamery Instructors (Ireland).
  Creamery Instructors (Ireland).
  Alleged Beri-beri (Inishkea, County Mayo).
  Alleged Beri-beri (Inishkea, County Mayo).
  Small Holdings, Huntingdonshire.
  Small Holdings, Huntingdonshire.
  Municipal Dwellings, Richmond (Claim for Compensation).
  Municipal Dwellings, Richmond (Claim for Compensation).
  Assistant Law Officer (Scotland).
  Assistant Law Officer (Scotland).
  Mr. W. Bramley's Resignation.
  Mr. W. Bramley's Resignation.
  Education Expenditure.
  Education Expenditure.
  Inflammable Hair Washes.
  Inflammable Hair Washes.
  Building Accidents (Hull).
  Building Accidents (Hull).

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Rule Committee.

Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies).

Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment).

Board of Trade.

Secretary of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Assistant Postmaster-General.

Metropolitan Ambulances.

Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention).

Colonial Naval Defence.

Naval Establishments.

Telegraph (Arbitration).

Handloom Weaving.

Trade Boards.

Irvine Harbour Order Confirmation.

Sir R. Whittington's Charity.

Bridgend (Hope English Baptist Chapel, &c.) Charity.

John Marshall's Charity.

Lichfield and Longdon Congregational Chapels and Trust Property Charity.

Dewsbury and Batley Congregational Chapel Charities.

Wortley Congregational Chapel Charity.

Hamilton Burgh Order Confirmation.

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

Lune Fisheries Provisional Order.

Kilkenny, Castlecomer, and Athy Railway.

Bury Corporation.

Edgware and Hampstead Railway.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Further considered on Report (according to order).
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in the absence of Lord ATKINSON, moved an Amendment standing in the name of the latter, providing under Clause 38 (Congested districts counties and local authorities) that the council of a congested districts county might at the request of the Congested Districts Board appoint a committee for any electoral division, "or for any other area" in the county, instead of "or smaller area," the words contained in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 19, line 6, to leave out the word 'smaller,' and to insert the words 'for any other area.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD, in moving to insert the word "industries" so as to make paragraph (c) of Clause 39 read "the aiding and developing of industries, forestry, or the breeding of livestock or poultry, or," said his intention was to transfer to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction the care and promotion of industries. It had been already explained to their Lordships that when the Congested Districts Board was created there was no organisation in Ireland for the promotion or for the care of industries, and naturally it fell to the Congested Districts Board to attend to that important branch of local business within their jurisdiction. When the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was created, the promotion of industries naturally fell to them, but a divided authority had been for some time exercised, which had led to considerable overlapping and sometimes friction between the two Departments. Inasmuch as the Department of Agriculture was well equipped and organised now and had passed through its novitiate, it was considered desirable that it should take charge of the industries as a portion of its proper functions.
Amendment moved—
"In page 19, line 20, after the first 'of,' to insert 'industries.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): The whole question of the Congested Districts Board, both with regard to its composition and its functions, has been the subject of a great deal of debate during the different stages of this Bill in your Lordships' House. I confess it appears to me that in moving this Amendment to deprive the Congested Districts Board altogether of its care of industries my noble friend is taking a somewhat serious step. What is being done by the different Amendments to the Bill is to change the character of the Congested Districts Board from a great Department dealing with many aspects of social life in the West of Ireland into a mere Land Office. Its only function now will be to cut up

99
estates into suitable holdings, and that is a work of a technical character which can be done by any well-informed persons. But all that made the Board so distinctive, all its influence upon social life, all the sympathy which it evoked, are going to be swept away altogether, and I should like your Lordships to consider whether it is not the fact that much of the success which the Board has met with in its more formal work in the relief of congestion, has been due to that sympathetic and social side of its work, in which it has been so pre-eminent. I confess that in dealing with this difficult problem of congestion the conversion of the Board into a mere bureau for cutting up farms into strips and squares is a step which I regard with some apprehension. The gentlemen who have hitherto sat on the Congested Districts Board have done the work of it, and have given their time to it, largely in consideration of those other branches of its activity, and I confess that I do not see why, if the Board is going to be of the kind which this Bill seems to contemplate, such people as the noble Earl whom I do not see here, Lord Shaftesbury, should now care to do what I may call supervise the sort of land agent's work, which is all that your Lordships are leaving the Board to do. Under those circumstances I confess I regret the decision which your Lordships' House seems to have arrived at with regard to the functions of the Board. That decision seems to be not merely acquiesced in by my noble friend behind me, but he desires to push it still further. He has, I know, always been a critic of what he considers the excessive paternalism of the Board, but I confess that this sentence from the Report of the Commission appears to me to contain much truth—
"We realise the force of the objections that can be urged against paternalism amongst normal communities, but we believe that a certain amount of paternalism is absolutely necessary for large parts of the West of Ireland. We are convinced that if the past efforts of the Board are not to be deprived of full fruition, and if the districts are not to remain in their present unhappy condition, vigorous efforts must be made to continue and extend the work of the Board mainly along the lines which they adopted."
My Lords, those lines are to disappear altogether. The Board, as I say, is to become a kind of land agency, and knowing the work that it has done in the past I regret it. I therefore can be no party to the insertion of the word "industries" in the schedule, and I regret that my noble friend should have brought it forward.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I regret that noble Lords from Ireland, who have more intimate acquaintance with these matters than I can pretend to, are not here to carry on the discussion of the interesting topics which have been raised by the noble Earl in his speech. I can only say, as far as I am able to judge, that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite seems to me to be consistent with the policy which the House has already adopted. As the Bill now stands, we have actually in Clause 39 transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction such things as the provision of seeds, agricultural instruction, or practical husbandry, the development of forestry and the breeding of live stock and poultry, and the aiding and developing of sea fisheries. Is there any reason why other industries should not follow suit? Our reason for desiring that there should be this transfer of duties is that we have found that in many parts of Ireland the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction were actually overlapping and competing with one another for work in the same districts. That, surely, is not a desirable thing. Then the noble Earl, I gather, suggests that if these different functions are taken away from the Congested Districts Board and transferred to the Department of Agriculture, the Board will really have nothing left to do. He suggested that it was almost absurd to suppose that the Board would be adequately employed in work which he described as cutting up estates, which he thought could be done by anybody. He was of opinion that they would become a mere bureau for cutting up farms into strips and squares. The noble Earl seems to me quite insufficiently to appreciate the immense importance of the functions which will be discharged by the Congested Districts Board when they come to deal with these areas which will be acquired by the Land Commission and handed over to them, so that they may be put into order and improved and developed and rendered fit for occupation by the congested people whom it is desirable to relieve, and who will be settled upon the land which this bureau will have to acquire. I have heard no sufficient reason why other industries should not share the same treatment which the House has already decreed for the matters already enumerated in Section 39, and I am

101
therefore disposed to vote with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said he was sorry he was not in his place to hear the debate upon the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, but as he gathered that the noble Earl who led the House mentioned his name with reference to the Amendment, perhaps he should make it clear to the House that he thought on the whole it would be a wise move to transfer the work the Board had been doing in the nature of industries, for various reasons. One was that under the heading of Industries they had in the congested districts of Ireland domestic economy classes, some carried on by officials belonging to the Board and some carried on by officials belonging to the Agricultural Department. In the 1889 Act the Department encouraged local authorities to lay themselves out for the purpose of industrial schemes, and so they had two Departments working alongside each other in such instruction as domestic economy and other industrial schemes. Under those circumstances he though it would be better if the Board confined itself to what the noble Earl had described as land agency work.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK, in moving an Amendment to Clause 40 for the purpose of establishing a committee to allocate the funds to be applied for the benefit of congested districts between the three bodies who had to act in such districts, said that the first of those bodies was the Estates Commissioners, who had the duty of improving the condition of congested districts by enlarging holdings and giving more land to the small holders; secondly, there was the Congested Districts Board, which employed themselves in the same manner and also in endeavouring to relieve congestion by transplanting what were commonly called migrants from the most congested parts to other parts; and finally the Board of Agriculture, which employed itself in improving the condition of the inhabitants of those districts by granting help and instruction in agriculture. The Bill had handed over to the last-named body the development of fisheries and finally it appeared that the promotion of industries was also to be
102
handed over to them. No one could form a right opinion of the respective claims of those Departments and the expenditure entailed by the duties which they had to perform without a thorough knowledge of the conditions circumstances and requirements of the districts, and that knowledge was possessed by those three Departments and by no one else. Therefore it appeared to him to be a perfectly rational position that a committee appointed of equal members from each of those bodies—the three Estates Commissioners, three from the Congested Districts Board, and three persons appointed by the Department of Agriculture—should meet and deliberate as to what proportion of the funds in each area were required by each of the three Departments. He thought it was perfectly clear, if one Department was too greedy and wanted too much, that the other two Departments would check any such aspirations and they would arrive at as correct, an estimate as could be arrived at as to what the particular requirements of each rendered necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 19, line 29, to leave out from 'Parliament' to the end of the clause, and to insert and shall be paid to the Allocation Joint Committee hereinafter mentioned.
(2) For the purposes of this part of this Act there shall be a committee, to be called the Allocation Joint Committee, consisting of nine persons, of whom three shall be members of the Congested Districts Board selected or appointed by that Board, three shall be persons appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and three shall be the three Estates Commissioners for the time being.
(3) The Allocation Joint Committee shall from time to time allocate the moneys placed at their disposal under this section, in such proportions as they deem best, to the Congested Districts Board, the Department of Agriculture, and the Estates Commissioners respectively, to be ex pended in any of the districts scheduled as congested districts, for any or all of the purposes for which moneys provided by Parliament are authorised to be expended by the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts. Provided, however, that neither the Congested Districts Board, nor the Department of Agriculture, nor the Estates Commissioners shall be authorised to expend any of the moneys provided under this section upon any of such purposes, except so far as they respectively are at present, or may from time to time be authorised to expend moneys on such purposes.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD hoped that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. The noble Lord had spoken of the greed of one Department

103
being checked by the moderation of the other two. In his (Lord MacDonnell's) opinion there would be excessive greed on the part of the three Departments, and it would be impossible where those three Departments were scrambling for the most money that they could get, for them, or for any two of them, to come to a conclusion, unless it was on the understanding that the two that came to the conclusion were to divide the spoils between them. It was a matter of the division of public funds, and he thought that such a matter ought to be left in the hands of the Government. The Government had come very liberally to the assistance of the Congested Districts Board, and no authority was more interested in the efficient discharge of the duties of each Department than the Government, and naturally the procedure of the Government would be to ask the Congested Districts Board, upon which all three Departments would, he hoped, be represented, to furnish them with a report as to how particular funds in particular instances should be allocated, and then the Government would come to a conclusion which would be equitable and just to each Department. In no other way, he ventured to think, would it be possible to come to an equitable distribution of funds in the matter when the time came for a redistribution.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD could not help thinking that the noble Lord was wrong. His noble friend Lord Clonbrock suggested in his Amendment that the three different Departments should each be represented by three different people, making nine in all; but the noble Lord who had just spoken suggested that one should be the controlling influence over the three—that the Congested Districts Board should take up the position of being the dominant partner. He could not help thinking that that would create considerable confusion. They had the Estates Commissioners, who came forward as the new purchasing authority; they had the Congested Districts Board, which appeared to him to be undergoing a very precarious existence at the present moment, and which was supposed to be, according to the noble Lord who had just spoken, a larger authority than the other two; and they had in addition the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education for Ireland. He could not help thinking that the Amendment proposed by his noble friend Lord Clonbrock, associating those three boards together in
104
one joint committee, would be a fair solution of the allocation of the funds, if the noble Earl who led the House could see his way to accept it. The noble Earl on a former occasion rather suggested that there might be a possibility of a little disagreement among the three parties concerned, each pulling in a different direction. He would point out that that applied very largely to all incorporated bodies when they were together looking as it were for the administration of funds, and he could not help thinking that it would be to the advantage of those three Departments whom they on that side of the House wished to see working fairly and justly with the money allocated to them, that the money should be handed over to them and distributed in the way his noble friend suggested. Therefore he would support him in whatever action he chose to take with regard to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This Amendment was moved in the Committee stage, and produced very little discussion. I think that only two, or at the most three, speeches were made upon it at all, and it was not pressed home to any extent by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton), who on that occasion moved it. I do not know whether I need repeat what I said at that stage as to my view that this is not a practical proposal. All the analogies of joint bodies or joint committee fail when applied to this proposal, because these joint committees of which the noble Earl opposite and others speak are committees from different bodies meeting together to carry out one object or one set of objects. This is a joint committee composed of representatives of three bodies who have to carry out entirely different objects. There is no common basis of agreement; and if the noble Lord contemplates that this committee will in some way cover the whole field of the triple activities of the Estates Commissioners, of the Congested Districts Board, and of the Department of Agriculture, and, having surveyed the whole of that immense field, will then be able in an amicable way to decide the precise sum which ought to be allotted for each purpose, I am afraid he is expecting far too much from a body of the kind. If such a body was formed at all, all I believe that would happen would be that some rough division would be made which would be adhered to without any very close examination. But, my Lords, I object to the general principle

105
of the allocation of public funds in this way by the representatives of the bodies concerned. The suggestion of His Majesty's Government in the Development Bill may be a good or a bad one, but their suggestion is that certain proposals put forward by particular Departments should be subjected to the review of an outside impartial body. If you were to put together in a room three representatives of the various spending Departments in this country, and ask them to allocate the whole sum voted by Parliament for all of them, I confess I do not know what the result would be. I do not know how many people would leave the room alive, and in any case it seems impossible that the allocation could be conducted on really reasonable lines. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not press this Amendment, because I am sure it is not of a really practical character.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said that perhaps he might add a word, as he was the mover of the Amendment in Committee. The noble Earl, he thought, rather assumed that the reason the Amendment was not pressed in Committee was that there was not sufficient argument to be brought forward in support of it. That was not really the cast. They had made a very considerable change in the Bill; they had completely changed the Congested Districts Board as proposed by the noble Earl; they had made very drastic Amendments, and the noble Earl took exception to adding this Amendment without further consideration. Consequently he did at the time withdraw his Amendment with the intention of raising the question again upon Report. Where he thought that the noble Earl had perhaps pressed unduly against the argument of his noble friend behind him, Lord Clonbrock, was when he said they were giving as a sort of scramble to three Boards brought together for that one purpose a sum of public money to be apportioned by them. He would point out that it was not as if the purposes were in any way distinct. The powers of the Estates Commissioners and the powers of the Congested Districts Board were interlaced, and up to now even their jurisdiction to buy land in the same districts was interlaced as well. Therefore, to treat those two authorities as separate and distinct authorities seemed to him to be rather a straining of terms. Again, the Department of Agriculture had almost overlapped in some respects the functions of the Congested
106
Districts Board; and he really would have thought that there was nothing more anomalous in handing over to the authority of the proposed committee a sum of money than there would be in the case either of the Education Office, which had the most varied calls upon it, or still more, any larger Departments, like the War Office and the Admiralty, which were given sums of money which could be spread over a number of services and which were practically allotted by the heads of those Departments. He admitted, of course, that there was no supreme head, except the Chief Secretary, of all the Irish Departments, and in that respect some of those Departments were themselves anomalous as compared to similar Departments in this country; but he must say that he regretted the noble Earl did not see his way to consider the Amendment more favourably. The announcement he made that unless there was a representative Board they would find difficulty with regard to the apportionment of money to the Congested Districts Board, of course might have governed the speech which the noble Earl had just delivered; but he himself would press him not to preclude at this stage of the Bill the adoption of some committee of the kind, which it seemed to him would meet many of the difficulties which had been found by both sides in dealing with the question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved to amend the first part of Clause 40—
40. As from the appointed day an annual sum of one hundred and sixty-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, as follows:—
Out of that sum an annual sum of nineteen thousand pounds shall be paid to the Department for the purpose of the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties transferred to the Department under this Act, and the residue shall be paid to the Congested Districts Board,
by leaving out the words "nineteen thousand pounds" and inserting the words "thirty-nine thousand pounds." He said that his Amendment, at any rate in point of form if not as to the precise amount of money in question, was consequential upon an Amendment which he had the honour of moving in Committee to transfer fisheries from the Congested Districts Board to the Department of Agriculture. It had been pointed out to him that although the fisheries were transferred at that time,

107
no corresponding transfer had been made of the funds which the Congested Districts Board now enjoyed for the purpose of transacting this business, and that it would be essential, of course, for the Department to have that money if they were to have the duty cast upon them. As to the amount, he had not had time to make any very searching inquiries with regard to the exact sum which should be inserted in the Bill, but he was informed that the amount spent upon fisheries by the Congested Districts Board was about £20,000, and therefore he proposed to add the sum of £20,000 to the sum of £19,000 which was already in the Bill, thus making a total of £39,000.
Amendment moved—
"In page 19, line 30, to leave out 'nineteen' and to insert 'thirty-nine.'"—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid that my noble friend's Amendment takes a form which is somewhat unusual in Amendments in your Lordships' House, namely, that of a direct vote of a sum of money for a particular purpose. Although we are not unduly precise upon these matters, I think we must all feel that the substitution of £39,000 for £19,000 for a particular purpose is, as I say, a somewhat unaccustomed form of Amendment in your Lordships' House.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON pointed out that it was only in the nature of a transfer; it was not adding any charge.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid that does not very greatly better the case. It is quite true that in transferring the fisheries from the Congested Districts Board to the Department of Agriculture your Lordships find yourselves in this position. There is another fund—the Irish Loan Fund and a part of the Sea Coast Fisheries Fund—which was placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1891. It is Section 35, subsection (5). These funds, I take it, if the noble Lord's plan is carried out, ought also to be transferred. I do not know that I need make any further observation. It is quite true that if the transfer is to be carried out some steps of the kind indicated by the noble Lord would have to be taken.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO asked whether the noble Earl who led the House could give some indication of the allocation of these funds, because, as he had truly said, the fisheries had been transferred from the Congested Districts Board to the Board of Agriculture. The noble Earl also said it was unusual for such an Amendment to be put down and for such a matter to be raised in their Lordships' House, but the noble Earl had admitted that there must be some indication of how the funds were to be used. Would the noble Earl, therefore, giving some indication to that effect on the Third Reading?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I can give the noble Earl an indication now—namely, to the effect that we do not agree to the transfer of the fisheries from the Congested Districts Board to the Department of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said that what that amounted to was, "As you have done this certain thing, therefore you are not to move an Amendment; and if you do move an Amendment, although I have said that there is no doubt that the way in which these funds should be dealt with ought to be indicated—because you have done this naughty thing, we can give you no information whatsoever." That was really what the noble Earl's statement amounted to, and he did not think it was satisfactory. It would be most interesting to the Board in Ireland if they could have some indication of what the funds were. Two of the most important industries were the salting of mackerel for the American market and the curing of herrings, and if there could be some indication of the amount of money to be allocated at all events to those two very important industries, it would be an immense help to those who lived in Ireland and who took an interest in the work, which, as the Bill stood at present, was to be carried out by the Department of Agriculture and not by the Congested Districts Board.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD thought he could throw a little light upon the question. At the time of the Dudley Commission the question of the amount of funds expended upon fisheries and industries was calculated. The promotion of agricultural industries had been already transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education. That

