Sitting of 21 October 1909

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

FINANCE BILL (CHARGES ON PROPERTY).
Return ordered, "Showing the amount of public charges leviable in respect of property having a capital value of £100, £1,000, £10,000, £100,000, and £1,000,000, respectively, of the following kinds:—

(a) Consols;

(b) The ordinary shares of an industrial company yielding five per cent.;

(c) Freehold agricultural lands and buildings (assuming buildings to represent 30 per cent. of cost), the property yielding three per cent.;

(d) Long leaseholds of urban land, built upon, yielding four per cent.;

Under the under-mentioned heads (including in the case of land and houses all charges, whether levied upon owners or upon occupiers):—

(1) Stamp Duty upon conveyance on sale;

(2) Stamp Duty upon marriage settlement;

(3) Income Tax;

(4) Land Tax;

(5) Inhabited House Duty;

(6) Local rates (on an assumed average of 7s. in the £ for town and 4s. in the £ for the country, respectively);

(7) Death Duties on one succession (i.e., Estate Duty on passing of the property upon death and Legacy or Succession Duty, assuming it to pass in one sum—(a) to a spouse or lineal; (b) to a stranger in blood, distinguishing between (a) unsettled estate; (b) settled estate on first passing; and (c) settled estate on second or subsequent passings under the same settlement;

(a) On the 31st March, 1909;

(b) Under the Finance Bill as introduced;

(c) Under the Finance Bill as amended in Committee."—[Mr. Walter Long.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Death of a Chinese (Case of Inspector Mears).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was now in a position to say whether the procedure was the same in China when a Chinese was accused of having killed a British subject and when a British subject was accused of having killed a Chinese; whether, in the case of John Mears, a British subject, accused of having killed Yu-Fa-Cheng last April, all inquiry was refused until July, then conceded under commercial pressure, but held in camera, and a regular trial before the British Court of Shanghai was still refused; and whether this was the procedure when a Chinese was accused of having killed a British subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): China being a country in which His Majesty exercises extra-territorial rights, British defendants are tried in. British courts and Chinese defendants in Chinese courts. To this extent, therefore, the procedure is different. The hon. Member's sketch of the course of events in the case of Police Inspector Mears is not in accordance with facts.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the facts are?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The facts are that Mears was accused of having contributed to the death of the Chinese, and an inquiry was made into the circumstances by the British Consul, who considered that there was no case to send for trial, the evidence of the doctor being that the man had not received any injuries.

  Canton-Kaulung Railway (Trial of Accountant).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman would inform the House of the result of the trial of the chief British accountant of the Canton-Kaulung Railway on a charge of embezzlement?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: According to telegrams in the Press the accused has been sentenced to two years' hard labour, but I have no official information on the subject at present.

  English Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the hon. Gentleman can communicate the

  441
  result of his inquiries on the alleged misdeeds committed under the control of the English Peruvian Amazon Company?!
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Since the date of the hon. Member's last question, the nearest British source of official information, namely, the Consul at Iquitos, has been communicated with; but as this place is some hundreds of miles distant from the scene of the alleged misdeeds his report neither disproves nor corroborates the allegations. I hope, however, to receive very shortly a report from a gentleman who has recently travelled through the district affected, and the United States Government have also been asked what is the nature of the information stated to have been supplied to the United States Consul at Iquitos.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Has the hon. Gentleman received any demand from the English Peruvian Amazon Company for an inquiry into this matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I am not aware of any.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Is not the Consul at Iquitos in England at the present moment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not that I am aware of.

  Burning of Whale Stations (Norway).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked when the whale stations in the north of Norway were burned down by the fishermen and what was the reason adduced, and when the Act prohibiting landing of whales in Norway was passed by the Storthing?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information in regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, paragraph I of the Norwegian Law of 7th January, 1904, prohibits the landing of whales in the provinces of Nordland, Tromso, and Finmarken. This Act was passed by the Storthing on 11th December, 1903, and came into force on 1st February, 1904.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the fact that whale stations were burned down in Norway, will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information that I ask for, namely, any particulars he can get with regard to the occurrence?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot make a promise on the subject, but I will consider the matter.

  International Opium Commission.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked when the Report of the Shanghai Opium Commission will be published?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A few copies of the Report of the International Opium Commission have now been received at the Foreign Office, and will be placed in the libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords as soon as possible.

  Kinlea Police Hut.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state, with regard to the Kinlea police hut, the cost of erection of the hut, the rent, if anything, paid to James Griffin, J.P., the total annual cost of the maintenance of the police stationed there, including their pay and all incidental expenses?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The erection of the police but cost £122, and the cost of the maintenance of the police there amounts in round figures to £485 a year. A rent of one shilling a year is paid to Mr. Griffin for the site.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act (Killadysert Union).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether the Chief Secretary has heard complaints from labourers in the Killadysert Union, West Clare, that the provisions for the erection of labourers cottages under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, are being carried out slowly and with much impediment; and whether he will look into this matter so as to extend the benefits of the Labourers Act more actively and more widely than at present?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have received two complaints from individual applicants for cottages. An order was made last year authorising the erection of 33 cottages in the district, and 27 of these have been completed or are in course of construction. Fourteen additional cottages were authorised this year, and the arbitration proceedings preliminary to taking possession of the lands have just been completed. Forty-seven cottages have, therefore, been authorised within the last two years as compared with a total of only 52 built between 1883 and 1905. In view of these facts I see no reason for moving in the matter.

  Town Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that

  443
  town tenants in Ireland suffer under disadvantages similar to those which were formerly experienced by tenant farmers; and whether he can hold out a prospect of early legislation with regard to these citizens which shall have for object the fixation of fair rents, compensation for improvements, and due facilities for the purchase of the properties tenanted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would remind the hon. Member that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, provides for compensation to certain classes of town tenants for improvements and for unreasonable disturbance. The Government do not contemplate further legislation on the subject.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH (for Mr. Reddy)asked, with reference to the escape of Cavanagh from custody at Shrinrone barracks, whether the prisoner was allowed to walk outside the barracks with the police whilst he was in custody, whereas men who had been arrested in the same district for cattle-driving were kept handcuffed and in close confinement; and, if so, what explanation was offered of the difference in treatment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that Cavanagh was allowed, while in custody, to walk outside the barrack premises from which he escaped. The seventeen men arrested for cattle-driving in the same district were handcuffed while being brought to the barrack, and also when being taken on to Limerick, this precaution being considered necessary owing to their number.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this prisoner, Cavanagh, escaped if he was not allowed outside?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Gentleman will ask me privately I will give him the information.

  Asylums in Ireland (Local Taxation Account).
  Mr. J. MacVEAGHasked whether the Chief Secretary's attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the committee of management of the Down asylum and other asylum committees in Ireland with regard to the resources of the local taxation account being insufficient to meet additional demands, and to the
  444
  probability that in future the grants may have to be reduced; and whether inquiries will be made as to the advisability of a readjustment of the financial arrangements?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received a number of resolutions on the subject. The matter is receiving my attention, but I am not in a position at present to add anything to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 17th June last.

  Estates of Mr. John J. Smyth, Loughrea.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH (for Mr. Duffy)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. John J. Smyth, of Mason Brock, Loughrea, sold out his estate situated in the townlands of Derry French, Bornakulla, Cormack, Lisheen, Brackla, and Garvaneath, so long ago as November, 1904; is he aware that Mr. Smyth has been paid the purchase money by the Estates Commissioners since August, 1907; whether he is aware that the tenants are still paying interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase-money; and whether, in view of the fact that the landlord's interest has long since been cleared, he will direct the Commissioners to place the tenants on the annuitant rate of interest on the rents now falling due, and at the same time have the Commissioners to remit to the tenants the surplus interest paid by them since the date when the purchase money was paid to the landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase money of the estate referred to was advanced to the owner in August, 1907, by the Estates Commissioners, who purchased the property from him under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. A large number of the holdings had to be re-arranged, improved and enlarged at a considerable expenditure out of the reserve fund in conjunction with an adjoining estate which has also been acquired by the Commissioners. Section 18 of the Act provides that the interest in lieu of rent shall be at the rate of not less than 3½ per cent., and in their purchase undertakings purchasing tenants agreed to pay interest at that rate until the lands were vested in them. The lands will be vested in the tenants at an early date. Meanwhile the tenants are not required to pay any interest on the increase of prices consequent upon the money expended by the Commissioners on improvements which have been now completed.

  Estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde (County Cork).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Cork)asked whether the Chief Secretary was aware that with regard to the proposed reinstatement of Mr. William Bulman in his former holding on the estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde, Ballindangan, county Cork, the Estates Commissioners were informed that the owner accepted the estimated price offered by them for the holding; and whether the delay in the completion of the sale and purchase and consequent reinstatement of Mr. Bulman was caused by the refusal of the owner or her agent, Mr. William Rochfort, to carry out the original arrangement for the acquisition of the holding in question on voluntary lines; and what steps do the Commissioners now intend to take in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The lands in question cannot be acquired by the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act as the eviction took place since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The former tenant can, therefore, only be reinstated by agreement for purchase and sale under the Act of 1903 between him and the owner. No such agreement has yet been lodged, although the owner has expressed her willingness to sell at the price.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agent will not take any further proceedings until the Land Bill is passed, and, if that be so, can the Estates Commissioners not take Bulman's case into consideration with a view to his reinstatement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that the circumstances referred to could be usefully brought to the attention of the Commissioners.

  Bengal Police (European Inspectors).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether the last Report issued on the administration of the Bengal Police shows that the crime of gang robbery, not infrequently accompanied with murder, in Eastern Bengal, has been carried on to a great extent by extremists belonging to the educated classes; whether the Inspector-General of Police remarked that the increase in the number of riots and serious offences against persons and property is the indirect result of the organised efforts of agitators to weaken the authority of government and to bring its officers into contempt; whether, until the Secretary of State lately posted a detachment of a native regiment at Dacca, the police were
  446
  the only representatives of law and order in the towns and villages of Eastern Bengal; and whether, in view of the want of support the police receive in the detection and prevention of crime from the educated classes in Eastern Bengal, the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of advising the Government of India to strengthen the force by the provision of a larger number of European inspectors?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (the Master of Elibank): As regards the first and second questions of my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State proposes to place in the Library a copy of the Inspector-General's Report, from which Members can draw their own conclusions. The answer to the third question, using the words in the sense given to them by the hon. Member, is in the affirmative, but the term "police" of course includes Military Police. Steps for strengthening the force, numerically and in respect of superintendence, are being taken.

  Medical College (Madras).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the senior assistant professor at the Medical College, Madras, and the senior assistant surgeon at the General Hospital, Madras, are Eurasian military assistant surgeons lent to the civil medical department; whether he can state their medical qualifications and salaries, with the salaries of the civil assistant surgeons under them; and whether it is proposed to open these posts to well-qualified Indians?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: It appears from the Madras Civil List that the two officers mentioned are military assistant surgeons; the Secretary of State has no information as to whether they are Eurasians, or as to their medical qualifications; their total emoluments are, respectively, Rs.575 and Rs.255 a month; the civil assistant surgeons in the medical college, who hold appointments of equal rank, draw either Rs.250 or Rs.200 a month. As was stated in reply to a question on 2nd March, the Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that duly qualified Indian assistant surgeons will not be held eligible for these posts in the event of vacancies occurring.

  Northbrook Society (Report of Committee).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Northbrook Society had completed its labours; and, if so, when the report may be expected; and whether it would be made public?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has received the Report of the Committee, and has it under consideration. For reasons that my hon. Friend will appreciate, he does not propose to make it public.

  Indian Indentured Labourers (Death-rate).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that the death-rate among Indian indentured labourers in the Federated Malay States in 1908 amounted to 84.8 per thousand; and whether the Government of India are taking any steps for the protection of the lives of British-Indian subjects who are indentured for labour on the rubber plantation in the Malay States?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The figures referred to by the hon. Member have been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, and the report of the Resident-General containing them has been communicated direct to the Government of India, whose views on any action that it may be practicable to take will be received in due course. As the hon. Member is aware, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in reply to a question on 4th October, undertook to make inquiries of the High Commissioner.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask whether the percentages given in the question are correct?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I understand that the facts as stated are correct, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is making inquiries.
  Sir H. COTTON: Does this matter come within the purview of the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the case of the indentured labourers in the Colonies?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not sure, but I will make inquiries.
  Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: There is also the case of the Mauritius?

  Indian Railway Finance and Administration.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary for India what steps have been taken to give effect to the following recommendations of the Report, dated 5th March, 1908, of the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration, that
  448
  Government should provide every year £12,500,000 for the expenditure of the railways; that, in addition to this sum, further funds should be provided through the agency of the companies; and that Government should not interfere in matters of detail, but leave to the companies a wide discretion as regards detail and the responsibility for efficient working; and whether any, and, if so, which, of the specific recommendations of the Committee's Report has been carried out?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked (1) whether, in the years 1908–9 and 1909–10, the amount allotted for railway expenditure was £10,000,000 only, instead of £12,500,000 as recommended by the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration; and (2) whether he will explain why recent orders of the Government Railway Department, such as Resolutions No. 431 R.A. of 4th June, 1909, and No. 566 R.A. of 3rd September, 1909, were issued, in view of the recommendations of the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration that Government should not interfere in matters of detail, but leave to the companies a wide discretion as regards detail and the responsibility for efficient working?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I will answer my hon. Friend's three questions together. The Committee on Railway Administration and Finance recommended in March, 1908, a capital outlay of £12,500,000 in normal years. The financial arrangements for 1908–9 had been made when this recommendation was submitted, so that the first year in which it would have been possible to give effect to it was 1909–10; but the financial position at the beginning of that year was not normal, and did not justify a large increase of expenditure. The programme of capital outlay was, therefore, not raised above the level of £10,000,000, at which it has stood for some years. As regards the raising of money through railway companies, various schemes to facilitate this in particular cases have been considered by the Secretary of State. One of them has been embodied in a contract between the Secretary of State and the Rohilkund and Kumaon Railway Company, which enabled the company to raise £600,000 in the present year. It is hoped that contracts will in due course be made enabling other companies to raise capital; but, as the House will understand, it is not possible to give detailed information while negotiations are pending.

  449
  The recommendation of the Committee regarding the administrative action of the Railway Board has, with the Committee's other recommendations, been brought to the notice of the Government of India; and in one important respect, namely, the abolition of the consulting engineers, through whom a considerable amount of detailed control was formerly exercised, action has been taken in accordance with the spirit of the Committee's Report. The Secretary of State is in correspondence with the Government of India regarding the Resolutions referred to in the third question, but is not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of the consulting engineer took place before the Committee Report, and that it cannot be said that the doing of that was in any way the result of the Committee Report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: In regard to the abolition of the consulting engineer, that also abolishes a large amount of the details of which the hon. Member complains.

  Civil Medical Departments (India).
  Mr. REESasked whether Eurasian military assistant surgeons lent to civil and medical departments in India are not generally statutory natives of India, and in that case equally qualified with natives of India proper for all and sundry appointments reserved for natives of India; and whether natives of India, Europeans, and Eurasians are as such in any way disqualified from employment in the Civil Medical Department?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. Indians are equally eligible with Europeans for admission to the Indian Medical Service, which Service contains many Indian members. As to the Civil Medical Department, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the Papers recently presented to Parliament.

  Patiala (Alleged Sedition).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State for India has any information which he can impart to the House regarding the steps taken by the Maharaja of Patiala to stamp out sedition in his State?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, but he expects to be furnished with a report in due course.
  450
  When it is received I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Bengal Police Report.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he will place in the library a copy of the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police for Bengal?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I shall be glad to place a copy in the Library when a supply of copies is received.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police for Bengal, that the cases of murder were of the usual type, most of them being the outcome of intrigues, domestic differences, and land disputes; and whether the Secretary of State has any reason to doubt the accuracy of the Inspector-General's view in regard to the origin of these crimes?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police in Bengal, corroborated by the Lieutenant-Governor, that the increase in the cases of cognisable crime was to be attributed principally to the high price of food and the distress consequent thereon; and whether the Secretary of State has any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Lieutenant-Governor and the Inspector-General?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has read the passages referred to, and he has no reason to doubt the correctness of the views therein expressed.
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State's attention has been called to statements made by police and other authorities to the effect that the difficulties of the Indian police in Bengal in dealing with crime arise in a great measure from the fact that the educated classes do not co-operate with the force or render it proper assistance; and whether the Secretary of State has any official information to this effect?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen statements in the sense indicated; the hon. Member will find official information and a review of the facts by the local Government in the "Bengal Police Report for 1908," a copy of which the Secretary of State proposes, as I have just stated, to place in the Library.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether it is a fact that the Report of the Police Commission appointed by Lord Curzon found that the want of co-operation on the part of the people of India was due to terrorism by the police, and the Commission found that they did not wonder that the people shrank from taking any part in the investigation of crime?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not sure that that is quite a correct summary of the Report. It is true that the Commission finds that the investigations on the part of the police were sometimes unnecessarily oppressive. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will quote two or three lines from the Report, and at the same time I regret to have to refer to certain characteristics of the Indian people:—
  "Neither do the Commission forget that much may be said in excuse for the misconduct of the police in the generally indifferent attitude of the people in respect of crime; in the encouragement of corruption by the readiness with which the people offer illegal gratifications; and in the low pay and poor prospects of tihe police service."
  In connection with that the Indian Government are endeavouring, both by increasing the pay and generally increasing the standard, to remedy that of which the Report speaks.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether I am not perfectly correct in stating that the Report textucally states that there can be no wonder the people are said to be in terror of the police and to abstain from taking any part in the investigation of crime? Are not those the words of the Report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: It must be read in connection with the context.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether any assistance is given to the Government of India in improving the police by wholesale denunciations in this House of the character of those we have heard?
  Mr. LUPTON: May I ask as to his remark about the character of the Indian people whether other people would not be liable to corrupt influences when they are willing to be corrupted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a general question on which hon. Members can form their own opinion.

  Medical Appointments (India).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office had received a resolution
  452
  unanimously adopted at a meeting of the members of the medical profession, held under the auspices of the Bombay Medical Union, submitting that the present system of reserving all high and important posts in the medical service of India for military officers of the Indian Medical Service had led to the systematic exclusion of Indian doctors from them, no matter how highly qualified or deserving those Indian doctors might be; whether he was aware that the system in question had given rise to discontent and imposed unnecessary expense of over £100,000 on the Indian revenue; and what steps it was proposed to take in the matter?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not received the resolution referred to; on the general subject, I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence recently presented to Parliament as to the steps that are being taken to promote the growth of an independent medical profession in India by throwing open to the profession in general some of the various Civil appointments now held by officers of the Indian Medical Service and other similar appointments which may be created in future.
  Sir H. CRAIK: In making these changes has the Secretary of State had regard to the needs of the large number of English officials in India?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Both the Secretary of State and the Viceroy are making inquiries.
  Mr. REES: Would not the expense of Indian administration be greatly increased if military medical officers were not engaged in Civil employment in time of peace, inasmuch as a double set of officers would have to be retained?

  Federated Malay States (Death Rate).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the death rate in the Federated Malay States in 1908; and whether he would give the figures for rubber plantations, as well as for the general population, if available?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The death rate in 1908 was approximately 38 per 1,000. No separate statistics are available as regards the death rate amongst labourers on rubber plantations.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the difference between a death rate of 38 per thousand and the previous figure of 84?
  Colonel SEELY: The death rate given in reply to a previous question, to which I think the hon. Member refers, was for Indian indentured labourers. This is the general death rate. We have not the figures for all the labourers, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes us to obtain them we will try to do so.
  Mr. J. WARD: I think the House and the country would like to have them.
  Colonel SEELY: I will endeavour to obtain them.
  Sir H. COTTON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the indentured labourers are adults—men in the prime of life—whereas the figures he has just given relate to the whole population?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, that is why I said I would try to get the figures. If the facts are as grave as they appear, it is certainly a very serious matter.

  Foreign Firms in United Kingdom (Capital).
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH (on behalf of Mr. Hooper)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could inform the House of the number of foreign firms or companies carrying on business within the United Kingdom; and whether he could give an estimate of the capital employed therein?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr Tennant): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department to answer the question of the hon. Member. There is no information in the possession of the Board of Trade as to the number of foreign firms carrying on business in this country. The number of foreign companies incorporated outside the United Kingdom (including Colonial companies) which have established a place of business in the United Kingdom and have effected registration with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is 889. I am, however, unable to give the hon. Member an estimate of the capital employed by such foreign companies in the United Kingdom.

  Carbon-Monoxide Poisoning.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention had been directed to a disease affecting certain workers in the printing trade known as carbon-monoxide poisoning, arising from the fumes of a gas mow being largely used in heating the
  454
  metal pots attached to linotype composing machines; and whether he would cause an inquiry to be made with a view to the disease being scheduled as an industrial disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have made inquiry into the case of which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me particulars, and the reports would appear to show that it was a case of gradual poisoning by carbon-monoxide. Such cases are extremely rare, and no other case of the kind in connection with linotype work is known to the Department. Poisoning by carbon-monoxide is, of course, not uncommon, but it is almost invariably more or less sudden, and of the nature of an accident, so as to come clearly under the main provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question of scheduling carbon-monoxide poisoning as a disease was considered by the Industrial Diseases Committee, but they were unable to regard the evidence as sufficient to justify their recommending its inclusion. In view, however, of the present case, I will give instructions for the matter to be carefully watched by the officers of the Department.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that gas companies of late years have introduced carbon-monoxide into their gas in much larger proportions than used to be done?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That may be the case. Does my hon. Friend mean that that would account for the poisoning?
  Mr. LUPTON: It might result from a slight leakage.

  Lodger and Service Franchises (Number of Voters).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked what were the estimated numbers of those who were on the Parliamentary register by virtue of the lodger franchise and of the service franchise, respectively, in England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The available figures are given in the Return of Parliamentary Constituencies (Electors, etc.), (United Kingdom), issued in March last (House of Commons (64), 1909). The figures for lodgers are complete (see page 20 of the Return). As regards service franchise, the figures for England and Wales are given on page 12 (Occupation Voters, Division II.), but the figures for Scotland and Ireland are not distinguished from other occupation voters.

  Manx Constitution (Inquiry).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state whether there was to be an inquiry into the reform of the Manx constitution; and, if so, when such inquiry would take place?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I hope that the inquiry announced in the spring will take place before long. It has been delayed by the pressure of Parliamentary work and by Ministerial changes, and I am not yet in a position to name a date.

  Old Age Pensions (Isle of Man).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the people in the Isle of Man were paying their quota by taxation to the cost of old age pensions, he would make representations to the Lieutenant-Governor of the island with a view to the early adoption in the island of the Old Age Pensions Act?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: There has been no increase in the contribution which the Isle of Man makes to the Imperial Exchequer, and I do not know on what ground it is suggested that the people in the Isle of Man are paying any quota to the cost of old age pensions. The provision of old age pensions in the island depends upon the ability to raise revenue adequate to their cost. The question has been, and is, under the careful consideration of the Lieutenant-Governor, but it is a matter solely in the discretion of the insular Legislature.

  Disturbances in Liverpool (Inquiry).
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the renewal of sectarian disturbances in Liverpool and the danger of further outbreaks, he would explain why the appointment of a Commissioner to hold a sworn inquiry had been delayed, and state what action, if any, in the interests of peace and order, he proposed to take?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The reason for the delay is twofold: First, that the city council were unable to send a final reply for a month to my letter of September 6th asking certain necessary questions as to the arrangements for the inquiry; and secondly, that on October 6th they passed a fresh resolution asking that the inquiry should be held only if the evidence could be taken on oath. To take the evidence
  456
  on oath will require legislation, and I am considering whether a short Bill for that purpose can be introduced.

  Kingswinford Common Lands (Plan).
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH (on behalf of Mr. Hooper)asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that the plan of common lands made in respect of and referred to in the Act of Parliament, 24 Geo. III., 1784, which divided and enclosed such common lands, was missing, and that the owners of land in the district affected were unable to tell if their land was or was, not part of such common lands; and whether he would obtain from the lord of the manor a copy of such plan to which Members of this House might have access?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this question on behalf of my hon. Friend. I presume that the lands alluded to are those dealt with in the Kingswinford Enclosure Act, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the then Home Secretary to a question on this subject on 27th July, 1897 (Hansard, Volume 51, column 1223). Though the matter is not one that comes in any way within my authority, I have communicated with the solicitor to the Earl of Dudley, who is lord of the manor, and he informs me that the plan originally deposited in the parish church has been missing for many years, but that it is believed that there are other copies in the district; and that persons interested in the enclosed land have been permitted to see the maps in Lord Dudley's possession, and recently a copy was furnished on payment of the cost to an applicant.

  Cattle Disease (Leebotwood, Salop).
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he could give any information as to the cause of death of five cows which died suddenly on the farm of Mr. T. J. Hollis, of Betchcott, Leebotwood, Salop; and if the Board had made inquiries into this mysterious malady?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): We have not received any information as to the deaths of the animals mentioned, nor should we in ordinary course do so unless they were reported to the police as affected with, or suspected of, any of the contagious diseases scheduled by Order under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. We will,

  457
  however, have inquiry made, and I should be much obliged if the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with any information he may have on the subject.

  Decrease in Horses (London).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he could give any information as to the decrease of horses in London during this and the last three years respectively?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The returns collected by the Board relate only to horses used for agricultural purposes, and mares kept for breeding and unbroken horses. They do not therefore supply the information desired by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to London.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me to whom I can apply for the information?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.

  Small Holdings (Earl of Gainsborough's Estate).
  Mr. ESSEXasked what land on the estate of the Earl of Gainsborough was recently offered for small holdings, and where is it situated?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: So far as we are aware, no land has recently been offered for small holdings on Lord Gainsborough's estate.

  Vaccination Act, 1907 (Declarations).
  Mr. LUPTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state for what proportion of the births occurring from 1st January to 30th June, 1909, were declarations made under the Vaccination Act, 1007; and how many declarations were actually made during that period?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The number of births in England and Wales registered in the first two quarters of 1909 was 466,216. It cannot at present be stated in respect of bow many of these children statutory declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination have been made. The number of declarations received by the vaccination officers during the first six months of the present year may be stated approximately as 88,500.

  Parish Councillors (Number).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could say
  458
  how many parish councillors there were in England at this date, and how many of them were women?
  Mr. BURNS: It is estimated that the number of parish councillors in England and Wales is about 58,000. I am unable to say how many of them are women.

  Irish Exporting Manufacturers (Directory).
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Boland)asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he could now state what steps had been taken to secure the publication at an early date, for use outside the United Kingdom, of the promised directory of exporting manufacturers of Ireland; and could he state in what languages the necessary information would be given?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): Circulars and memoranda calling attention to this proposed directory will be issued in the course of a few days to the Press and Irish exporting manufacturers. The necessary information will be given in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian.

  Old Age Pensions (Suspension Pending Appeals).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that it was the practice, where a pension officer had appealed against a pension which had already been granted and for which payments had begun, to suspend payment until the appeal had been determined; whether, seeing that the pension had become in such cases a charge upon the public funds, he would say under what statutory or other authority this payment became suspended by an administrative Act?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Under Section (7) (1) (c) of the Old Age Pensions Act the allowance of a claim by a pension committee is, in the event of an appeal being made against it, not operative, but the claim stands referred to the central pension authority, and no pension can commence to accrue under Section 5 (2) of the Act until it has been allowed by that authority. In such cases the pension does not become a charge upon public funds until the appeal has been determined, and any payment made before notice of appeal was given is to be deemed to be a payment made in error.