109
was before the Dudley Commission. When the Commission sat, it was ascertained that the average annual expenditure upon fisheries and upon industries was £16,000. Therefore, as the Bill contained the sum of £19,000, an addition of £3,000 had been made on the transfer of these two Departments, which seemed to him an adequate amount to be granted on the occasion of a transfer, and from his point of view he saw no necessity for making any change whatever in the Bill as it stood.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 42, which ran—
42.—(1) The Lord Lieutenant, by Order made with the advice of the Privy Council, may make rack regulations as appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying into effect this Part of the Act.
(2) An Order of the Lord Lieutenant made as aforesaid under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if within the next subsequent forty days on which either House has sat that House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any such Order may either in whole or in part be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the same either in whole or in part as the case may require, and the Order or part so annulled shall thenceforth become void without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings taken under the same in the meantime:
Provided that where any Order or any part thereof is so annulled the Lord Lieutenant may within six months thereof make by and with the advice aforesaid, another Order in place of the Order or part so annulled, subject nevertheless to be laid before Parliament, and to be annulled by His Majesty in Council in manner above mentioned, and so on as often as the case requires.
He said that in Committee he addressed their Lordships on the great undesirability of subjecting the Congested Districts Board to any rules which could be construed as emanating from the Treasury. The great popularity which attached to the Board in Ireland was due to the belief that they were an independent Board which could look at the facts of Irish life unhampered by Treasury rules and restrictions, although, of course, limited by the funds which they had to dispose of. He had come to think that, inasmuch as the provisions which laid down the rules for forming a quorum and meetings of the Congested Districts Board had been removed from the Bill, some such rule as this might be necessary if strictly limited; and he therefore had come to the conclusion, very largely in deference to the
110
opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, that the Privy Council, whose opinion was to be taken on the rules, might be trusted to see that there was no unfair limitation of the freedom of action of the Congested Districts Board. But since then, and in connection with what happened yesterday, it seemed to him if rules were made by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of his Privy Council, they would still have to be laid on the Table of both Houses, with the result that it was very possible there might be a conflict of opinion regarding the rules, and in the meantime if such a conflict did arise the Congested Districts Board might be at a serious disadvantage in the performance of its duties. He thought that some understanding had been come to yesterday in another connection whereby the chances of such a conflict might be avoided; he did not know himself the precise arrangement, but he took it for granted that some such matter was under consideration; and if His Majesty's Government were satisfied that such a conflict of opinion and such difficulties could be prevented, he was willing to waive any objection he might have on that particular head, and to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 42."—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think on the whole, although the matter is less important than it was owing to the change which your Lordships have made in the constitution of the Congested Districts Board, that for the reasons stated by my noble friend behind me, it would be advantageous to leave this clause in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that Clause 43 grants permanent members of the Congested Districts Board various benefits on retirement. There are no permanent members of the Board as the Bill now stands, and therefore the clause does not seem to be necessary.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether the noble Earl proposed to leave the clause with that blessing.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I only point it out to noble Lords in order that they can take any steps they desire at another stage.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said that subsection (2), which enabled the Congested Districts Board to provide for granting pensions or gratuities to officers or persons employed by them, was rather important.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I was only referring to subsection (1). I may add that it was merely from a friendly desire to see the Bill in as coherent a shape as it could be made that I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE thought they might respond to the friendly desire of the noble Earl, and he would therefore move the omission of the subsection at the request of the Government.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out subsection (1) of Clause 43."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD, in moving to leave out of Clause 44 the words "or to expend any money in aiding or developing fisheries," said that as their Lordships had inserted the word "industries" in Clause 39 of the Bill the employment of the words he moved to leave out had become unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'or to expend any money in aiding or developing fisheries.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON thought his noble friend must be under some misapprehension about the matter, because the clause ran—
"From and after the appointed day, the Congested Districts Board shall cease to exercise any power to acquire land save as otherwise provided in this section, or to expend any money in aiding or developing fisheries."
If the noble Lord left out the words "to expend any money in aiding or developing fisheries" the Congested Districts Board would retain the power of expending money though the duty had been transferred. The powers of dealing with
112
fisheries had already been transferred, and if they were not to cease to spend the money they would retain the power of expending the money though they did not retain the duties.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD thought his noble friend was under a misapprehension. The clause said that from and after the appointed day the Board should cease to exercise any power or to expend any money—that was that the Board should cease to expend any money in aiding or developing fisheries, and as they had by Clause 39 transferred the aiding and developing of fisheries to the Department of Agriculture, there was no necessity whatever to have the words which he proposed to delete.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, in moving the Amendment to Clause 44 of which he had given notice, said that its object was to provide in Clauses 44, 45 and 46 machinery for acquiring land by the exercise of voluntary agreement, and in the subsequent clause, Clause 47, to provide machinery for acquiring land by the exercise of compulsory powers. He desired, therefore, to make it definite that Clause 44 dealt merely with the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement. It was ambiguous as it stood at present.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 12, after the word 'land,' to insert the words' otherwise than by the exercise of the compulsory powers by this Act conferred upon them.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD submitted that this would be a convenient opportunity at which to consider the question of compulsion raised by him under Clause 47. The Amendment which the noble and learned Lord now moved, and certain others which followed, were contingent upon the acceptance of the scheme which he had submitted to their Lordships' House. If, on the other hand, the scheme which he personally submitted was accepted by their Lordships the proposals which the noble and learned Lord made, and would make, would be unnecessary, and their Lordships' procedure would be so much facilitated. If their Lordships were disposed to continue their preference for the scheme of the noble and

113
learned Lord, his own scheme would disappear and the proceedings would be equally facilitated and simplified.
THE EARL OF CREWE: With respect to what has just fallen from my noble friend behind me I think we are in a position of some difficulty. The House would certainly wish that my noble friend should have an opportunity of stating the reasons why he prefers his own proposals to those of the noble and learned Lord opposite, whereas if the noble and learned Lord's clauses are all adopted one after the other my noble friend is shut out altogether and his Amendment falls to the ground. I should have ventured to suggest, with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, that the best course would be either for the noble and learned Lord to develop his scheme on this clause, or else that these clauses, if the House so desires, should be passed pro forma, and that a discussion should then be allowed to take place on the joint schemes.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON pointed out that whatever form of compulsion was adopted his Amendment was perfectly harmless and did not prejudice it. It merely confined those clauses to voluntary acquisition, leaving compulsory acquisition to be subsequently dealt with.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that while what the noble and learned Lord stated was quite correct, he also had proposed an alternative scheme for voluntary acquisition of land, which was a rival, if he might be permitted to say so, of the scheme which the noble and learned Lord had proposed. The noble and learned Lord's proposals in regard to voluntary acquisition of land had been quite recently made. The scheme as placed before their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord was one for compulsory acquisition alone. No doubt that was due to the noble and learned Lord's mind being altogether concentrated on the question of compulsory acquisition; but when his mind was opened to the fact that it was also necessary to provide a scheme for voluntary acquisition, which his (Lord MacDonnell's) plan did provide but which the plan of the noble and learned Lord did not, he corrected his scheme and now it was both for voluntary acquisition and for compulsory acquisition. The position, therefore, was that there were
114
two rival schemes before their Lordships, and if the noble and learned Lord was allowed to develop his scheme for voluntary acquisition, he (Lord MacDonnell) would be shut out from developing his scheme for voluntary acquisition, so that he thought in fair play to both of them the proposal which he had submitted, and which the noble Earl who led the House had submitted, was a proper one to adopt, and should be given effect to, and that the noble and learned Lord should either develop his whole plan now, or that he (Lord MacDonnell) should be allowed to develop his.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether there was any good in making a contest before it was necessary. He apprehended that no disagreement would arise in accepting his noble and learned friend's Amendment now, because the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of his noble and learned friend would fit in with either scheme.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that was not so. It would require that his scheme should be modified. The proposals which the noble and learned Lord submitted to the House would take possession of the ground which his scheme at present covered.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he had come to the conclusion that there would be no difficulty in fitting on other topics to the next two Amendments. He thought their Lordships had better wait until the time came when it was necessary to have a contest.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD pointed out that if the principle of the noble and learned Lord was put forward and clothed in a certain form of words and accepted by the House, and he (Lord MacDonnell) then had to ask their Lordships to undo what they had said, the House would consider him more or less of a nuisance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): It does not seem to me to matter on what Amendment the rival schemes are discussed, but it appears likely, if the course suggested is not adopted, that some prejudice to one or other of the schemes will arise. It is not an infrequent

115
practice in the other House, and I think in your Lordships' House also, to agree to take the substantial discussion upon the first Amendment which admits of it, and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that that practice might be adopted without prejudice on this occasion.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE pointed out that he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 47 altogether. The position was that if the House adopted the scheme of the noble Lord opposite, he supposed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would not move his Amendment at all, and there would be no opportunity of any one moving the omission of Clause 47.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO desired to support his noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne in moving the deletion of Clause 47. He submitted that if Lord MacDonnell was allowed to discuss his clause and Lord Atkinson was allowed to put forward his plan, and the House accepted either of the proposals, they would be shut out from moving the omission of Clause 47.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We are now, I understand, strictly speaking, dealing with Lord Atkinson's Amendment to Clause 44. As that raises incidentally the general question of the scheme for this part of the Bill, I understand it is suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the House should be allowed the latitude of a general discussion which would enable the three or four rival schemes, for I think there are as many on the Paper, to be considered, and I presume that would end in some general indication on the part of the House of their preference for either one or other of the rival solutions. That being done, I imagine we should then take the Amendments on the Paper seriatim, so that my noble friends who are anxious that their particular Amendments, dealing some of them, perhaps, with minor points, should be considered, may not lose their opportunity.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON was perfectly willing to fall in with an arrangement of that kind if it was the desire of the House. Therefore, he presumed that his task was to show what the two schemes would be, one of acquiring land voluntarily and the other of acquiring land compulsorily, if the Amendments he suggested were agreed to.
116
The two Amendments he proposed were merely for the purpose of making a clause which was ambiguous clear, and to show that it applied only to the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement. Accordingly, at line 12 of Clause 44 he proposed to put in the words of which he had given notice, "otherwise than by the exercise of the compulsory powers by this Act conferred upon them," to show that the clause was exclusively confined to the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement. Then when he came to line 14, it was absolutely necessary to strike out the words "shall proceed to acquire the estate or land accordingly," because that made it obligatory upon the Land Commission to acquire the land, by offering an extravagant price possibly, or by the exercise of compulsory powers. That was entirely ambiguous, and therefore his second Amendment would introduce the words "shall take all reasonable and proper steps to acquire the estate or land by voluntary agreement on such terms as they shall in the circumstances deem reasonable." That removed any ambiguity and showed that there was no compulsion of any kind; that the Land Commission were not compelled to acquire the land, but to proceed to take all reasonable and proper steps to acquire it voluntarily. If his two Amendments were accepted, the clauses would, in his opinion, have an easily workable machinery for acquiring the land by voluntary agreement.
Then they came to Clause 47 and the three following clauses which set up the machinery for acquiring the land compulsorily. Those three clauses substantially embodied the Amendment that he had the honour to propose. They were based in a great degree upon the procedure under the Small Holdings Act of 1907, and as they stood the machinery was that the Congested Districts Board when they wanted to acquire land compulsorily for relieving congestion by one specific method—namely, the increasing of uneconomic holdings up to £10 in value—would draw up their scheme, and they would submit that scheme to the Land Commission as the Bill stood, and the scheme would be accompanied by a statement under the hand of the Secretary of the reasons for which they had come to a conclusion that it was necessary to employ compulsion. The Estates Commissioners, one of them being the Judicial Commissioner, would consider

117
the scheme, and if they thought that a prima facie case had been made out, viewing it with the statement of facts accompanying it, they would publish notices, and objections would be sent in. Those objections would then be considered by the tribunal composed of a Judge from the rota, the Judicial Commissioner, and one of the Estates Commissioners who had considered the original proposals. One of the objections that might be made was that compulsion was unnecessary. He would state presently what that involved.
It was suggested that the particulars that were required to be inserted in the claim were too voluminous and that they were also embarrassing, because he required the Congested Districts Board to state to whom they proposed to give the land that they had so acquired. He understood it was said that that was impossible in practice, and he had accordingly struck out several clauses which dealt with that so as to simplify as far as possible the scheme that had to be sent in. He had also proposed to modify it by the Amendments be bad put down in this respect, that instead of having the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner to take part in considering the scheme as first submitted, together with the Secretary of the Congested Districts Board, it should be considered by the Estates Commissioners alone, the Judicial Commissioner being left out. The tribunal before which it came would be the same, but the difference was that two members of the tribunal were entire strangers to the transaction, the only person who had any previous acquaintance with it being one of the Estates Commissioners who had considered it in the first instance—that one Estates Commissioner being the one whom the Estates Commissioners themselves selected to preside there on that occasion. He thought it desirable to introduce this Estates Commissioner for the reason that he was in touch with the operations: he knew what had gone on, and what would be done if the scheme was carried through. He thought, therefore, it was desirable that one, at all events, of the Estates Commissioners who was cognisant of all the operations should be selected.
If no objection was made, and the scheme went through, an Order would be issued that on payment of the price, which was to
118
be fixed in a manner he would mention hereafter, the land should vest in the Congested Districts Board. The price or compensation was to be fixed as under the Small Holdings Act of 1905 by an independent arbitrator. That was according to the Bill as it stood, and he did not propose to make any change in that. He thought it far better that it should state at once that the price was to be fixed by an independent arbitrator than by two arbitrators and an umpire. He never knew of a case conducted by an arbitrator on each side and an umpire where the arbitrators appointed by the respective parties had not considered themselves advocates for the sides they represented. Each arbitrator dealt with the interests of the side he represented, and ultimately, therefore, the decision was the decision of the umpire. So that he got rid of the arbitrators appointed by the parties, and suggested that it should be, as in the Small Holdings Act and the Railways Act, by an independent arbitrator appointed by an entirely independent body—namely, the Board of Works, who were competent to discharge such a duty. He provided, however, by an Amendment which he proposed to introduce, that where the parties so desired it, after the investigation had been gone through, the compensation might be fixed by the tribunal. It might be that after the investigation had been conducted the tribunal were in a position to deal with it, and if the parties agreed, of course, there was no separate inquiry necessary at all.
It was suggested as an objection to his Amendment when he originally moved it that his scheme would involve a great many hearings. That was an absolute mistake There was only one hearing. The first investigation was not a hearing at all. The Estates Commissioners took the particulars and looked into the matter, and if they thought it a bona fide case they put the thing in train, giving every opportunity for the people to make an objection. What was the objection that might be made? First of all, it might be objected that the case came within the particular sections of the Act which said that certain land should not be acquired; but the important thing which distinguished the Amendment he had introduced from the original Bill and also from the Amendments of the noble Lord opposite, was that the question whether it was necessary to employ compulsion at all could be raised by objection, and it would have to be proved.
He knew that many noble Lords were accustomed to judicial investigation. Supposing that they were sitting upon a tribunal where the party came forward and asked for compulsory powers, the first question he would be asked would be, "You want this land; is it the only suitable land? Can you not get other suitable land? If you can compulsion is unnecessary." The answer would be, "No, I can get no other land so suitable as this." "Very well, that being so, have you tried to get this land by voluntary agreement?" "No." "Then you have no right to come here and ask for compulsory powers, for such powers are only to be given to you when you cannot get land by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price." Then if the party applying said, "I made an offer to the landlord and he would not accept it," the tribunal would ask, "What was your offer?" "My offer was so much," would be the reply. "That is entirely too small," the tribunal might say, "and we will not give you compulsory powers unless you have made a bona fide attempt to get this land by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price." So that many of the agreements on the paper requiring the parties to state the price and to offer a price and so on were absolutely and entirely unnecessary. They were covered by the wide general requirement that they must prove that suitable land could not be got by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price. That would have to be established before the tribunal before whom it came; otherwise they would not give compulsory powers.
The only other observation he had to make was that he did not propose to modify the appeal. There was an appeal on law and on mixed questions of law and fact to the Court of Appeal, but he dared say that the question whether compulsion was necessary or not—that was, whether the land could be obtained by voluntary agreement or not—would be in most cases a question of fact, and, of course, if that were so there would be no appeal. That was a consistent scheme, and one which he did not think any person could have very great objection to. It provided that the necessity for compulsion should be judged of by an independent tribunal, and that the compensation should be assessed by an independent tribunal on the principle that a man must be compensated for the loss inflicted upon him by being deprived of his property. That was what his scheme
120
would be if he succeeded in the change he proposed. He thought it was much better to divide the two schemes, one giving a complete machinery for the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement, and the other a complete and adequate machinery for the acquisition of land by compulsion.
He saw other Amendments on the Paper. With regard to one of those Amendments, he might say that his desire was to give compulsion under a reasonable scheme for the purpose of increasing uneconomic holdings. He did not want to make it too tight, provided it was effective and reasonable, and he did not want the appointment of any Judge to be an appointment ad hoc. For that reason he had put it that the Judge on the rota should be appointed as provided in the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907. He thought that was much more satisfactory than that a Judge should be appointed either permanently or from time to time as occasion required for that particular business by the King's Bench Division. He would not discuss the rival scheme of Lord MacDonnell further than to say that if imitation was the truest form of flattery he ought to be much obliged to the noble Lord, who had taken the best parts of his scheme. Originally as the noble Lord's Amendment was framed there was no family resemblance between them, but he observed that the tribunal the noble Lord had selected was very much the same as the one he had himself selected. There was this objection to the noble Lord's scheme which to his mind was a fatal one—namely, the question whether the employment of compulsion was necessary or not could not be raised before the tribunal. That was the particular vice, as he thought, of the original Bill, and it was the particular vice of the noble Lord's scheme. He might be a little extravagant on these matters, but there was to him nothing more repulsive than the idea of any body of men, without the control of any person, being allowed to take an individual piece of land compulsorily of their own motion; and if he did not do the noble Lord an injustice in supposing that that was what he intended, then he asked the House to prefer his scheme to that of the noble Lord, because the best thing about it was that it provided for an independent tribunal investigating anything turning on the