  Customs (Preventive Officers' Examination).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the successful candidates at the last preventive officers' examination in connection with His Majesty's Customs are likely to be appointed, and the causes which have contributed to the delay in regard to the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Successful candidates at the Departmental examinations for posts of preventive officers are promoted to such posts as vacancies arise. Of the 39 officers successful at the last examination, 13 have already been promoted, but there are no more actual vacancies at present, and it is not possible to state how soon the remaining 26 can be absorbed.

  Bristol Headmaster's Superannuation Allowance.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount of the superannuation allowance and annuity on which Mr. J. T. Francombe, headmaster of the Redcliffe Boys School, Bristol, will be retired on 27th October next, and at what age such retirement takes place, and after what number of years of service as a certificated teacher in public elementary schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Mr. Francombe's certificate has not yet expired, and his case has, therefore, not yet been referred to the Treasury for consideration with a view to the award of a superannuation allowance and annuity. Mr. Francombe's certificate was continued for a year after he reached the age of 65. The period of extension will expire on 24th October, at which date he will be 66 years of age, and will have served for 37 years as a certificated teacher.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea as to the scale on which the pension will be based?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Not at present; the matter has been referred to the Treasury.

  Prince of Wales (Admiral of the Fleet).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has been recently promoted to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply is in the negative

  Admiralty Contracts (Fair Wage Clause).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company, of Govan, the London and Glasgow Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, of Govan, Messrs. John Brown and Company's Shipbuilding Company, of Clydebank, Messrs. W. Beardmore and Company's Shipbuilding Company, of Dalmuir, and Messrs. Yarrow and Company, of Scotstoun, pay the labourers in their employ 4½d. per hour; and whether, in view of these facts and of the fact that 4d. per hour only is paid by Scott's Shipbuilding Company, of Greenock, to their labourers, he will take steps to enforce the fair wage clause in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Having regard to the relative geographical positions of the firm of Messrs. Scott and of the other firms named in the first part of the question, it has not been considered necessary to make any inquiry as to the comparative rates of pay of labourers employed by Messrs. Scott and by those other firms. The Fair Wages Clause enforces the payment of the rates current in the district, but does not enforce the same rate in different districts.

  Second-class Cruisers (Orders).
  Mr. RENWICKasked whether, in view of the depressed state of the shipbuilding industry and the consequent curtailment of employment and the near approach of winter, the orders can now be placed for the second-class cruisers for which tenders were received by the Admiralty upwards of a month ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: There will be no delay in the placing of these orders.
  Mr. RENWICK: The suggestion of the question is that there has been delay. May I ask if the delay is on account of an alteration in the plans or the abandonment of the intention to give the orders?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is in error in assuming that there has been any delay. There has been no delay; there will be no delay.

  Labour Exchanges (Welsh Qualification).
  Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee appointed to make selection from among the candidates for employment in labour exchanges has been instructed to make provision of a sufficient

  461
  number of employés able to read, write, and speak the Welsh language for service in the exchanges in Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether, in making selection for appointments in Wales and Monmouthshire, preference will be given to candidates possessing the bilingual qualification?
  Mr. TENNANT: No instruction of the kind suggested has been issued to the Committee of Selection. In the allocation of officers to the various districts regard will, however, naturally be had to ability to deal with the special local conditions.

  Island of Vatersay (Crofters).
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether the prospective crofters and cottars in the island of Vatersay have been requested by the Congested Districts Board to sign agreements; whether these agreements differ from the terms of the Crofters Acts; and whether all these crofters and cottars have accepted these terms?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The agreements provide for the tenure being that of the Crofters Acts, subject to the terms of the agreements, which, in accordance with precedent in similar cases, include specific regulations on various points of estate management made in the general interest of the various townships. The agreements have so far been signed by 51 out of 58 applicants.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Have any of these crofters been threatened with eviction if they do not sign these agreements?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. COCHRANE: In no cases?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether he will publish the further correspondence regarding Vatersay which has passed between the cottars and squatters and the Congested Districts Board, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Lord Advocate; also the correspondence which has passed between the agent for the Congested Districts Board and the agent for the cottars and squatters, Mr. Donald Shaw; and also the correspondence between this gentleman and the secretary to the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. URE: The correspondence will be published, if desired, in due course; but arrangements for the settlement of the farm are at present going on, and it would not be expedient to publish any correspondence until they are concluded.
  Mr. COCHRANE: May I ask when the conclusion will be arrived at, and when we may expect the correspondence to be published?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say the precise date.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great interest in this experiment?

  Whaling Stations (Regulation).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that two members of the crew of the fishing-boat "Children's Trust" were prepared to give evidence on oath with reference to the identity of the vessel charged with contravention of the law for the regulation of whaling stations, and of the feeling that has been aroused by the abandonment of the prosecution, he will state whether the duties of the procurator fiscal were undertaken by someone else, and, if so, by whom?
  Mr. URE: The duties of the procurator fiscal were performed by himself.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I inquire, in view of the fact that the Bill for the regulation of whaling stations in Shetland was blocked by the ex-Member for King's Lynn, at the instance of Messrs. Salveson, and that there is a very uneasy feeling that the same gentlemen still exercise an entirely unjustifiable influence, he will publish the evidence which the fishermen in question were prepared to give?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Post Office (Auxiliary Labour at Christmas).
  Mr. CURRANasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the prevalence of unemployment, he will issue the same instructions as he did last year for the employment of auxiliary labour during the Christmas pressure?
  Mr. JOHN JOHNSONalso asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of unemployed persons who were engaged by the Post Office authorities at Christmas, 1908; if the venture was a success; and if he will continue the same procedure for 1909?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I will answer these two questions together. As regards the figures asked for by the hon. Member for Gateshead, I could not supply them without considerable labour. But my specific instructions were that genuinely unemployed men should be, as far as possible, employed; and I know that these instructions were carried out. I have already issued instructions to the Controller of the London Postal Service to the postmasters and others concerned similar to those of last year. They are shortly as follows: "The Postmaster-General desires to remind you that in selecting men for casual assistance during the Christmas pressure it is desirable to engage men who are genuinely unemployed, if suitable men can be found, in preference to those already in work. Married men should be preferred." Where a labour exchange, or if there be no labour exchange, where a local distress committee exists, communication should be opened with the exchange or committee, and a certain number of the men employed should be selected from those recommended by them. It will be desirable to point out to the exchange or local committee the importance of recommending men of good character and suitable for the work.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it expected that more men will be employed during the forthcoming Christmas than is normally the case?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say at present. The circular issued is on the same lines to that issued last year.
  Mr G. N. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are men genuinely unemployed, having regard to the fact that there may be no work for men who want it?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should say generally if I were to give a definition that it was men who really were anxious to obtain work and were unable to get it.
  Mr. BARNES: Is it intended to set up a new inquisition by the Post Office in regard to these men?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not understand what is meant by "a new inquisition." We receive applications for the work, and those who apply have to fill up a form to show where they have been employed before in order that we may be able to see if they are really men who, as I said, really desire to work, and are not mere loafers.
  Mr. CURRAN: May I ask if an age limit has been set up?
  Mr. BUXTON: The age limit was a little lower, and I have raised it to 45. We have found that is about the age we can go to. But if I find active men about that age we might consider their case.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are there any men out of employment who would not work if they got the opportunity?
  Mr. BUXTON: So far as we can, we employ those whom we know are used to the work.
  Lord BALCARRES: What is the nature of the preference given to those applicants whose applications come from places where labour exchanges do not exist?
  Mr. BUXTON: I said, "Where labour exchanges or distress committees exist." It does seem to me that these having been created under Statute, and being under the control of the Local Government Board, we ought as far as possible to consult them in regard to the men we should employ.

  King's Lynn Post Office.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that much unestablished indoor labour, both male and female, is employed at the King's Lynn office, and that for some while telegraph messages have been despatched by a female learner receiving no wages; and whether he will inquire into the administration of that office with a view to restricting the amount of unestablished and untrained labour there employed?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am having inquiry made.

  Territorial Force (Auxiliary Postal Officials).
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to recommend an alteration in the Post Office and Treasury regulations which provide for the stoppage of the pay of auxiliary postmen and other part-time officers during the time they are attending camp in the Territorial Forces?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not in a position to reopen this question at the present time.

  Birtley and Chester-le-Street (Durham) Postal Districts.
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked the Postmaster-General if he can state what is the index number of units of work and cost of living in the Birtley and Chester-le-Street postal districts?
  Mr. BUXTON: The number of units of work at Chester-le-Street is 26. There are no separate units of work for Birtley, which is a sub-office under Newcastle-on-Tyne. The cost of living at these places is estimated to be about normal. The staff at each office receive an increase in their various wage under the classification.

  FINANCE BILL.

    SPIRIT DUTIES (LOCAL RATES).
    Sir HENRY CRAIK (for Mr. Gardner)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the diminished consumption of spirits will lead to a reduction in the grants from Customs and Excise Duties made to local education authorities under the Technical Instruction Act; if there is such a reduction, will any aid be given to local education authorities who prepared their estimates for 1909–10 before the Budget was introduced; and, if not, will the local rates Buffer by the limitation of their share of the Customs and Excise Duties to the produce at the old rate of duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not at present possible to say to what extent the diminished consumption of spirits during the current financial year will affect the amount of the payments to local taxation accounts under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, still less to what extent any reduction in the payments to those accounts may affect the contributions which county councils are empowered to make out of their shares of those payments for the purposes of technical instruction under Section 1 (2) of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890. It would, therefore, be premature to enter into a discussion of the contingencies contemplated in the latter part of the question.

    HOTEL LICENCE (WHITEHALL COURT).
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT (for Mr. Samuel Roberts)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the increased Licence Duty for Whitehall Court will amount to the sum of £790 18s. as against £20 at present, whereas the total receipts for excisable liquors only amount to £2,385, and that the imposition of this increased charge will necessitate the surrender of the licence, causing inconvenience to the occupants of the building as well as loss to the revenue; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this and similar cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware that a licence at the hotel rate
    466
    of £20 is at present held for Whitehall Court. As regards the duty which will be payable under the Finance Bill, I may point out that under Clause 45 (3), as amended in Committee, the duty payable in respect of hotels, etc., may, at the option of the person by whom the duty is payable, be a duty of 25 per cent. on such amount as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certify to be the annual compensation value of the premises. Consequently, until such compensation value has been determined, it is not possible to say what will be the amount of duty payable, but it seems hardly probable that it will be as high as is suggested in the question.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of the question: What steps he proposes to take to meet this and similar cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I pointed out that until the compensation value is determined it is impossible to say what the duty will be, and therefore it seems unnecessary to take any steps at present.

    LICENSED PREMISES (COMPENSATION VALUE).
    Mr. G. D. FABER (for Sir Henry Kimber)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House or lay upon the Table a statement showing the method of calculation which will be adopted by the Commissioners of Excise in ascertaining the compensation value of licensed premises, and also the annual equivalent of such compensation value and the data employed in such calculations, in order that licence holders may be able to estimate their own liabilities in business?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Baronet to my right hon. Friend's reply of the 19th instant to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, which dealt very fully with the subject.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Considering the importance of the changes foreshadowed in that reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask when the Amendment will be placed upon the Paper?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it will be done in good time.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Licence Clauses are certain to be reached on Monday?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: And that the changes made amount almost to a new Licence Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not anticipate that.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY (GLASS-HOUSES EXEMPTION).
    Mr. B. STANIER (for Mr. Abel Smith)asked whether the proposed exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty of land on which glass-houses have been erected is intended to extend to land bonâ fide used in connection with the business, but not actually covered with glass?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As my right hon. Friend stated yesterday in the Debate, the question whether such land is developed by the erection on it of glass-houses or greenhouses is one for the decision of the Commissioners, subject, of course, to appeal.
    Mr. STANIER: Is it not a fact that land bonâ fide held in connection with these glass-houses is part of the development of that particular garden?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate upon the Finance Bill.

    LIEUT.-COLONEL MANLIER AND THE BUDGET.
    Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Lieut.-Colonel C. T. Mander, D Squadron, Staffordshire Yeomanry, in which he complained of the Budget, and said that no drill hall or riding school would be provided until there was a new Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. HALDANE: This matter has already come under the consideration of the Army Council, who have instituted inquiries regarding it.

  4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBYasked the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to disband the Bourne half company of the 4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment, whose strength is three officers and 41 men, in view of the fact that the regiment being already 142 men below establishment, the general officer commanding, in his report on the regiment, urged the importance of bringing up the battalion to its full strength; if it is customary to convey the decisions of the Army Council to the county associations before or at the same time as to the district headquarters; and if this was done in this case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No action has been taken by the military authorities with regard to the proposed disbandment of this half company to which the hon. Member refers. Therefore if such a step is being considered it is on the initiative of the county association. Any Army Council decision affecting the work for which a county association is responsible is notified to the association as well as to the command headquarters if these are in any way affected. In the present case there having been no Army Council decision, no notification has been made.

  Cavalry Manœuvres (Six-Year-Old Horses).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked what number and what percentage of five-year-old horses were employed on the recent cavalry manœuvres in the cavalry and artillery respectively?
  Mr. HALDANE: In accordance with a decision given in July no horses under six years of age were permitted to be employed at manœuvres.

  Yeomanry (Trained Horses).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for War whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the same horse being hired for several different corps in the same year, thus making a false estimate of trained horses available for the Yeomanry and inviting confusion and disaster in case of war?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member on 12th July last.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on the subject, as it is freely stated in Scotland that some of the horses served with three corps and some even with five?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have no doubt that may be so, but we are discouraging it as far as possible, and as soon as we get a census of horses we shall have a better system.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I hope so.

  8th Hussars (Men's Defective Teeth).
  Mr. RENWICKasked whether the 11 men belonging to the 8th Hussars who were recently certified as unfit for service in India owing to defective teeth have been retained for service in the Home depôt, or whether they have been dis-

  469
  charged from the Army, with or without a pension?
  Mr. HALDANE: Of the 13 men of this regiment found unfit for service in India at a preliminary inspection four only have been finally rejected. These four men have been discharged from the service.

  Inspectors of Musical Instruction in Ireland (Religions Views).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the reasons why the recent appointments of organising inspector of musical instruction and assistant organising inspector of musical instruction under the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, were not thrown open to competition by examination so as to give all the teachers under the Commissioners of National Education an equal opportunity of competing; whether applicants for the position were required to state their religious views; and, if so, for what reason?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Commissioners of National. Education that the appointments in question were advertised in the public Press, and that it was open to any national teacher who felt qualified for either position to apply for it. The Commissioners consider that the course pursued by them in the selection of candidates secures the appointment of the most suitable officers. All candidates for appointments under the Board are required to give particulars as to their age, qualifications, and religious denomination, the information being required for administrative purposes.
  Captain CRAIG: What is the necessity for stating one's religious views in connection with the teaching of music?
  Mr. BIRRELL: For administrative purposes it is stated that in Ireland it is sometimes desirable to know. These things, to me, I confess, are inexplicable.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman in future confine these appointments to those under the administration of the Board, so as to encourage a teacher to qualify for such examinations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate that to the Commissioners of National Education.
  Captain CRAIG: It would be much appreciated.

  Labour in Nyasaland.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government
  470
  policy as regards the emigration of labour from Nyasaland has undergone any change since he replied to the question of the Member for Montgomery Boroughs on 15th September?
  Colonel SEELY: There has been no change either as regards the general policy or as regards the number of Nyasaland natives to be recruited. Only questions of detail remain under discussion.
  Mr. REES: May those interested in trade in Nyasaland take it that only 3,000 passes stand, and that no more will be issued this year?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, certainly, Sir.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the county of Armagh (South Armagh), in the room of William McKillop, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Patrick O'Brien.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) EXTENSION.
  Bill to extend the powers and provisions with respect to the construction and carrying of sewers of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, to water mains and pipes of statutory trustees and commissioners of water undertakings.—[Mr. Gibson.]—Presented, and read the first time. (To be read a second time on 1st November.)
FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the whole House, further considered.
UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.

  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

  471
  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, 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.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "agriculture" ["other than agriculture"], to add the words "and if it could be developed without causing to contiguous or adjacent land in the possession of the same owner an injury countervailing the advantage he might be expected to derive from its development."
  This Amendment applies to land which is not capable of development without causing injury to the property adjacent held by the same owner. There are many cases where this will undoubtedly be so. Supposing a man owns 40 acres of land and one corner of his property is adjacent
  472
  to some cross-roads along which there is a good deal of cyclist and pedestrian traffic. Some enterprising person might Bay, "Here is an ideal site for a public-house, and I will give you a large sum for the piece of land at that corner." To build upon that land will undoubtedly be developing it. The Attorney-General said yesterday that development meant getting the utmost price the owner could get, and in this case the selling of a site for a public-house might be deemed getting the best advantage the owner could get for his plot of land. The owner might refuse to sell that particular corner because it would affect the value of the other 39 acres. There are some narrow-minded people who object to public-houses, and the landlord might be looking forward to selling the whole of his 40 acres for residential property, and the taking away of the little plot of land at the corner for the purpose of a public-house might spoil the prospects of letting the remainder for residential purposes. There are many other examples where the letting of a portion of an estate would depreciate the rest of the property. The owner of a piece of land might get an offer for the erection of chemical works which would emit obnoxious fumes, and there might be available other land for such a factory where no harm would be done to neighbouring property. I might multiply instances of this kind. In the South of England there are a number of small residential estates varying from 80 to 100 acres, and it is quite possible that one or two corners of such estates might be developed as separate sites, and if they were the amenities of the property as a whole might be destroyed. Somebody might offer a large price for four or five acres, and many such cases have come to my notice. I know in some of these cases substantial compensation has been paid for severance, and the same element which allows a man to obtain compensation for severance ought to operate in the cases I have mentioned. I know that Clause 25 deals with restricted covenants, but the provisions are very vague and unsatisfactory, and they do not cover very many cases of this kind. I think it is necessary that you should not impose this tax in cases where there is no public object to serve. It is not a question of land being needed for housing. It is simply a matter of whether it is possible for the Commissioners to say that this or that land might be developed, although the owner can prove that only part of it could be developed, and the whole of it

  473
  would be injured by that development. I think hon. Members will realise that such cases ought to be met, but they are not met by this Clause. The valuation may be taken on any small unit of land. Under Clause 29 it would be quite within the power of the Commissioners to say that any particular corner of a piece of land if not developed might be developed, and in that case the whole of the value of the remaining land would be destroyed. I do not think this case was brought prominently forward in Committee.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS Sir PHILIP MAGNUS seconded the Amendment. I have known many similar cases to those brought forward by my hon. Friend.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I quite recognise the force of the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member, but I do not think he need have any apprehension on this point. I think the words of the Clause quite cover the sort of case he has mentioned I am not quite sure that the introduction of such words as he has proposed would not be really embarrassing. Take the case of the public-house which he has given as an illustration. I do not think that is a likely case.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I said it would be an unlikely one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think we may dismiss the public-house case at once. A valuer looking at the land would not be likely to say, "This is a good site for a public-house." Besides a licence is a very difficult thing to get.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes, but the owner might have an offer subject to a licence being granted.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The granting of the licence depends upon the magistrate. No valuer would say that if a judicial authority granted a licence then undoubtedly this land is very valuable. That is not the principle we have to follow in regard to land. The hon. Member said that the setting up of a public-house in the case he alluded to would depreciate the value of the other property. I hope he will bear that admission in mind when we come to discuss later clauses in this Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I said that narrow-minded persons might think so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope he will bear that admission in mind when we come to another part of the Finance Bill. A far
  474
  better case given by the hon. Member was that of a man who has had an offer for a piece of land upon which to erect a factory, the nature of which might destroy the value of the surrounding property. Before any owner sells land for that purpose he always insists upon getting a price out of proportion to the actual value of the area covered by the factory, because he has to take into account the fact that the rest of his property will be destroyed. The owner may ask £20,000 for a piece of land for the setting up of a factory, although he might be prepared to sell the same piece of land for £10,000 for some purpose which would not cause a nuisance. Valuers always take that kind of thing into account. What they have got to do is to find the market value of the whole of the property, and the market value for exceptional things of that kind will only be taken as evidence, that is all. I think the hon. Gentleman may very well leave it to the words of the Act itself.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What words?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Clause 25—"For the purposes of this Part of this Act the total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller in its then condition, might be expected to realise." That is commonly known as market value. If you send a valuer down for Death Duties—it is the same principle—he does not take an exceptional offer of that kind and say, "No, you have had an offer of £5,000 for a few acres for the purpose of setting up a bone factory; therefore, the whole is worth £30,000."
  Mr JAMES HOPE: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten Clause 29, which provides for assessment on separate parcels of land and apportionment of valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, but he takes the whole of the land into account It is an apportionment entirely in the interests of the subject, and is made with a view to the increment. It is to prevent the State saying, "You have an increment of so much on this particular plot. If you spread that over the whole area it means that your increment is very considerable." It is purely in order to enable the subject to claim an apportionment, with a view of diminishing the amount of the increment charged. I do not think the words which

  475
  have been submitted by the hon. Gentleman could possibly be accepted. They would introduce a very serious complication, and I agree with what was said yesterday, that you do not want to introduce any of these unnecessary considerations. It is far better to aim at simplicity, if you can possibly achieve it, in an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gives very cold comfort to any of those concerned in these matters or to those who are interested to secure justice for those who are concerned. He thinks it is better not to enter into these unnecessary matters, but what are the unnecessary matters? You are going to tax a man for not putting a particular plot of his land to a use which deteriorates the value of all the rest of the land more than he gets for that plot, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer describes that as a consideration into which it is unnecessary and better not to enter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said that when you are drafting an Act of Parliament you had better not enter into every consideration, which must be present to the mind of the valuer, but that is a very different thing. I certainly think the valuer ought to enter into those matters.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is certainly different from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as I understood it; but even that is not satisfactory. I could not quite make up my mind what was the Chancellor's real defence—whether it was that he did not wish to do what my hon. Friend wanted, and his concluding sentence, which I misunderstood, undoubtedly seemed to point to that, or whether it was that the Bill had already done what my hon. Friend wanted in a better way than he suggested. I gather now that it is the latter of the two contentions which is the right hon. Gentleman's defence. He says the owner ought to be protected against having a tax imposed upon land for not having put it to a use which would cause a greater deterioration of the rest of his property than the increased value given to the particular plot so used, and that that is done. How is it done? He referred us to the words of Clause 25, which defines, as he said, the total value. It is no longer to be the definition of total value, but is to become the definition of
  476
  gross value. That is immaterial except for the purpose of accuracy and clearness. The Government should, at least, remember the changes they are making in their definitions. "The gross value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise." That is exactly the case which my hon. Friend put. It is not necessarily a question of estimate. A buyer comes along and says, "I will give you so much." The owner says: "That is so good an offer that I am forced to ask what you want it for?" The buyer says he wants it to put up a dust destructor, gas works, chemical works, or it may be simply a factory in a district where a factory is itself, so to speak, out of place. That is a definite offer. How can the valuer go behind it? How can a valuer say that the amount of an offer before the owner is not the value of the land, and disregard it? I venture to say Clause 25 will give no protection in a case of that kind. The valuer is not called upon to value the land in plots, and he will say, "Here is so much of the land of which the value may be comparatively small, but here is a particular plot which has a very high value, and the proof is that here is Mr. A, who offers to give a cheque for that amount for it to-day." There is no protection in Clause 25 for that case. It is quite true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that when a man sells a bit of his land for what I may call a noxious use, he takes in the price which he gets compensation for the deterioration in the value of the rest of the land, but that is a consideration which is more germane to the Increment Tax than to the tax with which we are now dealing. It is a consideration I tried to press upon the Government when we were discussing the Increment Tax, I pointed out it was quite unfair to tax as unearned increment that which was compensation for the deterioration of the rest of the property. The Government refused to pay any attention to our representations, and decided to tax as unearned increment that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now himself explains is compensation for the deterioration of the surrounding property. It is impossible to trace any consistent idea underlying the Government action on these different Clauses. They seize upon whatever consideration for the moment is most convenient to their particular purpose, without any regard to what they said the day before or what they are going to

  477
  say the next day. They do not mind how they contradict themselves so long as they find some answer, good, bad, or indifferent, to the particular argument of the moment. It is not merely the case of a factory or of a noxious trade. A case of ordinary building may arise in exactly the same way. I was told the other day of a case in London which, if the facts given to me are correct, sufficiently illustrate my meaning. It is the kind of case to which, I think, all of us could point in populous districts with which we are acquainted. There was attached to a certain house in a closely inhabited district a considerable amount of ground, and the fact that there was this open ground caused the houses in the neighbourhool to be much sought after. The owner of the house and vacant ground sold it for building purposes at a building value—a high building value. It was thought by his friends that he had acted extremely foolishly, and that he had got a very bad price. I have been told something about the subsequent history of that land. The syndicate which took it failed, another syndicate which took it on more favourable terms also failed, and I am not certain whether a third syndicate is not now in process of failing in this attempt to develop land which appeared to have a great building value. It seemed to have a special building value because the houses in that neighbourhood were much sought after. But they were sought after because of the amenities of this vacant land, and, the moment it was cut up for building purposes, there was not only no demand for the houses put upon it, but the houses in the immediate locality also lost their tenants. Whether in that particular case the facts are as I have described I cannot say, but we all of us know that there are plenty of cases where a vacant plot of land may fetch a very good price provided there is no intention to build on the adjacent land. If there is such an intention to build the value is totally different. You must, in common fairness, do something to protect owners against having the land valued as if the offer made for any particular plot governed the price of the whole. The Government have not done that; neither does Clause 25 cover the point. There is no direction to the valuers to take account of the land as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not give any direction at all. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend; that is why he moves this Amendment. It points to a gap in the
  478
  Bill which ought to be filled up. My hon. Friend says in his Amendment, "You shall have regard to the whole of the land, to this extent, at any rate, that you shall not charge the land with the Undeveloped Land Duty on the possible value of a particular plot, without having regard to the damage which the use to which that particular plot is proposed to be put would do to the rest of the estate." I have got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an admission that that is not in his Bill, that there is no direction of the kind to the valuers to take that into account, and I say it is only common fairness it should be taken into account; otherwise great injustice will result.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: It is very interesting to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to convince a fatigued House that an Act of Parliament ought to be as simple as possible. I wonder when the right hon. Gentleman made that discovery. We have been debating and threshing out this Finance Bill for at least five months, and I think the general opinion in all quarters of the House is that, so far from its having advanced in simplicity, it has become greatly aggravated in complexity. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman practice what he preaches? Great simplicity in an Act of Parliament is, no doubt, much to be desired, but I am afraid that that doctrine is more honoured by the right hon. Gentleman in the breach than in the observance. As regards this particular Amendment, may I take a concrete case which seems to me to be to the point? Where I live in the country I bought some little time ago a rag mill on the Thames. It was worked by water power. It was a great detriment to the adjacent property. I threw the mill into disuse. At present it is not used for anything at all, and by reason of the disuse the property adjoining has risen in value. I have built some model cottages close to it. But suppose the Commissioners fixed upon the piece of land where this rag mill is and said, "It is disused, but we consider it is undeveloped land. It has a great business use for the purpose for which it used to be used, and we shall now value it as undeveloped land for the purposes of a rag mill." The effect of putting it in work again upon the adjoining property, and especially on my model cottages, would be most disastrous, because, after all, the rag mill was an intense nuisance. What I want to ask is—first, would the Commissioners, and, secondly, could they, take into account the

  479
  effect upon the adjoining property of reinstating the rag mill, or would they be obliged to insularise that particular property used as a rag mill? Is there anything in the Bill which entitles them to go into the position of the adjoining property or must they segregate this particular piece and consider it by itself without any regard to the detriment it may cause to the rest of the property? I think that is the point my hon. Friend had in mind when he moved this Amendment. I have given a concrete case. He only dealt with the matter in the abstract. I cannot see anything in the Bill which entitles
  the Commissioners to look outside a particular piece of land. In fact, I thought the whole argument of increment and decrement amounted to this—that they could only look at the increment and they could not consider the decrement. That constitutes a great hardship. Although we have met with but little response to our appeals, I think we should be wanting in our duty if we did not put forward points of this nature with a view to securing a remedy.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 168.