121
question whether compulsion was necessary at all.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that when the matter was last before their Lordships' House two schemes were presented to them for consideration, and in the speech of the noble Marquess who led the Opposition it was mentioned, if he remembered rightly, that there were good points in both schemes. The noble Marquess did not much care which scheme was accepted for the moment, but he stated that whatever scheme was accepted the good points of the other scheme which might happen to be wanting in the one which was accepted should be incorporated, and he laid down one strong requirement—namely, that property was not to be compulsorily taken unless a decision had been come to by a competent and impartial tribunal that compulsory acquisition was necessary. The next point that the noble Marquess laid down was that the procedure should be as simple as was consistent with effective work. The noble Marquess thought that the scheme of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, was surrounded by a zareba of precautions, and he suggested that there was no necessity for all these legal formalities and precautions, and that the noble and learned Lord's scheme might be divested of some of them without suffering therefrom.
Owing to an accident he was absent from the House at the moment when a Division had been taken upon the scheme of the Government. If he had been there he supposed the Lord Chairman would have asked him to speak to his scheme, as he had called upon him to speak in the first instance; and it was not altogether impossible that if he had not accidentally been absent the scheme upon the Paper now would have been his scheme. He might be wrong in that, but it was not a matter of very much moment. Two schemes were before their Lordships, one of them the scheme of the noble and learned Lord for the compulsory acquisition of land alone. It made no provision for the amicable acquisition of land by bargaining between the vendor and the purchaser. That was an initial defect in the scheme of the noble and learned Lord which he had now corrected. The noble and learned Lord said that he (Lord MacDonnell) had copied him. He was quite sure that he might with great advantage to himself copy
122
a good deal fom the noble and learned Lord and in the scheme which was now before their Lordships he had to a certain extent copied from him, but the noble and learned Lord had also paid him the high compliment of copying from him. He did not make those remarks with any intention of unnecessary comparison; he made them with the object of showing how far the two schemes were identical, and in what respect his scheme was better than that of the noble and learned Lord.
The scheme of the noble Lord as printed, as he had already said, was a compulsory one, and now he had introduced voluntary provisions, and there the noble and learned Lord's ideas were taken from his scheme. The noble and learned Lord's first scheme placed the initial inquiries on the shoulders of the Judicial Commissioners and two Estates Commissioners, whereas the scheme now fell into line with his own, in placing the initial inquiry on the Estates Commissioners alone. Again, in the noble and learned Lord's first scheme he made his tribunal to consist of two Estates Commissioners, the Judicial Commissioner and a Judge of the High Court. The noble and learned Lord now did him the honour of adopting his Court, consisting of one Estates Commissioner, the Judicial Commissioner and a Judge of the High Court; but he differed from him in preserving the Court of Appeal, and that was a point upon which he thought the noble Marquess who led the Opposition was particularly insistent.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the noble Lord was in error. He had only put one Commissioner on the tribunal.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon if he was in error, but he thought the scheme of Lord Atkinson originally included two Estates Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord had preserved the Court of Appeal. He provided for a Court consisting of the Judicial Commissioner, a Judge of the High Court, and one Estates Commissioner. The noble and learned Lord considered that that high judicial body was incompetent to decide questions of law and fact connected with the acquisition of an estate or of untenanted land. He (Lord MacDonnell) was strongly of opinion that where they had a body of that character and composition

123
they ought to trust it with final discretion upon such a point as that. The noble and learned Lord provided that the final fixation of the price should not rest with the high judicial body he bad mentioned, but that there should be appointed for the purpose an arbitrator chosen by the Public Works Department under the Lands Clauses Acts. He did not speak on the point with such great knowledge and judicial experience as the noble and learned Lord but he would ask their Lordships whether he was wrong in saying that from the decision of an arbitrator appointed under the Lands Clauses Acts—that was to say under 14 and 15 Victoria, Chapter 7, Section 26—it was possible to carry the case to a Judge of Assize and a petty jury.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that if the compensation was assessed under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, there was an appeal to a jury no doubt, but the noble Lord had not read his clause because the clause provided that it should be assessed by a single arbitrator on the principle of the Lands Clauses Act. The noble Lord was apparently confounding the machinery of the Act with its principles.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the words of the noble and learned Lord, now in the Bill, were—
"Upon the making of an order by the aforesaid tribunal or by the Court of Appeal over-ruling all objections, or of the making of an order by the said Commissioners where no objection has been made, or if made has been withdrawn, or within a reasonable time thereafter the compensation payable in respect of the lands taken or injuriously affected or shall be determined in the manner prescribed by a single arbitrator appointed by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, on the principles on which compensation is awarded for lands taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Acts."
He would ask the noble and learned Lord whether on the principle contained in that subclause it was not open to either party, under Section 26 of 14 and 15 Victoria, Chapter 70, to carry the case to a Judge of Assize who would empanel a petty jury whose decision would be final, so that the fixation of the price in Ireland would be determined by a petty jury such as noble Lords opposite from Ireland were acquainted with.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON repeated that the noble Lord was entirely wrong and was confounding the machinery of the Lands
124
Clauses Act with the principle of the Lands Clauses Act. The principle of that Act was that a man should get compensation for being injuriously affected by his land being taken compulsorily from him. The machinery of the Lands Clauses Act was a traverse of the award of the arbitrator and a trial by a jury, but he had followed word for word the Small Holdings Act of 1907 under which it had never been suggested that there was any power of appeal to a jury. There were many other Acts in which the same phraseology was used providing for compensation to be fixed by an independent arbitrator; but using the principle of the Act of 1845 did not bring in the machinery.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said there was not one word in the noble and learned Lord's scheme excluding the right which the Statute conferred upon either party to the arbitration to bring the matter before a Court of Assize and a petty jury, so that he maintained under the terms of the noble and learned Lord's scheme it was possible that the price of all land acquired compulsorily under the scheme would be fixed by a petty jury. Noble Lords opposite, he thought, would scarcely like to have the price of their lands assessed by a petty jury in Ireland. That was a matter which, of course, might be, and no doubt would be, corrected in drafting.
As the scheme was produced in the first instance, a representation had to be made in a certain form to the Estates Commissioners. That form required information to be given which it was, as the noble and learned Lord now admitted, practically impossible to give. That defect in the scheme had been removed to some extent, but he would not admit that it had been entirely removed. Next, under the scheme as first submitted, that proposal came before the Judicial Commissioner together with two of the Estates Commissioners.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that if the noble Lord would look at page 25 of the Bill he would see that subclause (5) provided that where objection was made it should be heard by the tribunal there set out.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD replied that the noble and learned Lord was inviting him to jump over a stage in his argument, which he was not disposed to do.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON could only say that if the noble Lord cared to argue a thing which existed at stage one but which was removed and did not exist at stage five, he could say no more; but it certainly seemed to be unnecessary and to lead to confusion.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the noble and learned Lord could revel in the anticipation of that confusion, but he preferred to conduct his argument in his own way. A requisition was put forward which the noble and learned Lord now admitted was impossible of fulfilment. It was to come before the Judicial Commissioner together with two of the Estates Commissioners. Those three gentlemen were to inquire into the merits of the scheme, and if satisfied that it was prima facie necessary for the land to be acquired compulsorily they were to do certain things. He took the objection, on the last occasion when he was speaking on the point, that it was highly undesirable to submit a scheme which was carefully prepared by a competent body, to another not more competent body which was not a judicial one and which was not held in popular esteem in Ireland higher than the Congested Districts Board, upon whose representation it was to pass judgment. He submitted on that occasion that it was far better that no judgment should be passed on the representation or the application of the Congested Districts Board by the Estates Commissioners, whose functions in the matter should be purely ministerial. When objections to the acquisition of the land were made, those objections were to be laid before a judicial body. The creation of the judicial body was a point which he was glad to take from the noble and learned Lord, and he did it in compliance with what was insisted upon by the noble Marquess who led the Opposition, that if any objection were taken to the acquisition of the land that objection should be decided upon by a perfectly independent tribunal. He (Lord MacDonnell) therefore took a tribunal composed of one Estates Commissioner, the Judicial Commissioner, and a Judge of the High Court, and he made the decision of that body on the question of whether land should be acquired or not a final decision. Furthermore, he thought under the present scheme that the issues to be raised before that body should be definite, and that a general power of
126
inquiring and seeing whether any objection should be made or could be made was not a sort of mandate which should be given to the tribunal.
Their Lordships' House, by a large majority, had affirmed the principle of compulsory acquisition in certain cases. That being so, it seemed to him to be essential that the determination of the question whether a particular plot of land should be acquired or should not be acquired ought to be limited to the consideration of certain points, and those points he had put down in his Amendment as follows—

"(a) that the estate or land is not suitable for the relief of congestion;

(b) that the acquisition of the estate or land is not necessary for relief of congestion;

(c) that the estate or land and all within the categories of land exempted from acquisition by section fifty (4) of this Act."

The fifty-fourth clause of the Bill he took bodily from the scheme of the noble and learned Lord. He had himself certain proposals on the Paper which covered one-half of the noble and learned Lord's proposals, but he was glad to take the noble and learned Lord's as being more complete. When the tribunal which he so constituted had come to a conclusion that the land on any one or other of those grounds ought not to be acquired, the case failed and no further action was taken. When, however, the tribunal was of opinion that none of those grounds of objection prevailed, the Estates Commissioners having received the order of the Court, would then proceed to acquire the land. The objections to which the noble Marquess called attention having thus been disposed of, nothing remained except the fixation of the price. His object was that the price should be fixed by a tribunal as independent, as well informed, and as competent as the tribunal which had decided upon the right to acquire, and consequently he used the same tribunal, varying, if necessary, either the Estates Commissioner or the Judge. When the Estates Commissioners proceeded executively to acquire the land they made the usual inquiries, ascertained all the particulars necessary to enable them to estimate the price, and made an offer. If the owner was pleased with the offer he accepted it, and the case proceeded in the ordinary way; if he did not accept the offer, he appealed to the Court and the Court inquired into the adequacy of the

127
price and gave a final order. He would ask their Lordships to compare the final order of a Court composed of the Judicial Commissioner, a Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, and one of the Estates Commissioners with that of a petty jury in the West of Ireland. That was a position which their Lordships had to consider.
Another point was that when the acquisition was determined upon, the tribunal fixed a price in different ways in the scheme of the noble and learned Lord and himself. The noble and learned Lord would deny to the vendor any bonus upon the purchase price because, forsooth, he refused to accept the offer in the first instance and exercised his right of appealing to have the rent fixed. He did not see why such a threat as that should be held over vendors to compel them to accept the price offered in the first instance. It seemed to him that advantage was thereby being taken of the necessities of the vendor, and in his opinion no disadvantage should attach in the case of a vendor who thought he had not been offered a full price and who got from the Court a price which in the judgment of the Court was fair. Those were the salient differences between his proposal and that of the noble and learned Lord.
He submitted to their Lordships that his proposal was a simple and consistent one throughout, that there was an entire absence of anything like duplication of procedure, and that there was the arbitrament in every case of a responsible tribunal. There was no appeal from the lowest to the highest Courts in the land thus increasing costs and putting litigants to all the expense and delay of the law. If the proposals which he placed before their Lordships were adopted, they would find that land acquisition in Ireland would go forward smoothly and expeditiously, without friction, and to the satisfaction of all concerned. On the other hand, he felt confident that if they adhered to the provisional adoption of the noble and learned Lord's proposals they would want such a degree of modifications, qualifications, additions, and omissions that their Lordships would not be able to get over the business that night.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON would not repeat what he had already said, because he felt it was hopeless to try and remove the
128
impression with regard to the petty jury from the noble Lord's mind. It seemed to amount almost to hallucination. With regard to the noble Lord's point about the bonus, if the noble Lord understood the Lands Clauses Act he would have seen that he was giving vendors a great deal more than the bonus because he was giving them the ten per cent. which was always accorded under the Lands Clauses Act, and which was a great deal more than the bonus. He had struck out the bonus because the bonus was an inducement to a man to sell and had no application to a case where a man had to sell compulsorily, and he had particularly provided that the ten per cent., as under the Lands Clauses Act, should invariably be added to the price. What were the circumstances which the noble Lord said distinguished his scheme from his own and made the noble Lord's much simpler and cheaper and shorter? The noble Lord had provided for no appeal in his proposal. When they had appeals to the Court of Appeal in Ireland on matters not one-half or one-tenth as important, he thought it was desirable that there should be a power of appeal in this matter on questions of law. He did not, of course, say that the Court of Appeal should re-try pure questions of fact. But the real substantial fight and litigation was precisely the same under the scheme of the noble Lord, and the tribunal was the same. There was no wonder that it should be so, for the noble Lord had copied the tribunal from his scheme.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon; he did not copy the tribunal from him.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said there would be no additional expense under his scheme; the investigation would be made by precisely the same tribunal under both schemes, and that would be the only expense the parties would incur. He noticed that the noble Lord had skilfully evaded the real point in the case, which was, Did he or did he not give the tribunal power to determine whether compulsory acquisition was or was not necessary? That was very ambiguously provided for in the noble Lord's scheme, which said that one of the objections must be that the acquisition of the estate or land was not necessary for the relief of congestion. He did not know what that meant.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said it meant that an objection would be a valid one where it was proved that congestion could be relieved otherwise than by the acquisition of the particular piece of land in question.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON submitted that his scheme put that in the forefront and provided that the necessity for compulsion was one of the things that had to be raised before the tribunal and determined by the tribunal. What were the other matters on which the noble Lord objected to his scheme? The schemes balanced each other on the point that there was to be one hearing before the same tribunal, and there would not be any more expense in one case than in the other. With regard to the particular virtue claimed by the noble Lord for his proposal in having a Judge of the Superior Court and the Judicial Commissioner and one of the Estates Commissioners as the tribunal to determine the price, he should have thought that that was a most awkward tribunal for such a purpose. He made them the tribunal when the parties consented; the noble Lord made them the tribunal whether the parties consented or not.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD pointed out that the noble and learned Lord also adopted the same tribunal.
LORD ATKINSON: No, only if the two parties consented.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that the only difference in the noble and learned Lord's proposal was that a person wishing to appeal from the award of the arbitrator, instead of seeking refuge in a petty jury was allowed to seek refuge in the Court of Appeal.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that if their Lordships would take the trouble to read the noble Lord's scheme they would find that the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement and the acquisition of land by compulsion were mixed up together in a most confused way.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: The noble and learned Lord is doing me great injustice. Clauses 47 and 48 of my scheme deal with amicable acquisition, and the other with compulsion.
LORD ATKINSON: That is my objection. The noble Lord begins with compulsion, and then interpolates clauses dealing with voluntary agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I suggest to your Lordships that the debate is becoming a conversation? There are two rival schemes before the House, one of them propounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, and criticised by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, and the other propounded by Lord MacDonnell and criticised by Lord Atkinson. Surely, my Lords, the House itself is competent to judge of the merits of the various schemes quite apart from the conversation of the two noble Lords.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he would only add one word. Lord MacDonnell had suggested that it would be offensive to the Congested Districts Board that their proposal should come before the Estates Commissioners at all. He did not see how that lessened the dignity of the Congested Districts Board in the least, or why it should be looked upon as an offence against them. The Congested Districts Board would have to buy the land from them, and when they put forward a scheme it was not unreasonable, surely, to ask the Estates Commissioners to look at it and see whether prima facie it was a scheme that ought to be enforced. The Estates Commissioners were the instruments by which the scheme was enforced, and the idea that an offence would be committed against the Congested Districts Board by asking the Estates Commissioners to say whether the scheme was right or not, seemed to him to be imaginary.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON was sure the House had listened with great interest to the duel that had taken place with regard to the rival schemes before their Lordships, but he thought that perhaps they had now reached a time when those in whom the parental interest in the scheme was not so acute might be allowed to say a word. He was afraid that many members of the House would feel, however good a substratum had been laid down, that his noble and learned friend's Amendment, which was adopted rather hurriedly on the last occasion when it was discussed, did not altogether carry out even the principle which the noble and learned Lord had himself laid down. The noble

131
and learned Lord had insisted throughout the discussion that if they were to have compulsion they must have an absolutely impartial Court to decide as to the necessity for it, and also an impartial tribunal to fix upon the price. He confessed when he approached the question—and he hoped he might be allowed to say so again because he believed it was the opinion of the great majority of their Lordships' House—that the whole question of importing compulsion into the Bill was an anomaly. It might be necessary from the point of view of the Government, but it seemed to him that it was absolutely anomalous, when they had the Congested Districts Board with already an enormous amount of land which they could not employ, and when they had agreements extending into £50,000,000 for voluntary purchase which they could not liquidate, for the Government to come and say that the Bill could not be carried out without compulsion.
He had in his pocket at that moment a letter which illustrated the absurdity of a Government Department holding such a large amount of land in their hands. He could remember a time when members of the House of Commons used to receive many letters from people complaining of their treatment by the National League and saying that there ought to be reform, but that no names must be mentioned. As he said, he had a letter from a man stating that his market had been spoiled by the Congested Districts Board, which had undersold him, and that his holding was less remunerative, and yet he added—
"I do implore your Lordship, if you make use of these facts, not to disclose my name, or I shall be boycotted by the Congested Districts Hoard and utterly ruined."
That showed, he thought, that when there was a million pounds worth of land in the hands of a Government Department there were dangers existing which made it desirable not to increase the amount. Yet they had been told that it was absolutely necessary that a power of compulsion should be given to deal with isolated cases.
He thought it was perfectly clear, from the discussion they had heard on both sides of the House, that the Amendment of Lord MacDonnell did not provide for an impartial tribunal to investigate the necessity of taking land. The noble Lord
132
had been champion of a great many causes throughout the debate, some of them lost causes, and he ventured to say that this was one of them. He hoped their Lordships would remember that it was not going to be a question of merely taking a few acres here and there for a cottage or a garden, or even for an allotment or small holding, it was an operation which might affect hundreds or thousands of acres belonging to one individual, which they were going to take away without the least desire on the part of the owner to sell, and that would probably be what would happen in the case of many noble Lords sitting behind him, who farmed large portions of their estates and who would be the first target for compulsion, if compulsion was to be exercised. It was proposed to take away from a man of that kind his occupation and also to take away from him what he had hitherto regarded as his own by right, and that being so he thought the least they could do was to make certain that on the question of the necessity of having that land taken away from him he should have the right of an appeal to a tribunal which was impartial.
He was not at all satisfied, as he had pointed out before, with the tribunal suggested by the noble and learned Lord. He provided that one of the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner should sit with a rota Judge, and that those three, of whom one was certainly committed already and a second would by hypothesis support his colleague, should be the tribunal to decide this question. He would like to see the Estates Commissioners apart from the Judicial Commissioner left out of the business altogether. They had to form a scheme, and they could not help being swayed by the fact, which one of them in his evidence before the Dudley Commission made perfectly clear, that they had to consider how the man they were going to put on the land was going to make a profit out of it: he might, perhaps, not be a satisfactory farmer, but they were bound to put him in a better position. He hoped their Lordships would favourably consider any Amendment which made the tribunal consist of the Judicial Commissioner and a Judge of the High Court, or two Judges of the High Court, because he did not think it was too much to ask, where the litigants were a Government Department on the one side and an owner on the other, that the owner should have the right of claiming the