  Division No. 821.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, P. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bertram, Julius

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  NOES.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barker, Sir John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hodge, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Beale, W. P.

  Essex, R. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Betheil, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Keating, M.

  Brace, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brigg, John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Bright, J. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibson, J. P.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ginnell, L.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Guiland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Massie, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Grady, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words, "Where any land having been so developed or used reverts to the condition of undeveloped land owing to the buildings being abandoned, or owing to the land ceasing to be used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, it shall, on the expiration of one year after the buildings are so abandoned or the land ceases to be so used, as the case may be, be treated as undeveloped land for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again so developed or used."
  The reason why I put this Amendment in is that it was suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Lord Castlereagh) that this provision might have the effect of treating houses which became vacant as undeveloped land and that that would be an interpretation which would be adopted. Therefore, he said it ought to be made clear that that was not the intention of the Bill, and on that ground I move the Amendment.
  Question, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I remember the discussion on this point, and I have been refreshing my memory about it in order to see what the point raised was. I think this is a question on which both sides of the House are at one, but are the Government satisfied that their new wording will really carry out their meaning? Personally, I should have thought that instead of the conjunction "or" we ought to have the conjunction "and," so that the proviso should read, "owing to the buildings being aban-
  482
  doned and owing to the land ceasing to be used for any business," etc., and not "owing to the buildings being abandoned or owing to the land ceasing to be used." I am not quite certain, as this is a question of draftsmanship, what the meaning of the word "abandoned" in regard to a building is. I quite admit that I am very likely to be wrong in a matter of construction and draftsmanship. Suppose the buildings are left vacant, is that in point of law an abandonment of them? Supposing a trade ceases to be carried on after a factory has been put up. Let us suppose it was one of the old Coventry silk factories at the time that the silk trade failed there. The factory would not let. The land would cease to be used and the factory would be abandoned, in one sense; but whether it would be legally abandoned or not is the point I wish to be informed upon. It was not letable, and the owner had to wait until some other trade came to Coventry and settled and found occupation for these factories, having more or less to transform them in the process. I admit I am quite unable to say what the interpretation of the word "abandoned" would be, but clearly a case of that kind ought not to be taxed. The land is in one sense developed. The owner would be very glad to find a tenant, but the trade has gone, and no other trade has come which can make use of those buildings. There may come a time when the right thing to do is to pull down that factory, abandon all the capital sunk in it, and put up something quite different, but there will be a long interval before such a position arises where it will pay you to pull down a factory and put up dwelling-houses or to pull down dwelling-houses and put up a factory. It may be either way, but surely if a man cannot get tenants for a building you do not mean to tax him. I take it that you do not. I

  483
  do not think you mean to tax him, and under these circumstances he is entitled to protection. Have you protected him by these words? It seems to me that the buildings would be abandoned or derelict, and that they would not afford a case for taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that on both sides of the House we have the same purpose, and what we mean by "abandoned" is not that the tenant has left you with a building and you are looking out for another tenant. It will not in that case have been "abandoned"; but, supposing the landlord took no further interest in it, did not repair it, allowed the roof to fall in. Then really "derelict" is the word.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will you put in the word "derelict"?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is a legal term I will. I find it is a legal term, and I should be quite willing to put it in. I understand it is a term that can be used, and if it would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman I would move that the word "abandoned" be omitted and the word "derelict" be inserted.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would be better to make it read "owing to the buildings becoming derelict."
  Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: Before that is put, may I ask how it would apply to land? There is another question entirely apart from the building, and one part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment provides for a case where the land has ceased to be so used, that is to say, where it is not being used for any business trade or industry other than agriculture. Will the word "derelict" apply to land as well as to buildings? Then I think it would be an excellent word, and it ought to be used for this reason, that land will not have ceased to be used for a particular trade or business unless it has ceased to pay, and if it has ceased to pay it seems to me to be extremely hard upon the owner of the land that, having once developed it, and developed it successfully, the land has become undeveloped again, and then it is to be the subject of fresh taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: "Derelict" would not be the word there, because it is clearly inapplicable to land, as there are all sorts of users as far as land is concerned. Supposing you take the case of a timber yard. You cannot say that the moment it
  484
  has ceased to be used for a timber yard the land becomes derelict. That is not the word, because you may use it for agricultural purposes. It means, cease to be used for that purpose. A rope walk is another case. It may cease to be used for that purpose, but "derelict" would not be the word to use. "Derelict" would be applicable to buildings and buildings alone.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: "Derelict" is a term very commonly used with regard to land. "Derelict land" is a common phrase, and it is perfectly well known what it means, and in this case of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman land is mentioned that has "ceased to be used for any trade, business, or industry other than agriculture." I want to know how that land is going to be protected, and I am afraid from what the right hon. Gentleman has said up to the present time there is no protection in his Clause for land of that description.
  Mr. J. BERTRAM: It seems to me that the word "abandoned" is an extremely loose word, and that the word "derelict" is very little better, and in any case, especially in regard to houses, this Clause must some time or another become the subject of judicial interpretation. I should be very glad to know if there is any real objection to retaining in the newly-proposed Clause what appeared in the old Clause, which I very much prefer. I should like to see the words "within the meaning of this Section" retained in the Clause. Then in the case of a, judicial decision having to be placed upon these words, "abandoned" or "derelict," the judge would be able to take into account the whole meaning of the Section and the whole scope of the tax.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Am I right in supposing, in regard to the illustration which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to a rope walk—a person who has started a rope walk finds that he cannot make a profit on the business, and consequently he gives it up—that the land on which the rope walk is erected when it is used as agricultural land is to be treated as undeveloped, and is to be taxed because it is no longer used as a rope walk, and he can get no tenant to take it? If that is so, it seems to me a very great hardship upon a man who has developed his land in a direction in which there is a demand that when it ceases to be profitable and he puts it back to the use of agriculture he is to be taxed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then it is untaxed. It certainly would not be taxed. It could not be taxed as a rope walk or a building.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly in what position a disused burial ground would be? Is that being used bonâ fide for any business, trade or industry other than agriculture? There are disused burial grounds, and a very great many of them, and therefore I do not quite see how they are to be dealt with under this Clause. The words are "ceasing to be used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture." There is no trade, and I do not suppose even a burial ground which is being used would be described as being used for a "business, trade, or industry" unless it belonged to a company. Then I suppose in that connection it would be an industry; perhaps the only agricultural industry which the Government are going to leave out. How are you going to deal with a disused burial ground? How does that come under this Clause—a thing we cannot leave entirely on one side as of such insignificant importance or of such rare occurrence that it may be neglected by the draftsman.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: With regard to the use of the word "derelict" we may consider the case of a factory. A foreign tariff injures the business, and the factory is closed. The owner might hope that the trade might be revived, and that possibly by a change of Government and of policy that which was derelict might very soon not be derelict.
  Mr. RENWICK: I have noticed several cases where disused burial grounds have been used for buildings, and all that is necessary is to get a faculty for the removal of the remains, and then the land is used.
  Amendments made in the proposed Amendment: To leave out the words "being abandoned," and to insert instead thereof the words "becoming derelict."
  To leave out the words "are so abandoned," and to insert instead thereof the words "have so become derelict."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Channing), was disposed of by the decision of the House last night.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: We inserted, on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, the words "including glass-houses or greenhouses" in Subsection (2) of this Clause. I, therefore, meant to submit the Amendment omitting the words "greenhouses or other" in order to argue the wider question, and what I wish to submit is that by the Amendment made yesterday the Government practically admitted that market gardens which have been made of a permanent nature ought to be treated as developed land. I wish to submit that, that provision having been made with regard to this higher class, it ought logically to be extended to other classes of market gardening where the outlay and expenditure has been of a permanent character, and would last a number of years, and that special consideration should be given to these cases.
  Mr. COX: The essence of my Amendment was that no agricultural land should be taxed, whereas this Amendment accepts the principle that agricultural land is to be taxed, but makes an exemption in the case of land on which certain development has taken place.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House decided yesterday that agricultural land was to be taxed, and the whole argument raged round the question of small holdings and intensive culture in the neighbourhood of towns. Then came the very point which the hon. Baronet seeks to raise again. I do not see how if a Debate arises now it could be distinguished from the Debate that we had last night. It seems to raise exactly the same point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the Amendment we were discussing last night, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved in order to meet the case of glass-houses, I had intended to raise this very question of intensive culture. I did not do so because this Amendment distinctly raised that question, whereas the glass-houses Amendment did not do it. I suggest that there is something more in this Amendment than was raised by the glass-house Amendment, and at the same time that it is distinctly less than was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Cox), and that there would be nothing inconsistent with the previous decisions of the House that they will not except all agricultural land, or that they will except land on which glasshouses have been put, in saying now that

  487
  they would also except land on which similar expenditure has been incurred though not in the form of glass-houses.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the governing words are "other than agriculture." These words stand in, and we cannot begin to whittle them away. We cannot begin to say agriculture is not to include the planting of raspberries, the growing of strawberries, and so on. There seems to be no object in putting in the general words if they are to be whittled away.
  Sir F. CHANNING: May I ask whether the position in which I stand of wishing to extend a provision which was introduced last night does not alter the conditions under which you made your ruling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment ought to have been worked in somehow, if it were possible, on the word "agriculture," but we have passed that point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I draw you attention to paragraph (b)? Paragraph (a) having said that Undeveloped Land Duty is to be charged generally on all undeveloped land, paragraph (b) provides that land on which a certain amount of money has been spent shall not be considered to be undeveloped, even though it does not fulfil the definition of "developed land." It seems to me that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet really runs exactly parallel with the exemption given in paragraph (b), though it applies to a different thing.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think paragraph (b) applies necessarily to agriculture.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is so. Sub-section (1) applies generally, and says that all undeveloped land is to be charged. Sub-section (2) says what undeveloped land is, and then paragraph (b) says that although certain land would be undeveloped land as defined in Sub-section (2), yet it is not to count as undeveloped land for the purpose of the tax.
  Mr. COX: The introduction of the word "greenhouses" does not bring out the parallel which the right hon. Gentleman opposite insists upon, because paragraph (b) says where you spend the money on sewers, etc., the land is exempt. In the same way, greenhouses being treated as buildings, where you spend money in developing land for the purpose of greenhouses that makes it an exactly analogous case to paragraph (b).
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wishes me, in other words, to strike out paragraph (b). That is a concession which was made by the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the word "land" ["Where the owner of any land"], to insert the words "included in any scheme of land development."
  It was objected in Committee that the sum of £100 which the Government are prepared to take as the expenditure for exempting land for development purposes might not cover anything except the particular ground upon which the money is spent, and therefore we want to make it perfectly clear that the sum of money is to cover the whole ground for this part of the scheme of development. Otherwise it might very well be argued that the £100 only protects the land which is actually contiguous, as it were, to the road. This very largely covers the case of a garden city and also of a builder who develops an estate. He may spend £4,000 or £5,000 on one particular part of the property, but he develops the whole, and we want to make it clear that so long as the money is expended as a part of the scheme of development he shall be given credit for the whole of the £5,000, as far as the whole of that area is concerned. I move these words for that purpose.
  Amendment made.
  Further Amendment made: In same paragraph to leave out the words "spent sums at the rate of at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land," and to insert instead thereof the words "with a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid incurred expenditure."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. RENWICK Mr. RENWICK moved, in the same paragraph, after the word "sewers" ["in connection with roads or sewers"], to insert the words "or on draining or levelling or (in case of any land intended to be used solely for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture) on railway sidings, tramways, quays, or jetties."
  This is an Amendment of very great importance to important interests in this country. The object of paragraph (b) is that where an expenditure of £100 an acre has been made the land shall not be considered as undeveloped land, provided the £100 is spent in a certain way. The object of my Amendment is to extend the purposes for which the money can be spent.

  489
  It is quite evident that the draftsmen have not considered the matter as it ought to have been considered. If it had been so considered they would have known that, in addition to roads, money is expended upon railway sidings, upon small tramway lines, upon retaining walls, jetties, quays, and upon drainage and similar works.
  I have two concrete cases in my own personal experience which I desire to bring before the House. The first of these is an important undertaking in the neighbourhood of Manchester—the Trafford Park Company. That was a very large estate primarily bought for the purpose of developing factories contiguous to the Manchester Ship Canal. It consisted of no less than 1,180 acres, of which 480 have already been developed for that purpose. Large works have been raised there, and dwellings have been put up in the neighbourhood for the convenience of the workers engaged in these factories. The development has been very enormous in that district, and a large amount of money has been spent on roads, not only for the convenience of the 480 acres which have been developed, but the whole 1,180. Not only have roads, but sewers, drains, walls, tramways, and railway sidings have been constructed, and it would be a great hardship to this company if the expenditure on these works were not included as well as expenditure on roads. It may interest the House to know one or two facts in regard to this company in order to indicate that it has not gained through the enterprise shown by the promoters of the company. It is, I think, 15 years since that land was purchased at a cost of no less than £762 an acre. During the whole of these 15 years, with the exception of the last financial year, which ended a month ago, no dividend has ever been paid. For the past year the shareholders have received 1¼ per cent. I think it cannot be denied in the face of figures like these that the owners of this land have received nothing like adequate remuneration for their enterprise. It would be awkward and disastrous for Manchester and district, and especially for the Manchester Ship Canal, if by the imposition of the Undeveloped Land Duty that company had to pay in respect of their land at Trafford Park a sum which, I am informed, would amount to £1,200 a year. That is a large sum for a company paying no dividend. It would be disastrous if the land were driven into the market prematurely, and, for instance, small dwellings were put up where fac-
  490
  tories ought to be. The factories already erected are huge, and they have added greatly to the development of Manchester and of Stretford and other suburbs of Manchester. The company is doing an enormous work. It has done a great deal for the growth not only of the canal traffic, but of the factories in the neighbourhood of the canal. Those who know the facts will recognise how disastrous it would be if the effect of the tax were to drive the land prematurely into the market to be used for purposes for which it was never meant to be used—purposes for which, perhaps, it might be most unsuitable. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not recognise how this tax is going to saddle on such companies as I have mentioned onerous charges. I believe the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is not going to cast further expenditure on this company at all. If the charge in respect of this company's land will amount to £1,200, surely the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, could not have imagined that he was going to saddle that company, which is doing such good work, with the payment of so large a sum.
  Let me give another case. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that only roads and sewers are necessary for the development of land, but I would point out what happens in the case of land alongside of navigable rivers which is required for various purposes, such as shipbuilding, dry docks, and so on. Before that land can be developed or a single penny obtained, retaining walls have to be put up, and quays and jetties have to be constructed. In the case of land with which I am intimately acquainted, roads and railways have been constructed, and, in addition, it was necessary to build jetties and quays. They are the roads from the water on to the land and they are far more valuable in certain ways than the roads which the right hon. Gentleman seems to think are the only things to be exempted. Hundreds and thousands of pounds have been spent on jetties and quays. Purchasers for the docks and big warehouses have not yet come forward. It would be monstrous to go down to one of those ports, where £17,000,000 has been spent, where huge grain, wool, or cotton warehouses have been erected, and to set up alongside of them flats or small dwellings, as might be done if the land is forced prematurely into the market. I plead that the right hon. Gentleman should extend the concession already

  491
  given in regard to this matter. If argument is necessary to induce him to do so, I would remind him and the House that this Clause was amended in Committee, with the result that the exemption I am now asking was removed. Why it was withdrawn I do not know. If that was done in Committee, I think we are entitled to some reply from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he is prepared to meet us at the present time. The facts are the same. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless he meets us more liberally than is proposed by the Clause as it stands, he is doing grave injustice in connection with the development of such undertakings as I have mentioned. It would be a sheer act of justice to those developing Trafford Park and the Ship Canal to accept this Amendment. I know the Ship Canal will be exempt from the duty, because the Bill provides that statutory companies are to be exempt. Though the Trafford Park Company is not a statutory company, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give it the fair treatment which he is giving to statutory companies.
  Mr. A. J. KING: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so I need hardly say that I do not take this course in any hostile spirit to the Government. I have been a loyal though passive supporter of the Government for the last five months, and I think it is not always fully realised what a strain upon one's loyalty this long-continued passivity implies. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Renwick) has stated his case very fully, and not many words will be required from me. This is clearly a case which is primarily interesting to particular companies of which we may know something. I disclaim any personal interest in this matter. I am not interested as a shareholder or in any other way. The facts have been represented to me, and it seems to me it is a fair case for making a concession. It is one of the hardships which we acknowledge are inevitable, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly proclaimed his desire to meet, and which on the whole he has made strenuous and unfailing efforts to meet. There is no doubt that the Trafford Park Company, to which the hon. Member opposite referred, is more or less a concern carrying on work in the public interest. The Manchester Ship Canal has involved the community of that city and neighbour-
  492
  hood in an enormous expenditure, by which the city and neighbourhood have greatly benefited, but the shareholders have received no return whatever. They were unable to find the means to develop this land, and it was taken up by this company. I am only sorry that this Finance Bill was not passed years ago, for if it had been in force the Exchequer would have received a great deal of money from the Increment Duty. When the Ship Canal was made this land was sold for a few pounds an acre. It was afterwards disposed of to Mr. Hooley for £320 an acre, and he sold it to this company for £760 an acre. That was a nice increment on which duty has been lost. This company have paid the full value that has accrued to the land through the construction of the Ship Canal. They do not complain of having to pay on further increment value due to exertions not their own. What this company asks is that the Clause as first introduced should operate. When the Clause was originally proposed there was no restriction as to the kind of expenditure to be allowed for the £100. An hon. Member moved an Amendment restricting the expenditure, and that Amendment was accepted. What we ask is that that restriction shall be done away with, and that the company shall be granted credit for the expenditure over a period of years. They claim that this land cannot be developed all at once, and that being so, they ask to be excused from this tax in the way I have indicated. Unless the Amendment is accepted the company will have to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax, which will amount to about £1,200 a year. I think the case is clear, and I will leave it to the judgment of the House.
  5.0. P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No one listening to the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would have realised that any credit was given to this company for the expenditure which they may incur upon railways, sidings, canals, jetties, or tramways. One would imagine that they were taxed in respect of values created by the expenditure which they had incurred in respect of those undertakings. The hon. Member omitted that altogether. He said that there was a deduction in respect of all this expenditure, but that by some process, which he did not explain, it was to be added on afterwards. I do not understand that at all. It is not to be added on at all. It is to be deducted. But the position is really this: If there is any expenditure in respect of either

  493
  jetties, railways, tramways, or quays, with a view to developing any land, the company get full credit not merely for every penny which they spend, but for all values which they create by that means. It is fair that the House should know that.
  Mr. RENWICK: Is that under Clause
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. RENWICK: That is quite different.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It should have been stated. It makes a very considerable difference, because the point he made is that the value in this case is created by the enormous expenditure by this company, and the whole of the value that is created by them is credited. Does the hon. Gentleman contradict?
  Mr. RENWICK: I only wish to point out that the one is a reduction and the other is an exemption.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman shook his head when I made the statement. That implies that he is challenging the statement which I am making. Whatever value is created by the expenditure of this company is not taxed at all. They are only taxed upon the balance which remains after deducting fully, and giving full credit not merely for their expenditure, but for every value which they create by the expenditure, which is a very different thing. For instance, this might have been purely waste land. I believe it was. A good deal of money has been spent by the Trafford Park Company, but what did it really lead to? And this illustrates the evil of concentrating upon merely one company without taking into account what the general effect of an Amendment like this would be. Here they got, I understand, a piece of waste land, which they have developed. They have spent some money upon roads and upon sewers, and they have spent a good deal of money upon railways, quays, and tramways; and, in addition to that, they have spent a good deal of money upon advertisements. All the value which they create by that expenditure is deducted out of the land before they are ever taxed. Now I am told they ought to get complete exemption in respect of this expenditure; not merely that they ought to get full credit for it, but that simply because they have spent it they ought to be completely exempted.
  Mr. RENWICK: The same as the builders.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That shows the danger of making concessions. If you make this concession I have not the faintest doubt that arguments based upon it would be advanced in favour of some other cases. We made the concession to builders that where they spent money and actually destroyed the land for agricultural purposes they ought not to be charged, for some time, as if the land could be used for any other purposes. That concession is now used as a lever for the purpose of obtaining a much more formidable concession, which I think would mean the destruction in a good many cases of the whole tax. Let the House take one or two cases. There are cases where landowners have invested in railways in their district. Those railways pay. That makes no difference to the Amendment. They have invested in docks, and those docks pay; but that makes no difference here. The mere fact that they pay does not make the slightest difference. That is the real distinction between a road and a river. A railway is something which is laid down with a view to producing an income—a thing which is supposed to pay by itself.
  Mr. RENWICK: Not a siding.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A siding is part of the machinery of a railway. When a dock or a jetty or something which is expected to pay is made there are tolls charged in respect of it. But when you come to a road nobody ever pretends to charge a toll in respect of the use of a road. I am perfectly certain there is no case where a company not merely lays down a railway, but undertakes for all time to maintain it without making any charge and without expecting any return. It is part of the investment of a company. They may do it, it is perfectly true, with a view of developing the estate, but they do it just as much with the expectation of a return in respect of the railway itself as with the idea of spending money upon building on the land. We say if you create any value out of that expenditure we give you credit for it. But there is no reason why that expenditure should entitle you to complete exemption beyond that in respect of the whole land. Otherwise you might get, for instance, the whole of the land in the neighbourhood of Cardiff completely exempted from taxation. That is the most valuable building land in that neighbourhood. The owner of that land may say, "Have I not invested money in

  495
  docks, and invested money quite recently in a railway?" and if an Amendment of this kind were carried all he would have to do would be to spread the whole of that sum over the entire area of his Cardiff property, and if he could show that the expenditure on the railway amounted to £100 per acre in respect of the whole of the land he would be exempted altogether. That is a case which I know, and I am certain that there are several other cases in the country. It shows, after all, that this is an attempt to destroy the tax. It is only one of those Amendments which are being moved with that idea. First of all, we are told that we must exempt all land which is cultivated for agriculture, though it is valuable building land. Then there is another Amendment to exempt something else. And then there is another Amendment to exempt any land you have where it is being let by a landowner to a railway, though he may be receiving 3 or 4 per cent. in respect of his investment. If these Amendments were accepted the result would be that there would be no land left at all for you to tax. Of course, that Trafford Park—because this is purely a Trafford Park case——
  Mr. RENWICK: No.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has been worked up by the Trafford Park Company. They have circularised in respect of it. And not merely that, but it is their Amendment. Suppose you concede their case. You would let in—or rather you would let out—areas which hon. Members have not given a thought to, while there is no real claim on the part of the landowner, because he invests in money for purely reproductive purposes. How can it be said that there is any injustice here? I say that under Clause 25 you are covering the whole of the case, and I understood that my hon. Friend was perfectly satisfied with the explanation given on the subject. I want the House fully to realise that all the money spent by these gentlemen on railways, jetties, embankments, or advertisements, which I believe are very considerable, or for any other purpose which has increased the value of the land, are all deducted before you begin to tax, and if they show that they have practically created the whole of that value of the land themselves by these means they pay no tax. Their representations as to the amounts they would be called upon to pay are perfectly ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, who
  496
  is an expert on these matters, knows perfectly well how it would work out, and I am glad to have his corroboration of the statement which I make. I have gone into the figures, and I say that they are perfectly grotesque. They get very large reductions on all the expenditure on their land. They will only be paying on the balance, the mere prairie land. They will pay upon that one halfpenny in the pound, which would be one-480th part of what remains after all these deductions. And the sum, instead of being the substantial sum it is represented to be, would be exceedingly minute, and they would be paying nothing in respect of the value which they create; but the value which my hon. Friend refers to was created by the expenditure of the ratepayers of Lancashire.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether any Member of the House thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has satisfactorily disposed of the case we have made. If hon. Gentlemen have followed him with some knowledge of the Bill—and I have to presume they have some knowledge of the Bill, for without it they might not see the whole effect of his statement—I think they will see that he has pretty effectively destroyed the case for his own tax. What is the answer to the Amendment? It is not an answer on the merits. It is that if he accepted the Amendment he would exclude so much land from taxation that the tax would be destroyed. That shows what a very bad tax it is, and it shows as clearly as anything could show that he is taxing what he is professing not to tax. He says that this is a Trafford Park Amendment. That is scarcely consistent with his statement a moment before that it applied not merely to Trafford Park but to many other cases. I heartily agree with that statement. It applies, he said, to Cardiff, and he stated that if he accepted this Amendment it would be possible for an owner to say that he had created a building value which he wanted to tax, but because the owner had created that building value it would be exempt, and then he would have no tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I want to state exactly what I did say. As a matter of fact, if he can prove that he created the value he would not be taxed now. On the contrary, what I said was if he could prove that he had spent £100 an acre he would be exempted from the whole tax. If he can prove that by his railway he