133
assistance of Judges of the High Court to decide his case.
As to price, the noble and learned Lord told their Lordships with great emphasis that it was a mistake to have two arbitrators with an umpire. He said he knew of no case in which both the arbitrators did not consider themselves to be advocates on either side, and that the umpire was certain to have to be called in to decide between them. He had had some experience of such arbitrations, and on the spur of the moment he remembered one case when he was at the War Office in which it was desired to take a very large tract of land. The question that came up for decision in that arbitration involved a sum of something like £90,000 or £100,000. The War Office appointed an arbitrator and the landlord appointed an arbitrator, and the decision was arrived at in a most satisfactory manner without any question at all of calling in the umpire, who, of course, had been provided for. He did not think that cases involving amounts of perhaps £40,000 or £50,000 should be left to one individual to guide the Court, particularly where the landlord might be a most unwilling seller. It was quite true what Lord MacDonnell had said a few moments ago, that the principle of compulsion to a limited extent for the purpose of relieving congested districts was carried by their Lordships by a large majority. That was the fact, and the reason for it was not very far to seek. It was not from any love of compulsion; it was not, he believed, in the case of many noble Lords sitting on his side of the House from any conviction that compulsion would be necessary; but it was, he believed, because there was a feeling that with the large sacrifices which had been exacted from this country and with the still larger sacrifices which had been exacted from those who owned land in Ireland in order to produce something like finality, there was no desire on the Opposition side of the House to refuse a provision without which the Government had assured them there was no chance of finality under the Bill.
The relief of congestion was and must be the first concern of those promoting the Bill, but he spoke the opinion, he thought, of every noble Lord on his side of the House when he said that although they had bean prepared with great reluctance to go the lengths they had done as to compulsion, if there was not going to be a perfectly clear
134
and impartial tribunal on the question of necessity, as well as an impartial hearing on the question of price, they would rather that the Bill was not passed at all, and that all the advantages of it which might be gained for the pacification of Ireland and for the peace as between landlord and tenant should be lost rather than a provision which was not, only so unjust but also so unworkable should be placed upon the Statute Book.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as these two rival schemes are concerned, I find myself in the unaccustomed, and to me agreeable, position of a critic, because at this moment my scheme, in which I may also be assumed to take a parental interest, is not under discussion. The two noble Lords, with their rival schemes, each devoted some part of their speeches to the question of how far the one might be indebted to the other in the framing of them. I will not attempt to enter into the question as to how far either or both of them are indebted to the Bill as I introduced it. There is a great deal in both schemes to which His Majesty's Government, I think I ought to remind the House, are compelled to take serious exception. We have never agreed to the abolition of the purchasing power of the Congested Districts Board. We see, of course, what is the intention and object of noble. Lords in bringing about that abolition—namely, that there should be only one purchasing body in Ireland. We achieved in practice in our scheme a similar result by saying that there should be two purchasing bodies but that each should be confined within its own area.
Now what is the result, in these clauses as they stand, of the handing over of the purchasing power to the Estates Commissioners? What happens is this. The Congested Districts Board go through the whole operation—and this, of course, applies whether the purchase is voluntary or compulsory—of looking at the land and deciding what they will do with it, and also deciding whether they wish to acquire it in the last resort by compulsion. They then send in a requisition to the Land Commission. The Land Commission, I take it, have to go over the whole process again with their own inspectors and make a fresh examination. That having been done the Estates Commissioners are placed in the agreeable position which few of us ever find ourselves in of being able to make a purchase with other people's money. The money comes out of the

135
pockets of the Congested Districts Board, but the amount to be given is entirely at the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, and there is no provision for any consultation between the two bodies with a view of arriving at the price which the Congested Districts Board are prepared to pay. Therefore, the Estates Commissioners knowing that they themselves cannot buy at a loss, but that the Congested Districts Board may have no inducement beyond the general sense of duty, which all men exercising a public function have, to make the kind of bargain which they would naturally make if they were acting for themselves. Can your Lordships produce any instance in England, Ireland, or anywhere else of one public body buying land with the money of another public body? I think not.
See what further possibilities of confusion there are. Look at the proviso to subsection (3). That provides that untenanted land must be taken in these particular circumstances to be divided up by the Land Commission for the purposes of relieving local congestion. That operation is to happen before the land is handed back to the Congested Districts Board, and therefore you not only have the double operation as regards purchase, but you actually have the particular estate being divided and administered by the two separate bodies. I think I am not speaking too strongly when I say that that is a positively grotesque proposition, and one which I can hardly conceive your Lordships desiring to retain in the Bill. With regard to the differences between the two noble Lords on the question of procedure, the noble Viscount who has just sat down expressed himself very strongly of the necessity of going through the utmost ceremony in any case where land was proposed to be taken compulsorily. The noble Viscount, I think, omitted one consideration which is germane to this discussion, and it is this. There is a difference between the application of compulsory powers by these purchasing bodies and the single application of a compulsory power, for instance, in England. Compulsion, I think it may be assumed, would follow upon the lines of purchase as carried out whether by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners in Ireland.
The noble Viscount, I think, imported a certain prejudice into the matter when he spoke of the abnormal character of
136
compulsion as applied to the West of Ireland. The noble Viscount on the question of arbitration instanced a case in which he was himself concerned when he was at the War Office. If noble Lords opposite and other proprietors in the West of Ireland are going to get the sort of terms which the War Office has been in the habit of paying, I think there will be a general rush to be compulsorily bought out, not only by noble Lords, but by everybody who has an acre of land in the West of Ireland. As regards the question of the tribunal, my noble friend behind me follows in his proposed Clauses 47 and 48, and also partly in Clause 49, generally the lines on which we propose to proceed in our Bill, and it seems to me that the three grounds of objection at the bottom of page 11 which he there embodies represent a reasonable form in which anybody whose land is proposed to be taken may lodge his protest.
But there are one or two points in the noble Lord's Amendment, and also in that of the noble and learned Lord opposite, to which we take exception. We do not think that you will solve this problem if you confine your powers of purchase to congested estates in congested district counties. If you are not able to buy other than congested estates at need for the relief of congestion I am afraid yon will find that there will be cases, possibly many cases, in which special congestion will not be able to be dealt with. Then my noble friend behind me provides that the Land Commission should, after certain ceremonies have been gone through, make an order which will be eventually a transfer of such land to the Congested Districts Board, but if he looks at the proviso which I have just mentioned to subclause (3) of Clause 44 in the Bill, he will see that the two things do not run together, because there are certain cases in which the Land Commission are told not to pass the land to the Congested Districts Board, but to keep part of it back for their own purposes. We have always felt, as I have said before, that it is not reasonable to speak of such bodies as the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners as though they were ordinary litigants or ordinary parties, such as, for instance, a railway company, seeking to acquire land by compulsion; and when you speak of them as being judges in their own case, even by the surely harmless device of putting

137
an Estates Commissioner on the tribunal, as the noble and learned Lord opposite proposes, you are, I think, going beyond what is reasonable.
The noble Viscount opposite spoke all through as though the Congested Districts Board in desiring to make a purchase of this kind were in a position of a public company desiring to buy a piece of land for the extension of their works. The two things must not be treated as though they were identical. It is true, of course, that the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners desire to carry out the operations which are entrusted to them according to law, but in essence, as regards the operation of their minds, if not by their actual position, they must be expected to act judicially in such a case to a great extent, and it is not fair to compare them to people who desire to obtain land by compulsion in order to put money into their own pockets. And it is for that reason that it is not, in my view, reasonable to demand precisely those same safeguards over these compulsory purchases as in ordinary cases of purchase by compulsion.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In the evidence given by one of the Estates Commissioners, he said that they must be able to sell the land so as not to incur loss, and he added that the landlord might have to part with that land for less than it was worth to him.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I know the observation to which the noble Viscount alludes, and it is one which has often been quoted but the same Estates Commissioner said—and I do not think the noble Viscount will contradict this—that the landlord ought not merely to receive a fair but a generous price, and that the difference ought to be paid by the State; and that is what, of course, in the case of a purchase at a loss has to be done, and the Congested Districts Board are provided by the State with funds for that purpose. If it is only that point upon which the noble Viscount rests, I think he builds too much upon a mere obiter dictum which has been, I am certain, misinterpreted. We, I repeat, do not desire or expect compulsion to be exercised on a large scale, and we certainly do desire that those who are bought out by compulsion should receive a fair and reasonable price for their land. But we do not believe that in order to achieve that object it is necessary to go through
138
a whole series of proceedings, and to surround the transaction with the same fences and safeguards that might be necessary in the case of ordinary purchases by compulsion. Consequently, although I fully admit the efforts which the noble and learned Lord opposite has made to shorten and cheapen the procedure under his clause, and though I also admit that there is much in the clauses of the noble Lord behind me to which I am prepared to give adhesion, yet at the same time I should not myself, as representing the Government, walk into the Lobby in favour of either.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think some of your Lordships must have been asking yourselves during the last hour or so whether we were approaching some means of exit from the rather difficult position in which the House finds itself. We agreed that a certain amount of latitude of discussion should be allowed, and it certainly has been taken advantage of to a very full extent. I think it is true, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House said just now, that the House has virtually to choose in the first instance between the rival schemes of the noble Lord who sits on the Back Benches opposite, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson. Of course, there is a very important series of Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dunboyne, but those are Amendments on the scheme of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson, and I think they can most conveniently be considered when we come to discuss the question in detail.
I was interested to hear both Lord MacDonnell and Lord Atkinson impute to one another, with a certain amount of earnestness, that each had plagiarised the particular scheme of which the other was the author. All I can say is that I rejoice that it is so, because we all of us felt when these two schemes first made their appearance that there were excellent features in both of them, and if each noble Lord has been able to pick the plums out of the other noble Lord's scheme, I feel sure that we shall be thereby brought nearer to a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. The only suggestion which I venture to offer to your Lordships now is that probably the most convenient and the most expeditious mode of procedure will be that we should take as a basis of discussion

139
the scheme which is now in the Bill—I mean the scheme that was added to the Bill on the motion of the noble and learned Lord behind me. He has considerably amended it. He has, if I may borrow an expression from him, withdrawn some of the bushes out of which his own zareba was originally constructed, and I cannot help thinking that his amended proposals may form a very useful ground work for our operations.
Now may I, in as few words as possible, state to the House what I conceive to be the effect of the amended proposals of my noble and learned friend? In the first place, and therein he is at one with the noble Lord opposite, he desires to separate that part of the procedure which is based upon voluntary purchase from that part of the procedure which depends upon the exercise of compulsion. I understand him to suggest something of this kind: The first step is that the Congested Districts Board must issue a requisition to the Land Commission. Thereupon the Land Commission are to take in the language of the noble and learned Lord, "all reasonable steps" to secure the purchase of the land which the Board desires to secure. Now, I take it that the meaning of the words "all reasonable steps" is that they are to do what any party desiring to buy land or anything else from another party would do, that is, enter into informal and reasonable negotiations, in which, of course, the question of price would certainly arise. The noble Earl opposite said just now that in his view the result of this would be that the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board would be acting apart, the one having no means of knowing what had been done by or was in the mind of the other. As to that, I can scarcely conceive that two public Departments entrusted with duties of this importance should fail to lay their heads together and to confer as to the proper steps to be taken. They would, no doubt, be impelled by that sense of duty which the noble Earl very properly imputed to them to take such a course. Well, if the negotiations thus set on foot proceed successfully, the Land Commission then acquire the land, and having supplied the necessities of any local congests, proceeds to hand over the balance to the Congested Districts Board to be by them used for the purpose of relieving congestion in other parts of the country. That, as I understand it, closes the chapter so far as the
140
voluntary purchase is concerned, and we then pass to the question of compulsion. Now what happens under the Bill as to compulsion? If the Board find that the desired land cannot be acquired at a reasonable price on their behalf—and it is quite clear that in this case the Land Commissioners are acting on behalf of the Congested Districts Board—if they find the land cannot be acquired at a reasonable price, it then becomes their duty to submit a scheme to the Laud Commission for the compulsory acquisition of the land.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I interrupt for one moment? The noble Marquess contemplates that the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission will carry on negotiations, if not at the same time, at different times, with the possible vendor?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I gather that the initial negotiations would be with the Board, but it is quite a point that may require attention. Well then, the scheme having been submitted to the Land Commission, it is considered by them. If they are satisfied they publish the necessary notices, and then in case objection is taken there is an appeal to the tribunal, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, consisting of one Estates Commissioner, a Judicial Commissioner, and a Judge from the rota. As to the constitution of that tribunal, there is no doubt a great deal to be said, but the question whether or not an Estate Commissioner should have a place on it is a simple and concrete point which could be very easily discussed upon its merits. It is noteworthy that the tribunal contemplated by the noble and learned Lord has to decide as to there being any necessity to resort to compulsion at all, and that is a point to which we on this side of the House certainly attach very great importance, and it is a point which, in our opinion, is not so satisfactorily or so clearly provided for in the alternative scheme of the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell. The noble and learned Lord then gives an appeal to the Court of Appeal on law and mixed questions of law and fact.
The only other feature in the scheme is that there is a separate appeal on questions of price to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Works, unless the parties prefer that the question should be dealt with by the tribunal. I am quite prepared to admit that there may be preferable modes of dealing with this question of price, but I think it is a good feature in the scheme in

141
the Bill as amended that the question of price should be dealt with as a separate issue, and not mixed up with the other questions which will arise. That, as I understand it, is the scheme which now finds a place in the Bill, and that scheme for the present holds the field. If then we desire really to advance this discussion we should do well to make up our minds whether we do or do not accept that scheme as the ground work of the plan, and we can then deal with points of detail such as those raised by Lord Dunboyne. He has two very important proposals to make, one dealing with the composition of the tribunal, and the other dealing with the procedure to be followed in fixing the price. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, there is a great deal to be said for the noble Lord's proposals, and I shall be glad to hear them discussed. If the House is at all disposed to share my view, I would suggest that we should now proceed to the discussion seriatim of the Amendments upon the Paper, for I really cannot help feeling that if the general discussion on which we have embarked is allowed to proceed much longer we shall never see our way to a settlement of the matter before the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the House will allow me to point out that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, which he proposed some time ago, affords a complete opportunity of making a selection between the two schemes, because it is essential to and characteristic of Lord Atkinson's scheme, and it is alien to and subversive of Lord MacDonnell's scheme. Therefore, if Lord Atkinson's Amendment, which I am about to put, be accepted, it will be a practical selection between the two schemes. The Amendment is in page 22, line 12, after the word "land," to insert the words "otherwise than by the exercise of the compulsory powers by this Act conferred upon them." The question is that these words be here inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said his Amendment, which came next, was a very simple Amendment, and was merely to ensure that the requisition issued by the Congested Districts Board to the Land Commission calling on them to acquire or purchase certain lands should contain all the information possible. Therefore he proposed to add the words
142
"and shall state what in their opinion would be a fair price of such land." He thought that was a necessary piece of information.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 12, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'and shall state what in their opinion would be the fair price of such land.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess this Amendment seems to me to add some complication to the proceedings, because it involves an initial process of bargaining between the land owner and the Congested Districts Board, and he will afterwards be subjected to a second process of bargaining with the Estates Commissioners. I do not want to oppose the Amendment, but it seems to me that it would introduce a somewhat undue element of complication, and also of inspection by the Board, because, of course, they must look very carefully into it in order to see, what sort of price they are inclined to give.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 14, to leave out the words 'shall proceed to acquire the estate or land accordingly,' and to insert the words 'shall take all reasonable and proper steps to acquire the estate or land by voluntary agreement on such terms as they shall in the circumstances deem reasonable.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 15, after the word 'Act' to insert the words in the case of sales other than compulsory.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved to insert the following new Clause 45: "Where any untenanted land has been acquired by the Board before the passing of this Act, or by the Land Commission on the requisition of the Board under this Act, the Board may retain the same and lot it, or any portion thereof, to the Department for the purpose of establishing an experimental farm for the relief of congestion by the training of probationary occupiers, instead of selling the same as hereinafter provided; and the Department may hold such land for this purpose and set aside such portions thereof

143
as they think fit as allotments for such probationary occupiers during their period of training."
He said this was the Amendment to which he alluded when he withdrew his Amendment on the previous evening on an earlier clause. This was the substantive proposal which he had to make, and the main portion of the scheme which he had to lay before the House. He could have wished that this Amendment had fallen into abler hands than his own, and had been advocated more influentially. Migration as a remedy for congestion was at once so important and at the same time was surrounded with such difficulties that he trusted no apology was needed for bringing before the House an aspect of that system which had not hitherto, be thought, engaged the attention of the House. The scheme embodied in his Amendment originated with Sir Horace Plunkett, and was based upon that gentleman's experience of nearly twenty years in the work of the Congested Districts Board. Whatever credit attached to the idea was entirely Sir Horace Plunkett's, but he (Lord Monteagle) alone was responsible for the form in which it was now proposed, as his right hon. friend was in America and he had had no opportunity of consulting him on the form of the Amendment before he sailed for the States.
The details of his Amendment might be crude and the drafting defective, but he hoped that at all events it presented to the House in a fairly definite form the main principle which he wished to submit for consideration. It would afford at any rate a basis for discussion, and elicit the opinions of others more experienced and abler than himself. During these debates they had had frequent criticisms from noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House on the system of migration, and many of those had proceeded from noble Lords like Lord Ashtown, whom he now saw in his place, who had great experience in the West of Ireland. Only on the previous day in the columns of a newspaper he observed a most able letter from his noble friend putting forward the case against migration from his point of view in a very convincing manner. He must say that, to a large extent he agreed with Lord Ashtown. If no sort of migration were possible except in the form in which it had hitherto been practised, he would be very much disposed to agree with
144
the noble Lord and to despair of migration as a solution. But though he was far from regarding migration as a panacea, he thought that it had to be tried, that it was the one solution that had been put forward of this great difficulty, and they could not afford to lay it aside until it had been given a fair trial in the most practical form in which it could be presented.
Migration pure and simple, he agreed, was an entire delusion, but he thought Sir Horace Plunkett had shown a way in which migration might be adopted on probationary lines free from defects which he fully appreciated in common with his noble friend Lord Ashtown. The first difficulty which Lord Ashtown had so clearly pointed out was that the congests when they were brought on to the land had had no experience; they had no capital and no knowledge of agriculture. There was a still more serious difficulty, and that was that in the circumstances under which they were now living their surroundings did not give rise to those developments of character which were essential for the successful treatment of small farms under the conditions which would prevail in the West of Ireland, or, he might say, in any part of Ireland. Another difficulty to which he thought his noble friend Lord Ashtown did not allude, though he believed the noble Lord would not disagree with him, was that migration as practised now merely struck the land and cut it up in a sort of chessboard fashion; it set up a dead level of small holdings throughout the district which was operated over. That was the greatest blot on the system. He agreed that it was most important they should have large farms and large farmers who would act as pioneers of agriculture, like the noble Lord himself, who was, he was sure, doing a very great work in the West of Ireland in that capacity.
It was most important, as he had said, that they should have large farms. He thought also that there should be some period of probation before a congest was put in possession and made the absolute owner of a holding, and the essence of the proposal which he had endeavoured to embody in his clause was that an experimental farm should be established. He would not labour the question whether it should be administered by the Congested District Board or by a Department. The details could be argued afterwards; but he