  497
  has created the value he will not be taxed now.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that there are hundreds of cases where the value has been so created, where the Government could not prove that it had not been so created, and where the difference between tax or no tax depends upon the party on whom you put the onus of proof. Instead of putting the onus on the Government to show that the value was socially created, you place the onus upon the individual owner to show that he can trace the value back to a particular investment of capital which he had made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion has done a great deal more than the hon. Member behind him or my hon. Friend to confuse the issue. If he remembers the discussion in Committee he will recollect that he took me to task for references to matters which would be better dealt with under Clause 35. In every other sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there appeared Clause 25. Really Clause 25 has nothing whatever to do with the matter, and the exposition of the case by the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division (Mr. A. J. King) was a much more correct exposition of the Bill than that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the case of the Trafford Park Company. They paid £750 for the land before they spent a penny upon it. They have added to its value anything you like per acre. I have not the least idea of the figure. Perhaps they have added £250 per acre by their expenditure. The present value of the land would then be £1,000, but from that £1,000 you would deduct the value created by their expenditure under Clause 25. Where does that bring you back to? It brings you back to the £750 stated by the hon. Member. He is perfectly right. You first take the value as it exists to-day, that is the original value, plus the additional value given by the expenditure; then you take from that the additional value created by the expenditure of the company, and you come back to the £750, correctly stated by the hon. Member. It was not, I think, actually denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was covered by him in a confused cloud of verbiage which had nothing to do with the case. You get back to the £750 per acre, and on that £750 per acre they have got to pay the ½d. tax. Why should not the builder who has spent £100 per acre on the development of the land,
  498
  and the laying out of roads, pay the tax as long as the development is not completed? You may say there is no reason at all if you like. But the Government do not take that view. They say there is a reason, and they put down an Amendment which provider that if you spend £100 an acre on roads you are exempt, but if you spend it on water fronts, jetties, and railway sidings you are not exempt. It determines in which way you are to spend the money.
  If you want to build houses you spend the money on roads, but if you want, as in the case of Trafford Park, to put the money to the most economic and profitable use you construct water fronts, jetties, and railway sidings. The Government choose to say now that if you spend the money in one form you shall get credit, but if you spend it in an economic way, as in the case of Trafford Park, you get no credit at all. Is not that wholly illogical as either a possible or conceivable defence?
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a Trafford Park Amendment and that the Trafford Park Company have circularised Members. But the Trafford Park Company are not the only people who have circularised Members; many people do that; and the Trafford Park Company are not in any way entitled to less consideration on that account. But it is perfect nonsense to say that this is a Trafford Park Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is forgetting the history of this question. This is a Government Amendment. Everything that is in my hon. Friend's Amendment, and more besides, was in the Amendment which the Government offered to the Trafford Park people, and which they accepted. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer deny it? I will refer him to the Amendment which the Government subsequently placed on the Paper, and which would have relieved us of all this discussion if they had kept it in the form in which it appeared. The words of the Amendment were to the effect that where the owner of land or his predecessor in title have spent at the rate of at least £100 per acre for the purpose of developing the land, that land shall not be treated as undeveloped land. In that there is no qualification such as that which they now put in their Amendment. The Amendment as it originally stood covered the case of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and it covered a good deal more. That was the Amendment which they offered to the Trafford Park Company. My authority for saying that the Amend-

  499
  ment was offered to the company is that of the managing director of the Trafford Park Company, who at their meeting stated that they had had a conference with Mr. Masterman, who handed "to us a Clause which he stated to be one of the Government Amendments, in respect of which he said 'it has been most carefully considered, and although I do not think that we entirely meet you, I think you will agree that we have gone some way towards it.'"
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): May I make a personal explanation on that point? I had a discussion with the Trafford Park people, or their representatives. I showed them various Clauses on the Paper, and I asked them what they considered the effect of those Clauses would be on their estate. There was no offer to the Trafford Park Company of any sort or description, nor was the Amendment put down in connection with the Trafford Park Estate as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say it was so, but, as reported, the words of the hon. Gentleman were: "This has been most carefully considered, and although I do not think we entirely meet you, I think you will agree we have gone some way towards it."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say whether those were the actual words or not, but there was no offer made.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is really a very small matter whether the hon. Member showed them the Amendment and said, "This is the Government Amendment," or whether he said, "This is a Government Amendment, and goes a long way to meet you." That was the Amendment which the Government put upon the Paper, and if they had only stuck to it when it was satisfactory there would have been none of this trouble. But they would not carry the Amendment in the form they had put it on the Paper, as the Trafford Park people understood it, and as we Members of the House of Commons had seen it. To our astonishment and surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that Amendment at about 4 o'clock in the morning, but first of all he amended it himself so as to limit the concession in point of time, and he then accepted, or shall I say he sought, from the hon. Member for Westmoreland a
  500
  further Amendment to limit it to roads and metalling—in the form in which it now stands. It is rather difficult to say what goes on sometimes in the House, but I should be astonished if the Government should say that this Amendment was the spontaneous idea of the hon. Member for Westmoreland. I think it originated from the Government, though it was fathered by the hon. Member for Westmoreland. The Government accepted the qualification and limitation of their own Amendment, and by so doing destroyed half the value of the concession that was made. Do not let us hear anything more about Trafford Park Amendments. All we want to do is to get the Amendment back into the form in which the Government brought it in. If they will stick to the Amendment which they originally put down I am quite certain my hon. Friend will withdraw his and accept the original Government form. What we object to is the alteration that they made, and my hon. Friend seeks to cancel some of the illeffects of that alteration. We shall support his Amendment rather than have the Government Clause as it stands, but we would sooner have the original Government Amendment.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I venture to suggest that in the Debate that has now taken place we are entirely confusing two different kinds of expenditure upon land. What we are dealing with now is the Undeveloped Land Tax, and the Government Amendment proposes to give exemption in the payment of the Undeveloped Land Tax in certain specific cases. The cases are these, where the land is actually being prepared for development, where road construction is taking place, and where certain works, which are essential to the development of the land for building, are being performed, works that have no other utility except to develop the land, works that produce no profit to the man who expends the money until the land is built upon and is developed; that is to say, while the man is taking all necessary steps to bring the land into the market for building you allow it exemption from the Undeveloped Land Tax. The man has ceased to hold up the land; he is proceeding to prepare it for development, and that is quite a clear and definite reason why you grant exemption. What does the Amendment ask? The Amendment says that because you are spending a large sum of money on a certain piece of land for all kinds of purposes, not necessarily to help it to be built upon, not necessarily to

  501
  bring it into the market, but for some general purpose for the increase of value, that, therefore, you are to exempt it.
  Take the case of tramways, for instance. Conceivably it might be to the interest of the Trafford Park Company to construct a tramway across the first hundred acres of their land for the development of something else at the far end of the estate. It might absolutely pay them never to sell that land for building at all across which the tramway passes, but to keep it for the purpose of obtaining revenue from the tramway or railway that went across the land. Can it then be suggested that those are works for the development of the land? They might equally be works that will retard the development of the land, and that will make 100 acres unavailable for building purposes. I venture to suggest that works of that description—docks, quays, railways, tramways—may in some cases be essential for the development, but in others will be absolutely unessential, and may even retard the development. By no process of argument can you say that the construction of a tramway or railway is part of the process of developing the land for building purposes. Besides, and this is a most important consideration, in the case where there is an allowance for the roads the road can return no revenue, while the tramway, the railway, the jetty, the quay, may, and often do, return a substantial result. You know what large sums of money are paid for wayleave. Are you going to suggest that in an estate, say, in the colliery district, where a tramway is made across the land for the purpose of bringing coal, say, to the dock, that because that tramway is made across the land by the owner of the land, who receives a substantial wayleave for bringing in the coal, that because the owner has spent his money in constructing that tramway he is to pay no Land Tax? The thing is absurd.
  This thing that has originated in Trafford Park is capable of extensive application. You cannot say in some other cases where a tramway or a railway is producing a large revenue that because of that the land ought to be exempt. You cannot distinguish between vice and virtue in taxation of this kind; you cannot say that the owners of the Trafford Park estate are eminently virtuous and high-minded people without any regard to profit, and that they are developing the estate so that Manchester may benefit, and that, therefore,
  502
  they ought to be exempt, whereas some other district that did lay down its tramways for personal profit shall not be exempt. The whole scheme of this taxation is not to tax the individual, but to follow certain parcels of land, to follow the piece of land, and tax that land. You can do that whether it is owned by a virtuous duke or a wicked Labour Member. In either case you must follow the land. You must lay down a principle that shall be applied to all similar land, and unless you do that you involve it in hopeless confusion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said as to the money you expended upon the development of the land when you came to deduct that you got back to the original £750. May I submit that is not an entirely accurate statement. It does not follow that the land is worth £750 because £750 is the price paid for it. When the valuer proceeds to value the Trafford Park Estate, plus the expenditure thereon, he will take its present value, what its selling price in the market is, and he will deduct from that not only the expenditure upon it but the value that expenditure has given to land, and that conceivably may bring the net figure considerably below £750, the price paid for it. You must get your land fixed at the market value——
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is very important. In the deductions you do not take account at all of the money spent, you only take account of the value created. You may have spent £1,000 and only created £100 of value. You do not get credit for £1,000 but only for £100. You may have spent £100 and created £1,000 of value. You do not get credit for £100 but for £1,000. It has nothing to do with the amount of money spent but with the value created. How can you arrive at the value created? Surely that must be the difference between the value now, after the expenditure has been incurred, and what was the value before that expenditure.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: That does not follow. You had a piece of land in Trafford Park and certain roads were constructed upon it. The present value is easily ascertained by the price in the market. Then the value, which, say, now is 10s. per yard, may, if the valuer divested it of the roads and other expenditure, be reduced to, say, 6s., or 5s., or 4s. per yard. That is a process that he can arrive at without knowing exactly what the man spent or without knowing what it cost the

  503
  man before he spent anything on it. Therefore I say that for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that because £250 per acre was spent on the land that £250 is allowed off the value, and that therefore you necessarily get back to the £750 for the Undeveloped Land Tax is not correct. If that land is worth £1,000 per acre, and it is proved to the valuer that after deducting the works that have been performed on it it is now only worth £500, then it is on £500 the tax will be paid, and not on £750.
  I should like to point out in connection with that £750 that it does not follow that because £750 was the price paid that therefore there is any injustice in taxing that, because the House will remember that the increase of value from £300 to £750 was created by the Manchester Ship Canal, which is the expenditure of public money. Therefore what this Amendment really asks for is this, that the Trafford Park Company shall be allowed credit for the expenditure of the Manchester Ship Canal that has increased the value of their lands, and that in addition they shall be allowed to deduct, before arriving at any amount, the whole amount of their expenditure, and in addition to that, while that land is increasing in value, and while the demand is continuing to take place, that they shall be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax. This seems to me to be just the kind of Amendment that will deprive the Exchequer of any kind of revenue from this tax at all. If you are going to take an isolated case like that of the Trafford Park Company, and lay down general principles of exemption, of course you will sweep away the entire proceeds of the tax. It seems to me the Amendment suggested by the Government is fair and reasonable, because it is an allowance, and an exemption from the Undeveloped Land Tax given on outlay of money essential to that development. The other suggestion seems to me to be entirely unjust and unfair, because it proposes to include the expenditure of money which may return a profit to the men who expended it, and which may or may not be an essential part of the development of the estate.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks, I need hardly tell the House, with great authority upon all questions of land value. I confess I listened with very great surprise to the speech which he has just de-
  504
  livered. In the first place I observe that he has misunderstood the Bill as it now stands with the Government Amendments. What is his main criticism upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend? His main criticism is this, that my hon. Friend asks for an allowance to be made in respect of expenditure not made for the development of the land, but for some other independent and collateral purpose. That is not so, because we have already passed an Amendment which he will find on the Paper on page 24, and which was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which governs, I understand, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The words of that Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are these: "With a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid." Therefore, my hon. Friend's Amendment only touches that kind of expenditure which, in the language of the Government, has been made "with a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid," and the whole of that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument which deals with collateral expenditure bringing in independent revenue, and used for some wholly independent purpose, absolutely falls to the ground, and has nothing whatever to do with it. Every atom of expenditure which my hon. Friend's Amendment deals with is expenditure intended to develop the land for purposes "as aforesaid."
  Therefore the whole question is reduced, is it not, to the one very plain issue: Why are you going to distinguish between two classes of expenditure, both of which have been used to develop the land for the purposes "as aforesaid"? To that question I venture to say the hon. Gentleman will not tell me he has made the smallest reply at all in the whole of the interesting speech he has delivered. He never touched it, he never dwelt upon it. Is it not quite obvious that in a case like the Trafford Park estate to build, not sea fronts, but water fronts, jetties, and all the rest of it, is entirely and directly intended by the company to develop the estate for the purposes "as aforesaid." It is just as useful as if the money were spent on kerbs, metalling, or on roads, and yet the Government choose arbitrarily to come forward and draw this distinction between two kinds of expenditure, both of which are intended to subserve the same public objects. There were other points in the hon. Gentleman's speech which I think were very much open to criticism and comment,

  505
  but I do not wish to detain the House, and I will not dwell upon them. I will ask the House to turn its mind from the narrow issue to the broader issue raised by the Amendment. The narrow issue is the amazing course the Government have taken in putting down an Amendment, correcting it, getting somebody else still further to correct it, thus disappointing the hopes which, rightly or wrongly—certainly I am not accusing them of breach of faith—have been raised in the minds of the Trafford Park Estate owners and other owners who are carrying out in connection with their land great works of development which do not happen to consist of drains or kerbs. I put that controversy between us and the Government on one side, and I ask the House to consider what is the policy now demonstrated to underlie the whole of this part of the tax. The Government have claimed throughout that this Undeveloped Land Tax is a tax incident purely upon that which is not only not enterprise, but is the converse, the negation, the absence of enterprise. This has been claimed to be a tax upon land the owners of which neither do anything with it themselves nor allow others to do anything with it. That is the whole justification of the tax. That is the claim on which the whole policy is based. It now stands plainly confessed that the men who will suffer from this are not merely such owners, if such owners there be, who fall under the description I have just
  given, but people who are spending large sums of money on railways, jetties, harbours, and all those things that you want money spent upon in this country if you are going to develop its industries. This tax, obviously to all the world who take the trouble to understand it, is a tax upon some of the most important industrial enterprises in which the country can possibly engage. It is manifestly no longer an Undeveloped Land Tax; it is a tax on the development of land. Who henceforth is going to enter into a transaction like that of the Trafford Park Estate? Who, with this kind of legislation in their eyes, are going to get the public to invest their money in that kind of development? This is a direct and plain discouragement of a most useful form of enterprise. It is a toll upon the expenditure of capital for public purposes. For that reason, and that reason alone, I think the Government are most ill-advised, from their own point of view, not to have adhered to the policy which, in some lapse into reason and moderation, they accepted at an earlier stage of our proceedings, but from which, terrified at their own moderation, they ran away in the small hours of the morning, leaving the Bill very little better than it was before the Amendment was accepted.
  Question put: "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes 195.

  Division No. 822.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 p.m.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clark, George Smith

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cox, Harold

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, P. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Guiland, John W.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Robinson, S.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Brace, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Sears, J. E.