145
proposed that an experimental farm should be established on which the congests should be employed as labourers, with allotments attached, and that they should be given instruction under the particular Department which had the charge of the experiment. This farm might be of some 2,500 acres. That was the tract of land which Sir Horace Plunkett suggested should be acquired for the purpose, and it would eventually accommodate about one hundred families. It would have to be worked in the first place as a grazing farm, and allotments from the first might be given to the labourers, so that they should have an opportunity of learning and practising on those allotments the working of a small farm, as well as seeing on the large farm the improved methods which could only be resorted to on a large scale. In addition to that, they might be given a share of the grazing on co-operative principles such as were advocated in the Report of the Dudley Commission and also years ago by the late O'Conor Don, and which were practised in a few cases already in the West of Ireland where co-operative grazing societies were in existence. This, in brief, was an outline of the scheme that Sir Horace Plunkett had suggested.
Small holdings would gradually grow out of the allotments, and the scheme would thus provide, not only for the policy which he had suggested as a necessary condition, but also for an amount of elasticity by which the holdings might assume a more natural size instead of being prescribed beforehand in a rigid manner. He would expect to hear criticisms of his proposals in detail. One criticism that he rather expected was that the congests would not go to such a settlement at all. Well, he was afraid that that applied to every scheme of migration that could be propounded at the present time; there was very grave doubt whether congests would go on to this land, but it was not only the intimidation of the Irish League that the congests feared. In many cases the congests had hesitated, and not unnaturally, before the cattle-driving and agitation on the part of the landless men arose; they hesitated to take a small farm because, small as it was, it was much larger than anything they had been accustomed to before, and they did dread, he was told in many cases, the responsibility of paying rent for a piece of land which was larger than they had
146
previously held. Therefore, he did not think that that objection need prevail against his proposal.
Perhaps he would be told that the farm he proposed should be under the management of a Department. Well, possibly the Congested Districts Board would be the better body for the purpose. He was quite open to reason on that point, and he could see there would be certain advantages in having the two experiments because, of course, migration would be going on on other lines as well. This would be only a single experiment, and that the two should be going on at the same time need not involve competition between two public bodies in this matter. But the reason he had for suggesting the Department was that the Department had at the back of it the Agricultural Board and the Council of Agriculture, two popularly elected or representative bodies with a good broad back that embraced the whole of Ireland. That was a very important matter in this case, because there was no doubt that to solve this difficult question of migration it was most essential that they should have behind them an enlightened public opinion, and a public opinion that was not merely confined to congested districts but came from the whole country. Therefore, there was something to be said perhaps for having the scheme entrusted, if it should be adopted, to a Department.
But probably the final objection that he would be met with, after what had fallen from his noble friend Lord Ashtown, was that this was not practicable, that Sir Horace Plunkett and himself were mere faddists and idealists, and that this scheme would not work. Well, he put it to the House, what were they going to do? The relief of congestion had to be faced. Migration was the only remedy, except the one suggestion of Lord Ashtown's which he would allude to in a moment. Migration was the only remedy, and, as Sir Horace Plunkett had pointed out, it was a futile remedy unless it was tried on probationary lines. It would surely break down if the congests were simply dumped down upon the land without preparation. He desired to refer to one suggestion which Lord Ashtown made in a previous debate, and he alluded to it in his letter also. Lord Ashtown said that the only real remedy for congestion was

147
by employing the people. If there were any prospect of employing the people where they were, without migration, he thought they would jump at it. It bad been said by Lord Ashtown that granite quarries might provide a solution in one district. He agreed with that. He went further and said he thought something might be done by way of afforestation in another district, but he was convinced that there were vast tracts of land that could not be touched in this way. They had no men of position and of capital and of public spirit like Lord Ashtown in other districts to employ the people except on farming, and farming in some shape or form ill most districts would be the only resource. Therefore he came back to the simple question of principle—was not some probationary system a necessary condition of successful migration? If the House adopted that principle, he had no doubt that it could be given effect to in some way or other. If, on the other hand, after the principle had been adopted and the plan put into operation it failed, as his practical friends, he supposed, would tell him it would fail, they would, at any rate, have tried a conclusive experiment; they would have given migration the very best chance it could have, and if it failed it would be time enough then to look for other solutions.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 44, to insert the following new clause:
'45. Where any untenanted land has been acquired by the Board before the passing of this Act, or by the Land Commission on the requisition of the Hoard under this Act, the Board may retain the same and let it, or any portion thereof, to the Department for the purpose of establishing an experimental farm for the relief of congestion by the training of probationary occupiers, instead of selling the same as hereinafter provided; and the Department may hold such land for this purpose and set aside such portions thereof as they think fit as allotments for such probationary occupiers during their period of training.'"—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN said that his noble friend Lord Monteagle wanted to migrate a hundred families on 2,500 acres of land. He supposed the noble Lord wanted to keep them there for five or six years. If he migrated a hundred families in that time, how long would it take to migrate the whole of the people in the congested districts? He thought it would take two lives.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said that his suggestion was merely an experiment to see whether migration could be successfully carried out.
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN said the noble Lord wanted to try his experiment with one hundred families, and he would have to train those families in some way. If they only did this every five or six years, he fancied that migration would not go on at all during two life times. From Galway to Connemara there was employment for men as labourers in the quarries at work which they were able to perform, and he would far rather see these men labouring than see them put on the land, because many of them had no idea of farming at all. If this scheme was to be carried out, the Congested Districts Board would first of all have to take care that they had got the right sort of land upon which to carry it out. Unfortunately, from what he had seen of the Congested Districts Board, they always seemed to buy the worst land for migration. There were six farms close by his place which the Board had had since 1904, and on which no one could make a profit by tilling.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that nobody had a higher respect for Sir Horace Plunkett than he had, and nobody more admired the enthusiasm with which he sought the good of Ireland. Sir Horace had often spoken to him about this scheme, and upon one occasion he (Lord MacDonnell) brought it before the Congested Districts Board with a view to their considering it. There was a good deal of sympathy for the scheme, but it was thought that it was really a case of trying to roll back the Atlantic with a mop. Lord Ashtown had said, the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment only proposed to try this scheme with a hundred families. In order to carry out migration effectively they had to deal with 20,000 families. If they dealt with them, allowing each family ten acres per head, they would have to acquire 200,000 acres. It was doubtful whether there were 200,000 acres of untenanted land in the whole of the West of Ireland available for the Congested Districts Board. It was thought desirable that they should try this scheme on a small scale, and the Board were willing to try it on a small scale. He himself, with Sir Horace Plunkett and another member of the Congested Districts Board, went down and interviewed the

149
Roscommon County Council with the object of setting on foot a scheme of the kind but it came to nothing. The people did not believe in it. His opinion was that it would be as well to try a scheme of this sort, and during the trial they might get certain valuable hints which might be useful to them in the wider scheme of migration; but to propose that no migration should take place until the migrants had gone through the whole course of instruction on an experimental farm—
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said he did not suggest that migration should be suspended during the trial of this scheme.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the scheme might go on, and probably during the process valuable hints would be forthcoming which would be of use in a larger scheme. It was very desirable that the Congested Districts Board should have power to do this, if they had not power already. They had certain money at their disposal, and he thought they could do it if they pleased. He would have no objection to such a clause as this being put in the Bill if it was made of a permissive character.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Hear, hear.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: In the first portion of the clause it is made mandatory. That is quite impossible.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: That was not my intention.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that if the noble Lord would introduce some such words as these, he would be prepared to support the clause—namely, "The Board may from its funds allocate in any year a sum not exceeding £5,000 for expenditure by itself on maintenance and instruction in such experimental farms and allotments." Even if the Board were advised that they had not the power, this would give them the necessary legislative authority to make the experiment. His own belief was that they had the power already. He desired to say one word with reference to what had fallen from Lord Ashtown. The noble Lord had said that the Congested Districts Board, in his experience—and no gentleman in the West
150
of Ireland had larger experience—never bought any land but bad land. That was quite true.
LORD ASHTOWN: I said they bought too good land; too rich land.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I took down the noble Lord's words. He said the Board never bought any land but bad land.
LORD ASHTOWN: What I meant was they did not buy the right sort of land.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that was his own experience. They could only buy bad land, because they could never get good land. Good land was never sold to them. That was his experience during five years on the Board, and if any evidence in favour of compulsion was necessary no more forcible proof could be brought forward than the expression which by misadventure had slipped from the noble Lord opposite.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said he thought that what Lord Ashtown meant to say was that the land which the Congested Districts Board purchased was not fit for tilling. There was a good deal of what was commonly called strong bullock land, most valuable for pasture, but not at all well adapted for tillage, certainly not for tillage with the light ploughs and small horses commonly used by small farmers in Ireland. There was a tract of land purchased in his part of the country which he believed Lord MacDonnell knew. It was fine strong land, part of it wet and all of it excessively unfit for tilling. Houses had been built on it, and it had been divided into certain portions, he forgot how many, but the whole amount was about 800 acres; yet the houses were empty and the land was derelict at present.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he was aware of the intense interest that his friend Sir Horace Plunkett took in this matter, and he thought there was a great deal to be said for such a scheme as the noble Lord had foreshadowed—namely, that experiment should be made from time to time in training to a better system of farming some of the congests whom it was desirable to plant out. But the Congested Districts Board could do that already, and he would suggest to Lord Monteagle that it was impossible at this stage of this Bill to frame anything like an effective scheme

151
for carrying into practice the idea that he shared with Sir Horace Plunkett. He did not think an Amendment of the kind suggested would be at all satisfactory to establish a system such as the noble Lord desired.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO remarked that Lord MacDonnell, notwithstanding the statement that Lord Ashtown made that the Congested Districts Board bought the wrong sort of land, persisted in saying that the Board could only get bad land.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I accepted Lord Ashtown's disclaimer.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said that as the noble Lord accepted Lord Ashtown's statement he would not labour that point. He was quite with Lord Monteagle with regard to this suggestion for allowing congests to learn something of farming before they were put on a farm, because that was what it amounted to. Sir Horace Plunkett was an old friend of his own, and he thought the idea was a most excellent one. Lord Atkinson said it was impossible to put this in the Bill. On another clause they had been for an hour and a-half listening to the possibilities of putting into this Bill enormous things of a nature which commended themselves to the noble and learned Lord, but when Lord Monteagle proposed a very moderate suggestion he was immediately met by Lord Atkinson with the statement that it could not be put into the Bill. Of course it could be put into the Bill if their Lordships chose to put it in, notwithstanding the words of the noble and learned Lord. He hoped Lord Monteagle would, if their Lordships considered it right, deal with this matter at a later stage in the Bill, when he would be able to meet the criticism of Lord Atkinson, who seemed very anxious to object when anybody got up to speak upon any other subject but his own particular scheme.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think there will be general agreement that anything put forward by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Monteagle, is worthy of the respectful consideration of the House, and more particularly when it is backed by the long experience and devotion to his task of Sir Horace Plunkett. But at the same time I am bound to say that I regret that if this matter was to be considered it should have come before us at the antepenultimate
152
stage of the Bill in this House rather than at an earlier stage, when we could have considered it a little more fully. In spite of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, I am inclined to agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, that this is not precisely a fit subject for this Bill, for the reason that I do not know what there is to prevent the Congested Districts Board from starting an experimental farm of this kind and training certain people on it, and it is not our business in an Act of Parliament to direct a Board possessed of wide powers as to the allocation of particular sums which they should spend on particular objects of this kind.
In speaking of an experimental farm for these purposes you have to be careful in what sense you are using the words. An experimental farm is used for the purpose of cultivation and the results of a particular year's work go far beyond the particular area of the farm itself. Certain experiments are tried in growing crops produced by particular manures, or in growing crops under special conditions which are of permanent value, but I do not see how the so-called results of an experiment of this kind would have any effect on anybody but the particular set of people who might he under it at the moment, and therefore to speak of it as an experiment seems to me to be a misnomer. You are trying on a very small scale something which you think ought to be done on a larger scale. I do not deny that to plant a number of migrants, men who have been only used to a very special kind of small cultivation and that sometimes of a rather intermittent character, upon land of an entirely different kind, and to ask them to engage successfully in a different sort of cultivation is expecting too much. If any method of this kind could be carried out on a large scale I should welcome it, but it seems to me that the cost of applying this sort of education to anything like the whole body of people, whom you propose to migrate would be altogether prohibitive. And bearing in mind what I said as to the small value of the proceeding as an experiment, I confess I am not very hopeful of any large results following from it.
With regard to what fell from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashtown, as to the proper solution of congestion being the establishment of industries, I certainly agree with him, and I would welcome such a

153
thing beyond anything else. Far better, if you could do it, to multiply the industrial classes in Ireland, than to multiply the agricultural class. There are quite enough fanners in Ireland already. I think we should all, speaking generally, agree that there are not enough people engaged in industry. That, of course, is a subject which deserves the close attention both of Government and of those who embark in any private enterprise of the kind, because it is quite clear, whether it is a question of quarries or anything else, that unless it can be put on a commercial basis it would be useless to attempt to open out the country in that way on a large scale. I am afraid I cannot advise the House to insert my noble friend's Amendment in the Bill, partly for the technical reason that his early clause involves the special allocation of money, and also on the ground that I think this experiment, if it is to be tried and if it is right to call it an experiment, must be tried by the bodies concerned on their own responsibility with the large public funds at their disposal. I hope my noble friend will not think that I am lacking in sympathy with his proposal, but I do not think it would be wise at this stage to insert the clause in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said their Lordships had been pleased to accept an Amendment of his in Clause 45 empowering the Lord Lieutenant on the representation of the Congested Districts Board to add to the congested areas, and to make exclusions also, on a representation from the Board. He thought it would be desirable that the action of the Lord Lieutenant in making exclusions from a congested area should not be contingent on the submission of a representation to that effect from the Board. The Congested Districts Board was naturally persuaded of the advantages in all cases of its own administration, and he thought it would be a difficult thing to lead the Board to imagine that any particular area would not be better subject to its administration than relieved from it. He provided, in the Amendment which he now submitted, that the Lord Lieutenant should not exclude from an area any portion without previous communication and consultation with the Board, but it was desirable that when certain areas had had for a sufficient length of time the advantages of the Board's superintendence and assistance, those areas should be excluded
154
and put upon their own resources, and not constantly and perpetually kept as recipients of the Board's advantages and doles. He also proposed—
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Lord had better dispose of this Amendment first, because the other deals with a different question.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 40, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'at any time after consultation with the Board.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to amend the proviso at the end of Clause 45—
Provided that no division, or part thereof, shall be included which is not situated in an administrative county which contains a congested districts county,
by the addition of the words "and is not congested within the meaning of Section 36 of the Act of 1891." He explained that his Amendment did nothing more than give as a continuous power the power which under Section 36 of the Act of 1891 was limited in point of time. The matter was discussed when the clause was under their Lordships' consideration in Committee; and it was desirable that no portion of a district should be included unless it partook of the same character of congestion as the existing congested areas.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 5, after the word 'county,' to insert the words 'and is not congested within the meaning of section 36 of the Act of 1891.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: This provision somewhat narrows the power which the Bill as it stands would give for the inclusion of districts, and so far, therefore, from our point of view, we cannot accept it. I should have thought there must be very few cases where districts not now included under the Act had become in such a condition, that not previously having fallen within the provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 1891, they now do. My noble friend, of course, with his great experience may know of such cases, but I should have hoped that in the general improvement which has taken place in the areas outside the present congested

155
districts there must be very few which have fallen back, and, having hitherto been excluded, now come within the 30 s. limit. From that point of view I should imagine my noble friend's Amendment would have very small effect.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved an Amendment which he said reconciled Clause 46 with the previous Clause 15. The noble Earl would remember that under that clause advances might be made to certain parties, and that advances were not to be made for general purposes until the claims of those persons so named had been adequately made.
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 13, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions as to the making of advances under the Land Purchase Acts contained in section fifteen of this Act.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved an Amendment on Clause 46 to make subsection (2) read as follows:—"If any parcels of land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land, or district, cannot advantageously be sold to such tenants or proprietors" (i.e., tenants or proprietors of holdings in congested districts county), "the Board may sell those parcels to whomsoever they think fit having regard to the welfare of the locality."
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 13, to leave out from the word 'parcels' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'to whomsoever they think fit having regard to the welfare of the locality.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether this was not a rather serious Amendment. He was sure that the noble Lord who proposed it meant the best and that he thought it was the best; but this might mean landless men, landless women, and landless boys and girls. There was not the slightest vestige of an intimation as to what the Board should do. The Amendment said "to whomsoever they think fit having regard to the welfare of the locality." They might think it very desirable to sell to some person whom
156
none of heir Lordships were thinking of at the present time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 15, after the word 'value,' to insert the words 'Provided that no such sale shall be made to more than one son of the same tenant.'"—(Lord Farnham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[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 moved to insert a new clause which, he said, had been struck out in Committee, enabling the Congested Districts Board to recover the rents due on property purchased for the Board by the Estates Commissioners. Without these rents, he said, the Board would be unable to pay the interest on the money advanced to the Board for the purchase of the estate.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'47. When after the passing of this Act the Land Commission acting on a requisition from the Congested Districts Board enter into an agreement for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land, or compulsorily acquire an estate, or untenanted land for the Board, the provisions of section eighteen of the Act of 1903 (which relates to rents and profits recoverable by the Land Commission) shall apply in like manner as they apply in the case of land agreed to be purchased by the Land Commission subject to the following modifications (that is to say):—

(a) The Congested Districts Board shall be substituted for the Land Commission:

(b) All rents and profits and arrears of rent payable to the Board shall be recoverable by the Board in like manner, or if the Board were the owner of the estate or untenanted land.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)

THE EARL OF CREWE: I may say at once that this is practically consequential on what the noble Lord has done elsewhere, and therefore, of course, we raise no objection.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE understood the reason of the noble Lord's Amendment to be that he wanted to give the Congested Districts Board power to recover the rents in the case of properties purchased for them in the same manner as the Estates Commissioners had power to recover rents when they purchased the estates.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Precisely; on estates purchased for them by the Estates Commissioners.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved a further clause providing that in the congested districts no congested estate or untenanted land could be sold under the Purchase Acts, except to the Land Commission, without the consent of the Congested Districts Board, which consent could not be withheld unless the Board undertook within a reasonable time to make a requisition on the Land Commission to purchase the estate or untenanted land. The clause also provided for an appeal from any refusal by the Board under the section.
He said he considered this clause one of the most important, because if it were their Lordships' desire that congestion should be relieved in the West it was essential that the congested districts in the West should pass under the control of the Congested Districts Board and that the untenanted land in Connaught should be ear-marked for the relief of congestion. If they perpetuated the existing practice whereby a landlord might contract to sell his congested estates to his tenants the result would be that the Congested Districts Board would be unable to intervene to relieve congestion on that estate. The tenants would become the owners of their holdings and it would be found impossible, as it had already been found impossible by the Congested Districts Board to come to an agreement with each individual tenant that he should waive his interests in his particular holding and submit to all the holdings in the estate being lumped together, pooled, and so redistributed that each tenant might obtain a holding within a ring fence. Therefore unless these estates were sold to the Board it was practically impossible that congestion within the particular district could be relieved. In the same way, unless they ear-marked the untenanted land in the West of Ireland for the relief of congestion anything like migration of tenants and the redistribution of their holdings amongst those who remained would become equally impossible.
Whilst admitting it was a "large order" to ask their Lordships to impose this
158
restriction upon landlords he thought there should be a corresponding obligation upon the Congested Districts Board that they should buy without delay the holdings or the untenanted land, as the case may be, or that the matter should be referred to the arbitration provided for by the compulsory proceedings with which they had been concerned earlier, and which, he believed, were nothing more than the reference to an impartial arbitrator of the claims of the landlords and of the Congested Districts Board. However that might be, however their Lordships might regard that point, one conclusion was certain—a conclusion come to with complete unanimity by the Dudley Commission. That conclusion was that unless they gave to the Congested Districts Board the right of buying, of having reserved to them all the congested estates in the West of Ireland and the untenanted land, for the relief of congestion there, they would fail in the objects they had set before themselves in this legislation.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'48. No congested estate situated in a congested districts county, and no untenanted land situated in an administrative county containing a congested districts county shall, after the passing of this Act, be sold under the Land Purchase Acts to persons other than the Land Commission acting for and on behalf of the Congested Districts Board without the consent of that Board, which consent shall not he withheld unless the Board undertake within a reasonable time to make a requisition on the Land Commission to purchase the estate or untenanted land.
From any refusal of the Board under this section an appeal shall be to the court constituted under section following, and the order of such court shall be final.
Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of any sale of an estate or untenanted land in pursuance of an originating application or request lodged before the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said it was indeed a very "large order" that the proposed clause put before them should be inserted. In plain language it was applying congestion to all the unsold estates in Ireland.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: In the congested districts.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said it was limiting the owners in those districts to no sales except to the Land Commission. They were told by Lord MacDonnell that this

159
was the finding of the Dudley Commission. He (Lord Langford) admired very much the labours of that Commission, and, more especially, the labours of the noble Earl who presided, but he could not forget the fact that the Dudley Commission did not in any way represent the landlords of Ireland. He would go further and say that anybody who saw the witnesses and heard the very pointed way in which questions were put, both in examination and cross-examination, could come to no other conclusion than that the idea of compulsion was put before them in such a manner that they could not help answering the questions in a certain way. This large Commission went into the West of Ireland with a great deal of advertisement, and in Ireland they knew very well from experience what inspections and what Commissions meant. The whole countryside was agitated and said, "What are we going to get out of tills?" That was exactly the condition of things. Although the noble Lord quoted the Commission he did not follow the Commission in all its findings. One of the findings of the Dudley Commission was that the landless man should be put aside, the special point being that the migrants should come first. The noble Lord could not deny that.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I do not deny it; I accept it.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD asked whether the noble Lord could point to any paragraph in the Report of the Dudley Commission establishing any reason why a clause of the description proposed should be put into the Bill. He believed the clause was not in the Bill in the first instance—that it was a new clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is a Government clause. It is Clause 60 in somewhat different terms.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said the Government also did not act quite on the findings of the Dudley Commission and had got a little bit wide of the mark. It was a monstrous clause to try and put into the Bill. As owners in Ireland they did deserve a little pity and sympathy. By this clause they were once more to have their hands tied behind their back.
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN regarded the clause as impracticable. In Galway half at least of the land was not fit for division, and it was perfectly hopeless to expect
160
to divide it. It had a soft sub-soil on which no heavy beast could live during the winter, and stock had to be moved to the West to escape it. As for trying tillage, he himself had tilled for twenty years and had only obtained a good harvest in two years. He did not think it would pay any one to grow corn. He was afraid the members of the Dudley Commission knew very little about agriculture. He was cross-examined by them and it struck him that they knew nothing about it.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY failed to see where the clause inflicted hardship on landowners. There was a real case made out for such a provision. The effect of the clause would be to prevent a landowner selling direct to his tenant. Surely the landowner might expect to get as good a price from a Board purchasing from him as from a tenant? Any one who was interested in the relief of congestion in the West of Ireland would know that there was a real need for such a provision. Travelling through the congested districts they would find cases where congested estates had been sold direct to the tenants with the result that congestion was stereotyped for ever. They would find an estate which had been sold to the Board and which had been improved, as also had the condition of the people living on the estate; and close by an estate which had been sold direct to the tenants without any Government Department coming in to help the tenants, who lived on in a state of congestion. He maintained that a case had been made out for such a provision as that proposed by Lord MacDonnell, and hoped their Lordships would not believe there was any real hardship in asking owners not to sell in such a way that tenants might not be benefited by the intervention of a public Department.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said landlords were to be absolutely precluded from selling their land, except to the Estate Commissioners. It was not only a question of congested estates, but dealt with untenanted land. That might apply to places like the Plains of Boyle in Roscommon where there were hundreds of acres of grass land with no sort of congestion. A landlord was to be deprived of the right to dispose of such land as he thought fit and was to be absolutely prohibited from selling, except to the Commissioners. Then they were told there was no hardship to

161
the landlord! It was the most extraordinary proposal of which he had ever heard.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord, Lord Langford, expressed some doubt as to whether this provision had appeared in our Bill originally. As a matter of fact, it appeared in a far more acute form. Not only did we say that no congested estate should be sold but that no estate should be sold, and we founded that on the opinion expressed in the Report of the Dudley Commission—namely, that if all the land in the available area could be secured it would not suffice to provide those who are now holders in the congested districts with an economic holding. The view noble Lords take of this clause is a good test, I will not say of their sincerity, but of the reality of their professions that the one thing in the world they desire is to see the congest put upon the land. We have heard a great deal about the landless man and of the danger of his getting an acre, but hitherto we have been under the impression that there was a real desire among noble Lords opposite to secure all the available land for the congests. What does this clause actually say? It does not say—it would be very unfair if it did say—that the Congested Districts Board would be entitled to tell a landlord that he must hold his land up indefinitely because it might, at some time or other, be wanted for the relief of congestion. That, obviously, would be an unfair thing to do. What it says is that he must not part with his land without giving to the Congested Districts Board the option of taking it, and the Board can say at once whether they want it or not. It is quite true that there is a great deal of land in these congested districts which is quite unfit for cutting up for the purposes of congests. Not only is there some of the fine grazing land which is too good, but also that class of land which looks to a casual visitor the most hopeless kind—land where pasture is intermixed with rocky soil which looks as if it would not feed a goat. At the same time it has admirable qualities for the purpose of a large farm but is quite unfit to be cut up. The Congested Districts Board would at once say that that kind of land is not what they want.
LORD ASHTOWN: They asked me to sell it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord
162
must settle that with the noble Earl below him (Lord Shaftesbury), who was probably concerned in the transaction. There being this great problem to solve, where is the hardship to the landlord in the Congested Districts Board having the refusal of the land? I quite agree that if the Board, said "We cannot give you an answer now, but we will give you an answer at some future time," then the landlord would have an excellent case for the appeal which my noble friend provides. The noble Lord opposite said this is a "large order." Of course it is, but then this is a Bill of very large orders. It is a very large order for the taxpayers to provide £25,000,000 for the relief of landlords and tenants in Ireland in whom they have no material interest whatever, only a friendly and a moral interest. Therefore when we are told this is a large order I quite agree, and I reply that this Bill is full of large orders. We should regard as a serious matter the possibility of landlords within the congested districts, in view of all that has passed in this debate, rushing forward to dispose of their land by direct sales; and all the informed opinion in Ireland is, as I believe, in support of the proposal of the noble Lord in this matter. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to re-instate the clause in this form.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said their Lordships had affirmed the principle of compulsory purchase. In a particular case the Congested Districts Board was authorised to call upon the Estates Commissioners to purchase a particular estate. All that was asked was that in respect of an estate in regard to which the Congested Districts Board was entitled to exercise its right of compulsory purchase, the owner of that estate should not dispose of it without applying first to the Congested Districts Board to buy it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This clause was, I believe, deliberately rejected by your Lordships in Committee, and I cannot help saying that I think it rather unusual in cases of this kind to endeavour to obtain the restitution of the clause on Report stage. Of course, it may be shown that the clause dropped out per incuriam or something of that kind. The clause is one which would involve very considerable hardship and injustice. What it says is not merely that the Congested Districts Board are to be given the opportunity

163
of buying a congested estate or untenanted land, but that no transaction concerned with congested estates or untenanted land can go forward at all without the consent of the Congested Districts Board, who are therefore in the position absolutely of blocking any transaction of the kind. When you come to deal with untenanted land, surely it is a very serious thing that the whole of the untenanted land in these areas is to be, so to speak, tabooed, and excluded from the advantages offered in respect of untenanted land in other parts of the country.
There is also this to be borne in mind, that we have considerably extended and amplified the definition of a congested estate. My noble friend behind me moved last night to reduce the £10 limit to £5, and I ventured, with great deference, to deprecate the course which he pursued. Of course I fully recognise there was something to be said for the smaller limit, but the effect of that has been that we have now brought within the definition of congestion a very much larger area than was ever contemplated before, and we are asked to say, with regard to the whole of that large area that these estates and untenanted lands are to be excluded from
the benefits of land purchase till the sanction of the Congested Districts Board has been obtained. That would, I venture to think, be inflicting a great hardship. I should also like to ask this question in passing: If there are really cases of extreme congestion, where the holdings are so much below the economic level that the owners of them are unable to earn as decent livelihood upon them, would it not be the case that the Land Commission would decline to allow the transaction to go forward, that they would decline to declare the estate to be an estate in the technical acceptation of the term? I think that is really, in part at any rate, an answer to the point which was made by the noble Lord on the Back Benches (Lord MacDonnell), when be dwelt on the great evil of stereotyping these congested estates by allowing them to be transferred to the occupying tenants before the Congested Districts Board could have an opportunity of improving the size and condition of the holdings.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 49;

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

Pentland, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

Glantawe, L.

St. David's, L.

Liverpool, E.

Haversham, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

MacDonnell, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Iveagh, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wellington, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Farnham, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Forester, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ashtown, L.

Hindlip, L.

Barrymore, L.

Knaresborongh, L.

Clarendon, E.

Belper, L.

Langford, L.

Mayo, E.

Broderick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Stanhope, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Verulam, E.

Clinton, L.

Oramnore and Browne, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Clonbrock, L.

Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)

Wicklow, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Templemore, L.

Hill, V.

Dunalley, L.

Waleran, L.

Hood, V.

Dunboyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunleath, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Amendment negatived accordingly.
On Clause 47 (Scheme for compulsory purchase to be submitted to Land Commission by Congested Districts Board),
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to provide that, where the Board were of opinion that it was desirable to acquire land for the purpose of relieving congestion either by adding to a holding or providing a new holding, "they may, with the consent of the owner, proceed to inspect such land as may seem suitable for their purposes, and ascertain the amount which the owner thereof may demand for the sale to them of such land, and if the owner shall refuse such consent to inspection, or to state the price which he would accept for said land, such refusal shall be held to be sufficient grounds for the Congested Districts Board proceeding as hereinafter provided." He said that at the present moment in the scheme of Lord Atkinson there was no provision for inspection for ascertaining the price which the vendor would be willing to take. Objection had been raised, he thought, by the Leader of the House about the Congested Districts Board possibly suggesting a price and then the Estates Commissioners having to inspect and themselves put a price upon it. He understood the noble Earl to say—he did not know whether he was correct, but that was how he understood it—that the Estates Commissioners would have to buy at their price and that the Congested Districts Board would have to find the money, which was not quite a reasonable proposal. But he (Lord Dunboyne) did not think that was the case. As he understood the procedure, the Congested Districts Board would make a request to the Estates Commissioners. The Estates Commissioners, if they thought fit, would buy the land and pay for it out of the money which would be allocated in the funds to be set aside for purchase. It seemed to him that the money for purchase would come out of that sum and not out of what might be called the Congested Districts Board fund proper, which fund was appropriated for the purpose of improving estates and doing sundry other things in connection with the Board. What he had done in his Amendment was to provide for inspection of the land by the Congested Districts Board so that they might ascertain from the vendor—not that they themselves should name the price—but that
166
they should ascertain from the vendor at what price he would be willing to sell his land. In that way the difficulty would be got over of their offering a price and possibly the Estates Commissioners offering a different one. Unless the Congested Districts Board had the power of inspecting the property and ascertaining the price which the vendor would be willing to accept, of course it would be very difficult for them to formulate a scheme and get the necessary particulars that would be required by the Estates Commissioners before they would be able to deal with it. He thought the Amendment he had suggested would meet the difficulties which appeared to him in the clause as it now stood.
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 38, to leave out the word 'and,' and to insert the words 'They may, with the consent of the owner, proceed to inspect such land as may seem suitable for their purposes and ascertain the amount which the owner thereof may demand for the sale to them of such land, and if the owner shall refuse such consent to inspection, or to state the price which he would accept for said land such refusal shall be held to be sufficient grounds for the Congested Districts Board proceeding as hereinafter provided. If they are.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord, because it undoubtedly supplies a gap which apparently existed in the machinery—namely, that if the owner sat still and did nothing the Congested Districts Board had no means of forming any opinion as to the character of the estate and how much they might be prepared to give for it, supposing they desired to buy it. I do not follow what the noble Lord said with regard to the procedure as between the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners. Does the noble Lord mean that the suggested procedure is that the Estates Commissioners are to buy on the statement of the Congested Districts Board without forming any independent opinion of their own as to price?
LORD DUNBOYNE: Subsequent Amendments of mine will show that that is not my intention at all. The Estates Commissioners can afterwards inspect, and so on, if they are satisfied there is no objection to the scheme. I did not mention that on this occasion because it is applicable to a further Amendment. I do not know

167
whether it would be for the convenience of the House that I should deal with the other Amendment now.
THE EARL OF CREWE: No, I think we had better deal with this Amendment as it stands. That does not remove the fact that there will exist two separate sets of inspection and valuation, one on the part of the Congested Districts Board, a preliminary one, and the subsequent one by the Estates Commissioners. The noble Lord must remember this, that the Estates Commissioners have no power—I do not know that any power is given in this Bill—to buy an estate which they cannot dispose of without loss. That power is only given to the Congested Districts Board. What is the process in the noble Lord's mind by which the Congested Districts Board are to become the possessors of an estate on uneconomic terms? The noble Lord referred to the million of money which was going to be provided and which the Estates Commissioners were to have. But that is partly for their own purposes, for the purchase of untenanted land in the manner they have been buying it hitherto. There is nothing in the Bill, and no arrangement is laid down, so far as I can see, by any of the schemes, for their buying land in this way and handing it over to the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of creating holdings. I confess, although the noble Lord's Amendment is all right so far as it goes, it does not seem to me to make the whole transaction either easy or simple or even clear.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the first part of the Amendment was perfectly harmless. It merely provided that the Congested Districts Board might, with the consent of the owner, inspect land. He did not think it was necessary to make a statutory provision for that. There was no objection in the world to the Congested Districts Board going to a man and asking him how much he would take for his land after inspecting it with his consent. The last two lines of the Amendment, however, seemed to him to be extremely dangerous, because they provided that the refusal of the landlord to consent to inspection or to state the price which he would accept was to be sufficient ground for the Congested Districts Board applying to have compulsory powers put in force. It would
168
be perfectly consistent with the Amendment that there was some other land equally suitable which the Congested Districts Board could obtain. Yet because the owner refused to take their price they were to have this power of moving by compulsion. Though the owner of white acre might have land quite as good, the Congested Districts Board were, if the owner of black acre refused to take their price, to rush in and apply for compulsory powers. That was what the Amendment said, at any rate. Of course it was true the clause provided that the Board were to be satisfied that land suitable and sufficient for the purpose could not be got voluntarily; but there seemed to be an inconsistency in saying that on a mere refusal on the part of the owner the Board might apply to have compulsory powers enforced. Part of the Amendment might do no harm and might facilitate matters, but the latter part would be dangerous and afford a justification for the Board applying for the application of compulsory powers when there might be half-a-dozen other estates as suitable to be had without any compulsion at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether the noble Lord who moved this Amendment would think it well to accept the suggestion that he should move the first part of it—that is, down to the word "land." The effect of that part of the Amendment would, I take it, be to permit preliminary inspection by the Congested Districts Board with the consent of the owner of the land, which would enable them to formulate an initial offer of some kind. But the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment mixes up two things which should be kept apart—the procedure to be adopted in the case of voluntary and that in the case of compulsory purchase.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Undoubtedly that is so, because the clause deals only with compulsory purchase. I am of the same opinion as the noble and learned Lord opposite, that to say that a man may have his land inspected if he likes is a futile thing to put into an Act of Parliament.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: May I call attention to the wording of the Amendment? It deals with refusal to state a price, but an owner might state

169
ten times the amount of the natural price. It is a verbal matter, but it needs attention.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said that if an owner refused his consent to inspection or to state a price which he would accept, the refusal was to be held sufficient ground for the Congested Districts Board proceeding to move for compulsory powers, if they were satisfied that land suitable for their purposes could not be acquired on their behalf at a reasonable figure. It seemed to him that when the Amendment was read with the context in the clause there was a perfect safeguard; but if that was not the case he would be willing to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess to end his Amendment at the word "land."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand the noble Lord wishes to move to insert the words, "They may, with the consent of the owner, proceed to inspect such land as may seem suitable for their purposes, and ascertain the amount which the owner thereof may demand for the sale to them of such land."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to intervene again, but is it really worth while to insert these words in the Bill? It seems to me to be a meaningless thing, as I said before, to state solemnly in an Act of Parliament that when a man agrees to have his land inspected he may do so. Supposing a man declines to have his land inspected. How are the Congested Districts Board to have an opportunity of acquiring any data by which they can demand to purchase that land compulsorily? It seems to me that, even if the statement as to the price which he would accept need not be left in the clause, the refusal to consent ought to lead to some further proceeding being taken. Perhaps some noble Lord will tell me how the Board are to proceed if the landlord warns them off the premises.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said he would move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper. It seemed to him that it would be impossible for the Congested Districts Board to submit a scheme to the Land Commission without having some sort of inspection beforehand, and it ought to be provided for in this way. If they got a stupid landlord who refused to allow inspection he ought to be made to allow it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved several Amendments so that Clause 47 in its amended portion would read—
'they may submit to the Land Commission a scheme setting forth the land which they propose should be so acquired for the purposes aforesaid on their behalf, the extent, nature, boundaries, and condition thereof, and the names of the person or persons by whom the same owned, occupied, or used and enjoyed, the mode in which it is used, worked, or cultivated, together with such further and other particulars as may be prescribed."
The noble and learned Lord said the Amendments were simply introduced to make it clear that there was nothing like a decision on the part of the Commissioners on the first occasion of considering the scheme, but merely that they were to consider the scheme set forth and ascertain if there was a prima facie case for setting the machinery in motion.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved the omission of Clause 47, which ran—

PART IV. Compulsory Purchase.
47. Where the Congested Districts Board are of opinion that it is desirable to acquire land for the purpose of relieving congestion in any portion of a congested districts county, by adding to the holding of any proprietor or tenant of a holding therein of a rateable value of less than ten pounds, such parcel or parcels or land as will, when added to such holding, raise the rateable value thereof, so far as the same can at the time of such addition be reasonably estimated, to the sum of ten pounds, or by providing a holding for a person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion, and are satisfied that land sufficient and suitable for that purpose cannot be acquired on their behalf by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price, they may submit to the Land Commission a scheme setting forth the lands which they propose should be acquired compulsorily for the purposes aforesaid on their behalf, the extent, nature, boundaries, and condition thereof, and the names of the person or persons by whom the same owned, occupied, or used and enjoyed, the mode in which it is used, worked, or cultivated, together, as far as reasonably practicable, with the names of the person or persons to whom as a tenant or proprietor, or as tenants or proprietors of a holding or holdings of less rateable value than ten pounds, they propose that a parcel or parcels of the said lands should be sold, and the rateable value of such holdings, and also the names of the person or persons, if any, who has or have surrendered his or their holdings as aforesaid, and the nature, extent, situation, and rateable value of the same, together with the rateable value, so far as the same can be reasonably estimated, of the

171
parcel or parcels of the said lands which they propose should be sold to each of the above mentioned persons respectively, with such further and other particulars as may be proscribed. An authentic copy of such scheme, signed by the secretary of the Board, shall be lodged in the offices of the Land Commission in the time and manner prescribed, together with a statement under the hand of the aforesaid secretary, setting forth the facts which, in the opinion of said Board, establish that the land sufficient and suitable for the aforesaid purpose cannot be acquired by voluntary purchase at a reasonable price.
He said he did not for a moment imagine he would be able to persuade their Lordships to alter the decision arrived at by a large majority only a week ago. As one who imagined that the question of compulsory acquisition of land would not be entertained unless the Government made out a strong case in its favour he must confess that that decision came upon him both as a shock and a surprise, and this seemed to him a good opportunity of reviewing the altered situation which had arisen therefrom. If he might be allowed to use a simile, it occurred to him that the Committee stage of this Bill was somewhat like a long and arduous march along a narrow path beset on each side by pitfalls and morasses. As long as daylight lasted their Lordships walked warily and securely, but, as the shades of night fell, a will-o'-the-wisp appeared pointing in the direction of universal compulsion, and this phantom form seemed somehow to have the features of the noble Earl opposite, and their Lordships were thus enabled to resist its blandishments. But, later on, another phantom spirit appeared who bore a striking likeness to the noble Marquess who had so often and ably led them to victory, and the majority of their Lordships blindly followed into the morass of limited compulsion. There, he thought, they were still floundering, bereft of baggage and a portion of their valuables, only praying that when once they reached firm ground they might find they had some clothes left on their back.
But, forsaking metaphor, he could not help thinking that they would have been wiser in following the noble Earl, because if the system of compulsion for the relief of congestion were once admitted it seemed to him that the wider the space over which the power could be exercised the better. It appeared to be a misfortune to confine the power to the poorest part of the country, with the result that almost all, if not all, the grass land in Connaught
172
would be compulsorily acquired, because he thought the Congested Districts Board were rather a greedy body. The result of this would be that by the splitting up of these grass lands the grazing industry would be exterminated in that part of Ireland, and the small tenants would be deprived of what he believed would be the greatest help to them in their new sphere of life. He wondered if some noble Lords were congratulating themselves that so far part of Ireland was exempt from this provision. He did not think this satisfaction would last for long. They had been told already that the amount of grass lands in Connaught was not sufficient to relieve half the cases of congestion, and they must remember that in addition to the other half of the congests there were also those friends of His Majesty's Government, the cattle-drivers—he begged the noble Earl's pardon, he meant the landless men—who would clamour even more strongly to be given some share. He felt convinced that it would be impossible in the long run, once this principle of compulsion had been allowed, to prevent it extending all over Ireland.
They had been trying, so far as he could see, to make this compulsion as little obnoxious as possible and to try to find some means by which the owner who was compulsorily expropriated might obtain a fair price for his land. But they had still to hear from the noble Earl what was the basis on which he proposed that price should be fixed. They knew it was one of the chief blots of the Act of 1881 that no indication was given as to what was to constitute a fair rent. Numerous Royal Commissions and Committees had reported on that question. He was sure the noble Earl knew them better than he did. There were four Reports of Select Committees of the House of Lords, the Fry Commission, and various others, and they all dwelt on that defect of the Act. He thought it would be of the greatest importance if some definition could be put in as to what was the value to be given to land. He had asked the noble Earl the question several times but had not been able to obtain an answer, and he ventured once more to ask him on what basis it was proposed that the land should be valued. Was it to be on the value to its present owner, or the value it would have for the purpose to which the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board proposed

173
to put it? There was a feeling abroad—he did not know with what truth, although it seemed to him to be grounded on a certain amount of fact—that the only reason for which compulsory powers were required was in order that the land might be obtained at a price below its value; and he would like to hear from the noble Earl that this was not the case, because it would be a great consolation to many of them who now felt very nervous as to what was going to follow.
He remembered the debates on the Evicted Tenants Bill. There were two expressions which were almost anathema to the noble Earl. One was the reference to the Land Clauses Act and the other was "compensation"; but he was delighted to see the noble Earl had become a convert to that, for on the only Amendment he had moved on the Report stage the noble Earl had put in the words "full compensation." If some such words could be inserted to show what was to be given to the owner for the land taken from him he was sure they would feel that they had really obtained a more or less satisfactory solution of the difficulty. He dared say all their Lordships saw the cartoon in last week's Punch, where the charwoman of their Lordships' House was discussing political matters with the charwoman of another place, and he could not help wondering what would be the feelings of the noble Earl if it were proposed to acquire compulsorily his house in London for housing these ladies and their friends at a price they would be willing to give for it. Would he not much rather, if his house was to be acquired compulsorily, that the price to be given should be that which it would obtain in the open market? Perhaps the noble Earl would say there was no open market in Ireland, but he thought he could find purchasers for grass land if the privileges given to the small tenants were only extended to the graziers, in which case they would be able to sell at twenty-four and a half years' purchase on the rents now paid. He would appeal to the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne), who had felt himself bound to come to a compromise on the question of compulsion, to make it quite clear before this Bill left their Lordships' House that, whether it was lost or not, he for one would not be a party to any arrangement which would enable those who were going
174
to purchase the land directly or indirectly to be the judges of what the price to be given for that land should be. It would be absurd of him (Lord Oranmore) to recapitulate the arguments he had used against compulsory purchase, so he need not trouble their Lordships with them again.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 47."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he would like to draw their Lordships' attention to the way in which Lord Atkinson's scheme was put on their Lordships' Paper. The scheme appeared for the first time on October 12. They had no intimation of such a scheme being put forward, and they had no time to debate it properly. It was brought on in that way, no doubt, for the best possible reasons. He proposed to follow the example of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and take as the basis of the discussion the scheme in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord's scheme provided that if the Board were satisfied that lands sufficient and suitable for the purpose could not be acquired on their behalf by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price they might submit a scheme to the Land Commission. He would like to ask the noble and learned Lord on what basis the Board were to arrive at the conclusion that land could not be acquired at a reasonable price? Was it on the basis of what a reasonable price was, or was it on the basis of expediency? The clause also provided that after the Board had gone into a scheme, an authentic copy was to be lodged in the offices of the Land Commission. The Board had formally declared themselves satisfied that the land was necessary for their purpose, and also that it could not be got voluntarily at a reasonable price. No one could question in any way their decision on this latter point at any time. Then the Congested Districts Board came to their decision without inspecting the land, because they had no power to inspect it; nor had they offered a price because they had no power to do so.
With regard to Clause 48 of the noble and learned Lord's scheme, the Judicial Commissioner, together with two Estates Commissioners, had to inquire into the

175
merits of the scheme and, if necessary, proceed to acquire the land compulsorily. Then the Estates Commissioners had to publish a notice in the Dublin Gazette. He should like to know who in the West of Ireland ever saw the Dublin Gazette. They might as well paste the notice on the walls of Pekin for all the knowledge that would be had about it in the West of Ireland. The scheme went on to provide that similar notice was to be served as soon as might be on the owner or any one interested immediately after the publication in the Dublin Gazette, and before the expiration of the time allowed for objections the Estates Commissioners might send inspectors to see if the land was suitable. It seemed that no consideration as to the reasonableness of taking the land could enter into the report of the inspectors. It would be seen, according to this scheme, that there was no method of inquiry even suggested. There would be no production of evidence, and the procedure would be wholly one-sided. All that the three members of the Estates Commission had power to do was to see whether a case on first appearance had been made by the Board that certain lands were necessary for their objects. They had a right to look into the scheme, but they had no power whatever at this stage to say that it was an improper scheme to be carried out. Even if the three Commissioners were satisfied that the scheme was an improper one, compulsory powers must take effect.
There was compulsion from beginning to end in the scheme. The three Commissioners were then to determine whether the land was suitable for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired? This information as to the suitability of the land was not to be obtained for the guidance of the Estates Commissioners until after they had publicly given notice of the scheme. This notice could not be published until they had prima facie approved of the taking of the land. It was difficult to understand what possible inquiry was contemplated before the decision on the prima facie case was arrived at, even if the suitability of the land was not to be considered. The Bill said that if no objection had been made by any of the persons interested, or any such objection, if made, had been withdrawn, the Estates Commissioners might make an
176
order that on payment into the Bank of Ireland of the compensation for the lands taken, the land should vest in the Land Commission. That was the money paid for the property to be acquired. He must point out to the noble and learned Lord that no provisions were made for the allocation of this compensation, or as to the cost of making the title and the shifting of the charges. No doubt to the noble and learned Lord these were practically airy nothings. He (Lord Mayo) maintained, however, that these were not flimsy statements, although they came from him. They were facts which appeared in the noble and learned Lord's scheme.
If an objection were made it was to be heard in this way—and if he was wrong he should be corrected, because it was very hard when the two noble Lords were discussing their rival schemes across the floor of the House to arrive at a knowledge as to what this Court was to be—if there was an objection to the scheme it was to be heard by the Judicial Commissioner, one Estates Commissioner, and a Judge of the High Court. On paper that was a most formidable Court, but it was unlikely that the Estates Commissioner would stultify himself or that the Judicial Commissioner would do so by deciding in favour of an objector and thus undoing what had been done. It was also plain that the third member of the tribunal, the Judge of the High Court, could not possibly resist the opinion of his two colleagues who were fortified by the reports of their inspectors in this matter. The only points on which an objection could be made were the suitability of the land and the reasonableness of taking it. The price would not be objected to, because it could not be fixed until after the order of this tribunal and also of the Court of Appeal—that was to say, if the objector did appeal. With regard to the Court of Appeal, in the noble and learned Lord's scheme an appeal was to lie from any decision of the tribunal on any question of law or mixed question of law and fact. Now the only points of law that occurred to him were either that the land did not belong to the man whom it was sought to compel to sell, or the question of a demesne. As to the question of appeal on facts, the Court of Appeal had no machinery whatever to enable them to deal with the question of facts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but I think we have arrived at a point where a word of explanation becomes necessary. We are now debating Lord Oranmore and Browne's Amendment to omit Clause 47. My noble friend is criticising at great length Clause 48, which is not before us. I see Lord Oranmore and Browne proposes to omit not only Clause 47 but Clauses 48, 49, 50 and 51. It may be for the convenience of the House that we should take a general discussion on the omission of the whole of these clauses, in which case your Lordships will, perhaps, be pleased to allow Lord Mayo to proceed with his argument; but unless it is clearly understood that we are not discussing one clause but the whole group of clauses, I think my noble friend's observations are out of order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, on the point of order, that it seems to me the noble Marquess is quite correct. If we are to discuss this matter on one after the other of the Clauses the thing will become confused; but, of course, if it is clearly understood that there is to be no discussion of the principles again beyond this particular clause—that is to say, the question of compulsion is to be settled by Clause 47 being retained, if it is retained—then, of course, that will be an express understanding.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said he had no intention of moving that each of the subsequent Clauses should be omitted. He merely put his Amendments down in order to choose on which clause to raise this debate.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I might add that the course which has been taken is not entirely convenient, because although the noble Earl opposite wanders over the entire field of all the clauses we shall have to direct our steps towards them again in relation to certain Amendments. If I thought the noble Earl's speech would conclude the entire proceedings on this clause I should have listened to it even with satisfaction, but if these various points are to be raised again as each clause comes before us I think the best course to take now would be to limit the present discussion to that to which Lord Oranmore and Browne confined it namely, the question of compulsion pure and simple.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he would limit
178
himself to compulsion pure and simple, because he had had an opportunity of laying before the House his views with regard to the noble and learned Lord's scheme. His reasons for doing this were, first of all that they had had no opportunity whatever, in consequence of the way this scheme was put on the Paper, of properly examining it. The Division took place and they were beaten; but they must remember, of course, what took place in the House of Commons, where compulsion in the Bill was resisted to the utmost by the Unionist party. He would like to ask the noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson) whether he was of opinion that his friends in another place were wrong, and whether he was of opinion that compulsion was so necessary that their Lordships, without having had proper means of discussing the subject, should be compelled to accept it. He (Lord Mayo) felt very strongly on this point. Lord Atkinson and Lord MacDonnell had occupied a great deal of the time of the House in discussing the merits of their respective schemes, both of which contained compulsion. Their Lordships had had the spectacle of two noble Lords who had not the smallest stake in the country in which he (Lord Mayo) lived discussing how and in what manner the property of Irish landlords was to be taken from them compulsorily. Some noble Lords thought that compulsion was necessary for certain districts in Ireland, but he and many others contended that there was enough land at present in the hands of the authorities, if they had money to pay for it, to deal with congestion as it should be dealt with. Compulsion, however, had been forced upon them, and he supposed they had to put up with it; but the action of the noble and learned Lord was to him one of the most extraordinary in his long experience of Ireland, and he could not understand the reason of it. Lord Atkinson was asked to attend the deliberations of noble Lords from Ireland which always took place before Bills of this importance came up for consideration, but he did not respond to the invitation. That action he should designate as akin to that of the "snake in the grass" and a snake was a live thing from which the people of Ireland recoiled.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, we do not. There are no snakes in Ireland now.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I never said there were snakes in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have addressed the House more than once upon this subject and would not do so again but for the fact that if I pass over without any remark the observations of the two noble Lords behind me I might be thought wanting in consideration towards them and in sympathy with those for whom they act. I candidly say that I dislike compulsion as much as they do. I am entirely opposed to the system of general compulsion, but I have been of opinion for a long time that it is difficult to resist the demand for a carefully limited and restricted form of compulsion—compulsion restricted to cases where it is to be used for the purpose of relieving congestion, and where it is to be exercised subject to adequate compensation to be given to those who suffer by it, and only upon condition that the necessity for compulsion is to be decided by a competent and impartial tribunal. I believe that the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill by Lord Atkinson hold out a fair promise that those conditions will be fulfilled.
The forty-seventh clause of the Bill as it now stands makes it perfectly clear that compulsion is not to be exercised except in cases where it is a necessity to relieve congestion, and the following clauses set out machinery which provides appeals and which does not err for want of proper safeguards. If noble Lords should come forward with suggestions to make the safeguards more satisfactory, by all means let them put those suggestions forward and if they are reasonable safeguards I will give them my support. Lord Oranmore for example may be able to suggest to the House some means of making it perfectly clear that the question of value is to be determined in the mode that he recommends. On that point I shall be glad to co-operate with noble Lords; but when they insist upon the complete exclusion of the principle of compulsion I regret that I must part company from them.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord somewhat transgressed the rule laid down by Lord Lansdowne that it was not expedient to discuss afresh on the Report stage matters which had been dealt with and disposed of in Committee. I make no complaint of that, because the subject is undoubtedly one of first importance. The noble Lord opposite objects to this very carefully limited and guarded form of compulsion contained in the Bill. Both Lord Lansdowne and I have been described
180
as phantoms who have been mistakenly followed through the morass. I do not know if the noble Lord himself can by any stretch of imagination be described as a phantom, but, if so, I can only hope that should he divide the House again noble Lords opposite will not follow him through the Lobby. But he is not a transient and embarrassed phantom, because we hope he may long continue to contribute to Irish debates in this House with the same skill and confidence he has exhibited hitherto.
In one point I find myself in marked agreement with the noble Lord. In my opinion if the principle of compulsion is to be admitted at all, noble Lords opposite have made a great mistake in limiting the principle to the congested districts. It is quite true that it is within those arbitrary districts that compulsion may be most needed; but the comparison he drew is a fair one. So far as compulsion can be said to inflict any degree of hardship on the landlord, the landlords in those districts are no more responsible for congestion than are the landlords in other districts. Historically and economically congestion is not the fault of a man who owns land in Connaught, and if there is any degree of hardship inflicted upon those landlords it ought to be shared by the whole of Ireland. I believe that our plan of making compulsion universal is right.
The noble Lord who moved the Amendment asked upon what principles land ought to be bought. The question will arise on an Amendment the noble Lord has put down to a schedule of the Bill. That has reference to the bonus, and upon that arises the question upon what principles the price of land is to be calculated when it is taken. I say without hesitation that in the case of parcels of untenanted land the calculation should be based on the fair annual value of the land to the owner. Obviously it could not be based on the possible use to which the purchaser could put it. On the other hand, it would not be fair to assume that the fair annual value to the owner necessarily represents a given number of years purchase of the rent he may be receiving at the time. That applies to all purchases, and one may be worth more than another. For instance, a great newspaper, bringing in apparently an absolutely fixed and certain income, is only valued for sale at three and a-half or

181
four years purchase. In selling land in Ireland as in selling anything else, the degree of certainty is a factor to be taken into consideration, and subject to that the price must be representative of the fair annual value to the vendor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, on Clause 48, formally moved the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 28, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to 'and' in line 30, and to insert 'The Estates Commissioners shall consider the said scheme and the matters set forth in the said statement.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said the next was a small Amendment, but he moved it for the reason that the Estates Commissioners were to consider the scheme and the matters set forth in the statement, and if there was a primâ facie case that the land should be acquired they might proceed to acquire it. The clause, however, did not require them to inquire into the scheme and see that it was a fit and proper one to be carried out. His Amendment was framed to insure that that should be done.
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 30, after 'facie,' to insert 'a proper scheme to be carried out, and that it is.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the noble Lord was mistaken if he thought the Estates Commissioners had to sit in judgment upon a scheme of the Congested Districts Board as to its propriety or otherwise. It was never intended to give them that jurisdiction. The only question they had to decide was whether it was necessary to put compulsory powers in force, and it was not for them to determine which was the wisest and best scheme. It was no part of their duty to decide upon the propriety or impropriety of any scheme.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This Amendment calls the attention of the House to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord on the next page and with which it must be read. The noble Lord goes a step further and proposes that the Estates Commissioners
182
should go through the process of considering any scheme coming before them and actually take into consideration objections that may be made. Anything that adds a further stage to the proceedings is unacceptable to the Government because we think they are too long already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved an Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 48. He explained that his object was to insure that there should be no inspection or anything of that sort by the Estates Commissioners until the objections to the scheme for taking the land had been disposed of. An inspection of the property might lead to a good deal of misconception among the people in the district and to very unpleasant circumstances. In his view to send down inspectors to inquire into the scheme before disposing of objections was like putting the cart before the horse.
Amendment moved—
"In page 25, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'At any time after the publication of the aforesaid notice, any inspectors of the Estates Commissioners,' and to insert 'after the time prescribed in the said notice for the lodging of objections to the acquisition of the lands, the Estates Commissioners shall consider such objections, if any, as may have been lodged, and if same appear to them to be good and sufficient they may decline to proceed with the scheme; but otherwise they may, in their discretion, order that any inspectors.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON opposed the Amendment on the ground that it did not fit the machinery of the Bill as provided for by the clause. The Amendment would enable the Commissioners to decide upon the validity of the objections, and that was the very thing which it was desirable to take away from them. Under the scheme there should be no decision as to validity except by the proper tribunal. The Amendment would put upon the Estates Commissioners the onus of deciding whether the objections were valid or invalid. Under the Amendment there would have to be a double inquiry—a plan that was not suggested by the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to amend subsection (5) of Clause 48—
(5) If an objection has been made and has not been withdrawn, the same shall be inquired into, heard, and determined in open court, the parties interested having been given an opportunity of being heard by a tribunal hereinafter called the tribunal, composed of the Judicial Commissioner and such one of the two Estates Commissioners, who shall have, in the first instance, considered the scheme as the Estates Commissioners shall themselves select, together with the Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court who is next in order on the rota mentioned in section two, subsection eleven, of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907. The said last-mentioned Judge shall preside:
by providing that the tribunal formed to inquire into objections should consist of the Judicial Commissioner, a Land Judge, and a Judge of the King's Bench Division in place of the body named in the subsection. He thought the idea that an Estates Commissioner, who in the first instance had considered the scheme, should be appointed one of the members to decide the question was analogous to a Judge of first instance being called upon to sit as a Judge of the Court of Appeal to decide an appeal from his own ruling. That he regarded as a very objectionable procedure. When they remembered that in Ireland the work which occupied the King's Bench Court and the Court of Appeal was of a most trivial character in comparison with the work of the English Courts, and that matters of such magnitude as for instance the dealing with an estate the value of which ran into six figures would be performed in a perfunctory manner, they must agree that they ought to have a strong Court of three judicial members. He therefore suggested that the tribunal should be composed in the terms of his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 25, lines 29 and 30, to leave out from 'Commissioner' to the end of subsection (5), and to insert 'the Land Judge, and a Judge nominated for that purpose from time to time by the Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON suggested that the Amendment should be altered to provide that the Judge to be nominated by the King's Bench Judges of the High Court should be next in order on the rota.
LORD DUNBOYNE: I agree to that.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON protested against the view that because a Judge had in the first instance given a decision he could not be relied upon to give an impartial hearing and decision when the matter came before him on appeal.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE agreed that the selection of the tribunal called for careful consideration. It was desirable to have the Court as free from prejudice and prepossession as possible. He was disposed to think that the original Court suggested was somewhat open to question, because although it would be composed of three honourable men, two of the number would have belonged to the original tribunal. But his noble friend had modified that view and had excepted from the parties who were to arrive at the prima facie decision the Judicial Commissioner. The tribunal would now consist of the two highest members of the Court, who would be perfectly fresh, and the Judge of the High Court on the rota. He thought the tribunal selected by Lord Atkinson was reasonably calculated to give satisfaction, and although he had no objection whatever to the tribunal selected by Lord Dunboyne or Viscount Midleton he regarded that chosen by Lord Atkinson as a reasonable tribunal.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD supported the view of the noble and learned Lord that a tribunal consisting of a Judicial Commissioner, a Judge of the High Court, and an Estates Commissioner would be thoroughly efficient. He was strongly of opinion that it would be a more popular tribunal in Ireland than that suggested by Lord Dunboyne.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I ask whether the rota mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act is a permanent rota, or does it expire when the work of the Evicted Tenants Act is completed?
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the rota mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act would not continue to exist in air. That, however, was a long day to which to look forward.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE suggested that it would be wiser to insert the words "on the rota prepared by the King's Bench Division."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I ought to remind the House that we are on

185
Report. Will the noble Lord kindly hand me the paper containing the words he now proposes to substitute for those in the clause.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE handed in the paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment now reads that the tribunal shall be "composed of the Judicial Commissioner and the Land Judge, together with the Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court who is next in order on the rota mentioned in Section 2, subsection (11) of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907. The said last-mentioned Judge shall preside."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to amend subsection (10)—
(10) Upon the making of an order by the aforesaid tribunal or by the Court of Appeal overruling all objections, or of the making of an order by the said Commissioners where no objection has been made, or if made has been withdrawn or within a reasonable time thereafter the compensation payable in respect of the lands taken or injuriously affected or shall be determined in the manner prescribed by a single arbitrator appointed by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, on the principles on which compensation is awarded for lands taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Acts,
by omitting the words "in the manner prescribed by a single arbitrator appointed by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, lines 26 to 27, after 'determined' to leave out 'in the manner prescribed by a single arbitrator appointed by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said this Amendment must be considered with an Amendment in the name of Lord Dunboyne to be taken later. The object of the two Amendments was to strike out the provision contained in the Bill as it stood, under which the compensation was to be awarded by a single arbitrator, and to suggest a scheme under which it should be awarded by two arbitrators and an umpire, to be provided by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland for the time being. Lord Midleton had referred earlier to his
186
experience of a case connected with the War Office, where two arbitrators had worked in agreement; but if the noble Viscount expected two arbitrators in the West of Ireland—one appointed by the Congested Districts Board and the other appointed by the owner of the land—to come to an agreement such as might obtain in the War Office, he would be bound to be most bitterly disappointed. In these cases the two arbitrators would light and have to appeal to the umpire. He (Lord Atkinson) thought the Amendment would give a wholly unnecessary and most disturbing addition to the tribunal. In every case the arbitrator was to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. He had the utmost admiration for the Lord Chief Justice, but he was not sure that that gentleman was brought into contact with men suitable to arbitrate in such matters. The Board of Works were constantly in contact with such people and would be equally independent, and their choice would doubtless be more satisfactory.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON desired to say a few words in vindication of the character of arbitrators in Ireland. He thought the noble and learned Lord had done a great injustice to those gentlemen when he reflected upon their impartiality in the matter of arbitrations in the West of Ireland. There was an almost universal consensus of opinion on the part of all classes of Irish people as to the fair conduct of arbitrators. This was a question of dealing with the money of the taxpayers and not merely a question between landlord and tenant. It dealt with money to be found by a public authority in the legitimate and fair purchase of an estate, and he could not believe that two men would take views necessarily as asunder as the poles. But, even if that were so, it fortified their case in asking for an umpire. He certainly thought that the whole gist of Lord Atkinson's speech supported the Amendment of Lord Dunboyne, and showed that in the case of an estate worth £50,000 or £100,000, its distribution should not be allowed to rest on the ipse dixit of one man. He hoped the Amendment would be carried to a Division.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said Lord Atkinson had dealt with his second Amendment which had not yet been moved. If it could be dealt with in that manner he was willing to debate it. He could not see any reason why if land was taken compulsorily in

187
Ireland it should not be treated on the same footing as land in England. The Lands Clauses Act provided for two arbitrators and an umpire. That was a very fair tribunal, with which people were content; and he did not see why the people of Ireland should be restricted to one arbitrator. In his view the umpire should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. There were two Bills now before their Lordships' House—the Town Planning Bill and the Development Bill. In those Bills should any cases of dispute arise an umpire was to be named by the Lord Chief Justice; and he would suggest that in this Irish Land Bill an umpire should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice in the event of the arbitrators disagreeing. He desired to to move his second Amendment in conjunction with his first.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 30, after 'Acts' to insert the words 'by two arbitrators, of whom one shall be appointed by the Congested Districts Board and the other by the vendor. Such arbitrators shall appoint an umpire within the time and in the manner prescribed, and if they fail or neglect to do so an umpire shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland for the time being. The decision of the umpire on the matters on which the arbitrators may differ, or which may be referred to him, shall be final.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD contended that nothing more unpopular or less acceptable to the tenantry of Ireland could be decreed than the relegation of such an important matter as the awarding of compensation to a single arbitrator nominated by the Board of Works.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE felt bound to say that he did not like the idea of the matter being left to only one arbitrator. To say that the decision of one man should be conclusive and should not be capable of examination was to place in his hands too great a power. His own opinion was that the subsequent Amendment by Lord Atkinson would largely be acted upon.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON then moved his next Amendment to which Lord Ashbourne had referred. He said the question of price must necessarily arise, and there seemed no reasonable objection to his proposal.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 30, after 'Acts' to insert the words 'Provided that with the consent of all the parties interested, the amount of the aforesaid compensation may be determined on the principles aforesaid by the tribunal itself instead of by arbitration.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved an Amendment, the object of which was, he said, to provide for an omission in the Bill as to what was to become of the money paid into the bank as compensation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 30, to insert the following new subsection—
'(11) All moneys paid into the Bank of Ireland as compensation for lands purchased or taken under this part of this Act shall be dealt with as if they were the purchase money of lands purchased by the Land Commission, and the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts relative to such lands and purchase money shall as nearly as possible apply, whether in respect of the making of title, the making of vesting orders, the transfer of claims from the land to the purchase money, the distribution of the purchase money, or otherwise.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 49 agreed to.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to insert a new clause after Clause 49. He said that under the Lands Clauses Act the invariable practice was that ten per cent. was added in consideration of compulsory purchase. He thought that if a landlord obtained that percentage he should not get the bonus in addition, but if he did not get this ten per cent. he was entitled to the bonus.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 49 to insert the following new clause:
'50. The percentage mentioned in section forty-eight of the Act of 1903 and in section five of this Act shall not be payable in the case of the sale of lands acquired compulsorily under the foregoing sections of this Act.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he preferred to go on the bird-in-the-hand principle. Those who were compulsorily expropriated would be entitled to the bonus. That was the position now, and it was defended with quite adequate reasoning by the Chief

189
Secretary in the House of Commons. Lord Atkinson now proposed to omit that provision and to rely upon the possibility of getting the extra ten per cent He (Lord Ashbourne) was not so sure about getting the ten per cent. In recent Acts of Parliament provisions had been inserted that on compulsory sales there was to be no special allowance given because of compulsion, and in this Bill when it came to their Lordships' House there was a positive statement that no extra allowance should be given because the sale was compulsory. That, however, had been deleted. It was a big hope to expect that if they surrendered the possibility of the bonus they could rely with any certainty on getting the ten per cent.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE was of opinion that the question of the bonus in the case of untenanted land was valueless. In all cases the twenty-six and a-half years purchase which would be given would be not twenty-six and a-half years purchase of the value of the land but of the value the Estates Commissioners put upon it, and if that was done it excluded the vendor from any bonus.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Lord is putting a strange construction upon the probable action of those who buy untenanted land. As I understand, his fear is that when a price is named, the annual value will be multiplied into so large a number of years purchase as to exclude under our scale the addition of any bonus at all. I think it is hardly to be assumed that self-respecting public bodies would attempt in that way to evade an obvious duty put upon them by the Act. It is true that where a high rent is obtained for land and a large number of years purchase is obtained as well the untenanted land would not be subject to bonus, but I think it is not reasonable to assume that a trick of the kind described would be played by a public body. As regards the point at issue between the two noble and learned Lords opposite, I have no advice to give further than to say I hope it will not end—in fact I may safely say my right hon. friend in another place will take care it does not end—in a landlord not only getting the bird in the hand but also the two birds in the bush, because that would clearly be improper. As the noble Lord who has just sat down said, we kept the bonus and excluded the ten per cent.,
190
and it is clear that people cannot expect both.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE suggested the addition to the Amendment of the words "shall not be payable in the case of sale of lands acquired compulsorily under the foregoing sections of this Act where the arbitrator or umpire has awarded the usual ten per cent. allowance for compulsory purchase."
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON could not accept this suggestion.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO quoted the evidence before the Dudley Commission of one of the chief valuers of the Estates Commissioners, who stated that after deducting fifteen per cent. as the State's security he gave twenty-six and a-half years purchase of what he considered to be the annual value. That would cut out any prospect of a bonus, and therefore he thought the contention of Lord Oranmore was perfectly correct.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 50 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to amend Clause 50—
50. Land shall not be acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the preceding sections which—

(1) Is situate without an administrative county containing a congested districts county. For the purpose of this subsection the west riding of the county of Cork shall be deemed an administrative county;

(2) Or what has been acquired by a tenant under the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1869, or purchased under the Land Purchase Acts as defined by the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Irish Land Act, 1903, or this Act;

(3) Or which is in the occupation of an owner within the meaning of the aforesaid Land Purchase Acts, and is, or forms part of a demesne, garden, pleasure garden, or home farm;

(4) Or Which is of an annual rateable value not exceeding two hundred pounds, and is occupied and cultivated as a farm according to a reasonable course of husbandry by a person holding under a fee-farm grant, or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired,

by leaving out subsection (3) and inserting a new subsection. He said His Majesty's Government had been rather distressed at the amount that had been cut out of this Bill. He hoped, therefore, the Government

191
would accept with approval his next Amendment, in drafting which he had selected, as far as he could, subsection (2) of Clause 5 of the Development and Road Improvement Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 9, to leave out from 'Acts' to end of line 11, and to insert 'or which is the property of any local authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water or other public undertaking, or which at the date of the scheme forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, recreation ground, demesne, or home farm, or is required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is very kind of the noble Lord opposite to have thought of us as he has done. I should myself have thought it unlikely, however, that the property of a dock or canal company could be taken for the relief of congestion. But the noble Lord is afraid of it, and, after all, it does not very much matter whether the words are inserted or not. What is required "for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house" is a somewhat wide term. I do not know if the noble Lord would make it include a view. Although the words are not those of the Government, we do not seriously object to their insertion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM said his Amendment dealt with land which should not be taken under the compulsory powers. It was most important that it should be clearly defined what should and what should not be taken under those powers, and most of the words of the Amendment had been taken either from the Evicted Tenants Act or from English Acts passed with compulsory powers in them.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 17, after subsection (4) to insert the words 'Provided always that, in the exercise of the powers for the acquisition of land conferred by this Act, the Estates Commissioners shall, in the case of untenanted land, avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the land, or with any home farm, or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with his residence, and land shall be selected with due regard to the general
192
situation and convenience of any other property of the owner, so as not to diminish the value thereof.'"—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said his proposed new Clause 53 was one of the clauses which he stated during the Committee stage he would bring up on Report. It was proposed by their Lordships to omit it altogether from the Bill, and the result of the omission would be seriously to curtail the extent of untenanted land on which it was necessary the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board should rely for the relief of congestion. He believed Lord Atkinson had an objection to the new clause, but he had endeavoured to meet that by the first few words "subject to the provisions of Section 50, Clause 4." With the addition of those words he understood that the clause would be acceptable to Lord Atkinson, and that their Lordships would consent to its restoration in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'53. Subject to the provisions of section fifty, Clause 4, land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee-farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act be deemed to be untenanted land.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause providing that the Congested Districts Board should not be required to state in the notice served upon a tenant that they would provide him with a new holding on the same or an adjacent or neighbouring estate. He said that Section 1, subsection (2), of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1901, provided that "Every such notice [that was, the notice issued by the Congested Districts Board to a tenant] shall contain an undertaking by the Board that they will within the period mentioned in that behalf in the notice or so soon thereafter as practicable provide the tenant with a new holding on the same or an adjacent or neighbouring estate." The preservation of these words in the section would clearly prevent the migration of

193
tenants to a distance. It was essential, according to that section, that untenanted land should be found for tenants in the immediate vicinity of the estate on which their holdings had previously existed. Obviously no large scheme of migration could be carried out under those circumstances. The Board undertook to provide for the tenant a holding equivalent in so far as value was concerned, and in every respect similar to the holding which it took up, and if the tenant was dissatisfied with such holding he had his remedy in a civil Court.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause: '54. Notwithstanding anything contained in section one, subsection (2) of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1901, the Congested Districts Board shall not be required to state in the notice served upon any tenant that they will provide him with a new holding on the same or an adjacent or neighbouring estate.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: Is it quite certain that the noble Lord's Amendment, as framed, carries out his intention? I do not feel certain that it has not the affect of entirely repealing the Act and relieving the the Congested Districts Board from the obligation of finding the holding at all. What he means is, I take it, that the Congested Districts Board have to find another holding.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that was so.
THE EARL OF CREWE: But not on the particular estate, and not necessarily on an adjacent or neighbouring estate. I am not sure that it would not be wiser to say that.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the clause continued on the Board the obligation of providing a new holding in every respect similar to the old one, the only difference being that the new holding need not be on an adjacent or neighbouring estate.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am still not quite satisfied as to the noble Lord's drafting.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON agreed with the object of the noble Lord. He thought it would be sufficient for the Congested
194
Districts Board to state in their notice that they would provide a holding elsewhere without saying that it should be on a neighbouring estate. He presumed the noble Lord did not intend that the Estates Commissioners should not give an undertaking that they would provide a holding.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the only thing not stated in future would be that the new holding would be on a neighbouring estate.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is purely a drafting question, and I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord's drafting is not quite right.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On the First Schedule,
LORD ORANMOBE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMOBE AND BROWNE moved the insertion of paragraphs stating how the number of years purchase represented by the advance in the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land should be calculated. He said this was an Amendment which he proposed on the Committee stage and which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill promised to consider on Report. His object was to gain some idea on what basis the Treasury were going to act. He thought the noble Earl would agree that the Treasury was a difficult Department to get money out of, and they ought not to put the Department in any temptation to restrict the bonus. After all it might be a matter of privilege; but it was for Parliament to decide the bonus that was to be given in these cases. To leave the matter to be decided by the Treasury after the passing of the Bill was hardly treating their Lordships fairly. He would like to suggest that the decision should, as in other cases in the Bill, be given by an umpire appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to tell them distinctly before the Bill passed on what basis the bonus was to be calculated.
Amendment moved—
"In page 29, line 29, after 'land' to insert the words 'the number of years purchase represented by the advance, shall be calculated—

(a) In the case of land that has been let for periods of less than one year, or that has been let for purposes of agistment for any period, at the rent or annual sum that has been paid for same on an average of the preceding five years;

195

(b) In the case of land that has not been so let, the rent thereof (for the purpose of estimating the number of years purchase) shall be taken to be (at the option of the vendor) either—

(1) the average net annual profit for the preceding five years, as shown by the vendor's accounts; or

(2) the fair annual value thereof, to be ascertained by arbitration, as nearly as may be, in the manner provided by section twenty-five of the schedule of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

THE EARL OF CREWE: I have really nothing to add to what I said to the noble Lord when speaking on his former Amendment on the general question of compulsory purchase. I said then that the Treasury view was that in this matter of the bonus the scale should represent the fair value to the landlord of what he was parting with. It is impossible to lay down a scale embodying anything like an average of rents received during a given number of years in order to get at the actual value. You are obliged to take the case on its merits, and the circumstances must vary between one case and another. I put aside the question which the noble Lord raised on a former occasion of an actual attempt to evade the obligation to pay any bonus at all by fixing an absurdly low price and an enormous number of years purchase as being entirely out of the question. I am afraid I cannot add anything further, because I have stated the principles on which the Treasury will no doubt proceed.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE asked if the noble Earl would put in the words "on the principle of the Lands Clauses Act."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot do anything of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I can quite understand the force of the noble Earl's objection when he says that circumstances must vary in these cases, and that it would be inconvenient to bind the Treasury absolutely by a formula of the kind proposed by my noble friend. What I take it my noble friend really desires is that there should be some indication given that in fixing the price of land the authority concerned should not fix it in a purely arbitrary and conjectural manner, but should have some regard to the income which had been actually derived from the
196
land in question, or might be derived from it. Admitting as I am inclined to do that the language proposed by my noble friend is perhaps needlessly rigid, would it not be well if we adopted words to the effect that in the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land regard must be had in calculating the number of years purchase to the rent or annual sum which has been paid on the average? That would merely be a sort of indication that these facts, which, after all, are very material, ought not to be excluded altogether from calculation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
The Report stage having been completed,
THE EARL OF CREWEsaid: I may perhaps say that we propose to take the Third Reading of the Bill on Monday next, and I suggest that it should have precedence of other business on that date. If it suits the convenience of the House we will put a Motion down to that effect.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 201.)

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CROWN LANDS.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return specifying the acreage in each county of England (including Wales) and of Scotland of lands belonging to the Crown under separate heads for those lands under the administration of the Woods and Forests Department, those under the

197
Duchy of Lancaster, and those under the Duchy of Cornwall.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very glad to be able to say that there is no objection whatever in any of the Departments to giving the Returns asked for, but unfortunately it will take a little time to get them out.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY PRO TECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 202.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.