  Branch, James

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Snowden, P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Clough, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tomkinson, James

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Curran, Peter Francis

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Massie, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Weir, James (Galloway)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Erskine, David C.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Essex, R. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Falconer, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibson, J. P.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Mr. COX Mr. COX moved, in paragraph (b), after the word "sewers," to insert the words "or on mains."
  There is no reason why a man should be credited with his expenditure on laying sewers and not also with his expenditure on laying mains. It means the money spent on laying gas, water, and electric mains, before an estate is developed; therefore I think it is purely a verbal point.
  Mr. T. H. W. IDRIS Mr. T. H. W. IDRIS formally seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that my hon. Friend did not give me even a moment's notice of this Amendment. It is obviously impossible to accept an Amendment of this sort when I have had no time to consult anybody as to what its effect would be. My own opinion is that the word "sewer" would cover main drains

  509
  at any rate. Water, electric, and gas mains may be reproductive, and they are certainly not in the same position as sewers.
  Mr. COX: I must apologise for not giving notice, but I really thought the point was a purely verbal one.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.): In the great majority of these cases these services would be rendered by the companies or corporations that were going to supply the gas, water, or electricity. I cannot recall a case where the owners of the land who were developing it were called upon to pay for the gas mains.
  Amendment negatived.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDhad an Amendment on the Paper, in paragraph (b), after the word "land" ["that land shall for the purpose of this Section"], to insert the words "and any part of the land dedicated to open spaces."
  After what has taken place this afternoon I have no hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen favourably to this Amendment, and I do not propose to move it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["that land shall for the purposes of this Section"], to insert the words "to the extent of one acre for every complete hundred pounds of that expenditure."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to raise on this Amendment a point in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me something approaching a pledge in Committee—at any rate a pledge for favourable consideration. The point was, what exactly should the £100 per acre be charged on—on buildable land, land which could be covered by buildings or is intended to be covered with buildings, or on land which was to be used for other similar purposes? I raised the question specially with reference to garden cities, and quoted the cases like Bournville. Here at the meeting of roads, instead of drawing the roads to a right angle and putting the greatest number of buildings on the ground, the roads are sloped away, and little open spaces left in the centre of cross-roads, and railed off, and shrubs or trees are planted. I am sorry to say that I have brought the wrong number of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I remember.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the occasion on which the thing was said, but I have the reference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham. The Chancellor said: "That deals rather with the place.…" In reference to the Amendment of the Member for West Derby the Chancellor said that he thought the hon. Gentleman had made out a case, and promised to consider it. "That is all I promise," he said; "I should not like to have any misconception."
  The Chancellor thinks he has dealt with; the matter. I do not see any Amendment dealing with it. If it could possibly be dealt with at this point, it might be by inserting the word "building" before "land," so as to make the £100 exempt such land as that referred to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought I had covered it. I cannot be quite sure that these words do not cover it. There is an Amendment on the Paper, the last on the page. I have there considered the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it ought to be covered. I have done my very best to do so. The latter part of the Amendment, I think, meets the case: "the part of the land to be treated as land developed, or used as aforesaid, shall be determined by the Commissioners." That means that you can spread the £100 expenditure over, and not merely confine it. I am told that that covers that point.
  Amendment made.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph (b), to leave out the words "undeveloped land" ["as undeveloped land although it is"], and to insert instead thereof the words "land so developed or used."
  In the same paragraph: To leave out the words from "being" ["being built upon or used for any business trade or industry other than agriculture but"], and to insert thereof the words "actually so developed or used."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in the same paragraph, to leave out from the word "no" ["no sum shall be taken"] to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "expenditure shall be taken into account if ten years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if after the date of the expenditure the land having

  511
  been developed reverts to the condition of undeveloped land, and in a case where the amount of the expenditure does not cover the whole of the land included in the scheme of land development the part of the land to be treated as land developed or used as aforesaid shall be determined by the Commissioners."
  Mr. RENWICK: I just wish to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The purport of this Amendment is to limit the allowance of expenditure to 10 years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of accepting 20 years instead of 10 years. I have an Amendment down to that effect later, and I am not sure whether it will be in order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It will be in order.
  Mr. RENWICK: Can I move the Amendment now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Mr. RENWICK: Then I beg to move, after the word "if" ["if ten years have elapsed"], to insert the words "where it has been incurred before the passing of this Act twenty years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if where it has been incurred after the passing of this Act."
  In the case of Trafford Park, it is 15 years since that land was acquired. It is not only that park, but other cases that are concerned. From the moment these are acquired the expenditure upon them commences by building retaining walls, quays, and so on. The thing applies to a greater number of cases than Trafford Park. In nearly all cases of riversides, and especially where there is a tide, there is the necessity of retaining walls, jetties, and so on. It is absolutely necessary to make that expenditure. Therefore I think it will be very unfair to limit this to 10 years. If you accept 20 instead, you meet many cases of hardship. I do not think the amount in these cases will be very large.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have an Amendment down on the Paper to make the period 50 years instead of 10. But I am bound to say that I put that down on my first reading of the Clause, as I thought this Sub-section would govern the Sub-section in Section 25. I think I am now correct in saying that that
  512
  deals with an entirely different matter. Will the Chancellor say whether this Subsection in any way governs the Subsection in Clause 25?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh no, it is a totally different thing.
  Sir S. SCOTT: Under those circumstances I think the period I put down was somewhat unreasonable. But I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the very reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend. We have already heard of the Trafford Park estate; that during 15 years it paid no dividend whatever, and at the end of the 15 years only 1½ per cent. It is not only the Trafford Park estate, but many other estates in the country which will be burdened if only 10 years be allowed them for their development. I know many private estates myself. In the development of an estate you first have to make a road—very often a lengthy road—in order to open up the communication, and anyone who invests their capital in this way knows perfectly well that they will have no chance of getting a return for the money spent on a large portion of that road for considerably more than 10 years—even if then.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was under the impression, I think, that my Amendment applied to jetties and sea walls. Well, it does not. It purely applies to roads and kerbs, and the arguments which he advanced are clearly inapplicable, because there is no necessity to renew these roads and kerbs every five or ten years. This Clause does not apply to jetties. The whole point is this: not whether you are going to give credit for 10 or 20 years for the expenditure on a road, but whether the specified exemption is to go beyond 10 years. Because after that the builder or the estate owner can stall deduct the expenditure which he has made in respect to the roads and kerbs. I have seen a good many builders on the matter, and they were of opinion that a period of 10 years was a very fair period for exemption, for after all there are very few cuttings-up of land 10 years in advance of its possible development. It may be a man has held up land purely for speculative purposes, and if you extend the exemption beyond 10 years that will be an encouragement to the speculator to hold out for high prices. That is exactly what we want to discourage. Although I am very anxious

  513
  to meet hon. Members, who have put this Amendment forward very reasonably and very temperately, I do not think I shall be justified in accepting it. Criticisms have been made from the other point of view that this exemption is much too wide. Undoubtedly it will lose a great deal of revenue. If we are to exempt beyond the period stated the revenue will be very seriously affected.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Clause to which this Amendment refers is not a clause really dealing with deductions. It is a clause that deals, as I understand it, with entire exemption. And land is not to be taxed as undeveloped land if built upon, or if £100 per acre have been spent upon it towards building houses or cottages. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear in the course of this Debate up till now that building factories upon land is not developing it; putting a railway upon land is not developing it. The only development of which the right hon. Gentleman takes any account is that of building cottages, and the only expenditure of £100 an acre that he is going to consider must be strictly upon roads in connection with such cottages. It is obvious, of course, that the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend with the idea that other kinds of buildings might reasonably be considered as development, and that there are such things as roads and walls, and so on, the benefit of which is not exhausted in ten years. And, therefore, I think it would be a reasonable thing to prolong the periods beyond ten years. Perhaps, even although this is not developing land according to the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it will be within the knowledge of every Member of this House that there are plenty of pieces of land that have had roads made, and on which houses were started to be built upwards of ten years ago where yet a considerable portion is unfinished. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to half a dozen such places within five or six miles of this House. What is the attitude the right hon. Gentleman takes up? He says that after ten years the benefit is no longer to be taken into account, and although you spend £100 per acre upon it, yet because you have lost your market he is going to come down upon you and take away some more of your money. It seems to me that even upon the extraordinary position taken up by the Government as to what developed land is, there is no answer
  514
  to the Amendment put forward. If a reasonable effort is made and a reasonable sum has been spent there is no excuse for imposing this tax if it is a penal tax in such circumstances. I think if exemption is allowed up to ten years it ought to be allowed to the extremely reasonable period which is proposed in the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put that the following words be omitted from paragraph (b), "no sums shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent."
  Amendment made.
  Question proposed that the following words be there inserted: "expenditure shall be taken into account if ten years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if after the date of the expenditure the land having been developed reverts to the condition of undeveloped land, and in a case where the amount of the expenditure does not cover the whole of the land included in the scheme of land development, the part of the land to be treated as land developed or used as aforesaid shall be determined by the Commissioners."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to just now as meeting my point. I see it gives a discretion to the Commissioners to act in the way I desire, but it does not impose upon them any obligation to do so. I think they would do so, but I also think that it would be desirable that they should do so, and it is in expectation of the full consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that I expressed the hope that the Government will be prepared to add some words carrying out that view.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We quite agree the right hon. Gentleman had that promise from us in a former Debate. We thought we met it by the words put in, "determined by the Commissioners." But the right hon. Gentleman desires further protection, and I shall therefore propose to add at the end "as being land with the view to the development or use of which as aforesaid the expenditure has in the main been incurred."
  Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 17.—(Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, and Allowances.)
  (1) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre.
  (2) In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre, Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
  (3) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged—

  (a) On the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which are open to the public as of right; or

  (b) On the site value of any woodlands, parks, gardens, or open spaces, reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public or by the inhabitants of the locality where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality; or

  (c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings; or

  (d) On the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and 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.

  The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal.
  (4) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling-house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, or on the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds occupied with a dwelling-house
  516
  which do not exceed five acres in extent when the site value of the gardens and pleasure grounds together with the site value of the dwelling-house does not exceed twenty times the annual value of the gardens, pleasure grounds, and dwelling-house as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A.
  (5) Where agricultural land is at the time of the passing of this Act held under a tenancy originally created by a lease or agreement made or entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the original term of that lease or agreement while the tenancy continues thereunder, but the exemption under this provision shall not apply after the period at which the tenancy of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord.
  Mr. R. L. EVERETT Mr. R. L. EVERETT moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out "fifty" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre"], in order to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred."
  This Undeveloped Land Duty is a very remarkable one; it is the greatest innovation of all the Land Taxes proposed, and it excites a great deal of apprehension in the minds of many. It is quite exceptional and unprecedented in its character. It is a tax not upon annual value, as all other rates and taxes to which we are accustomed are, but it is a tax upon capital value, and it differs from all the other Land Taxes in that it is an annual charge. It is not a charge once and for all as the Increment Taxes, but an annual charge upon capital value. It is a tax laid on without there being any money in hand out of which to pay it. The Increment Tax merely takes a portion of the amount that comes to the owner of the land upon which the tax is charged, and so with the Reversion Tax, but in this case the tax is to be laid on annually on individuals who are receiving nothing and have not the wherewithal to find the money unless they sell the land or draw it from some other source. A tax having these distinguishing peculiarities naturally excites a good deal of apprehension in the minds of those whose property is about to become subjected to it for the first time. I imagined on first looking at this tax, that the £50 exemption was intended to exempt agricultural land. But there is agricultural land

  517
  which runs up to the value of £100 and therefore I would prefer the figure £100 to £50; but when I come to look closely to Sub-section (2) one sees that under the provisions of that Sub-section the whole agricultural value of agricultural land is exempt even if it exceeds £50. Sub-section (2) says: "In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes." That which we tried to have introduced in regard to Increment Value Duty is actually introduced here. We thank the Government for that, and we are very glad to see it inserted here, but to the ordinary man the mysteries of this Bill are so intricate that he is trembling with apprehension in regard to his liability owing to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and in order to allay the fears of the agricultural community I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment. If he does so he will make it perfectly clear to the mind of the ordinary man that there is no fear he will be charged Undeveloped Land Duty upon his agricultural land. This concession will be gratifying and reassuring to those who are at present under some apprehension in regard to this new tax, and will represent to them in such a clear and plain way that a plain man can follow what the position really is, and as regards agricultural land it will not cost the Treasury a halfpenny.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. Friend is really one of the most insatiable men I ever had the pleasure to encounter. First of all, he agrees to an Amendment. It was discussed and agreed to, and now he dismisses it as insufficient. It was pointed out, when it was discussed, that there was agricultural land worth more than £100 an acre, and therefore the figure £100 would not exempt all agricultural land. An Amendment was agreed upon specifically exempting agricultural land from increment and exempting the whole of the agricultural land, even if it were worth more than £100 an acre, from the Undeveloped Land Tax. My hon. Friend agreed to that, but now he wants the whole thing. He wants the whole thing, and he wants this as well. What happens? He says this proposal is in the interest of agriculture. May I point out that agricultural value is completely exempted from taxation. We allowed an Amendment which satisfied the hon. Gentleman,
  518
  and he said it was something he could understand and comprehend. He laid down that agricultural land should not be taxed. We put in that Amendment, but now the hon. Member says, "Oh, we cannot understand £50, but £100 we can understand." What about the farmer who has land worth for agricultural purposes more than £100, and there is plenty of land of that kind? There are special properties in the East of Scotland for growing potatoes which are worth more than £100 an acre. I know my hon. Friend is not interested in that kind of land, but he is interested in land worth under £100 an acre. I think he is taking too narrow a view of his function as a protector of the farmer. We want to protect agriculture whatever the value is. The hon. Member says that if a farmer only makes the land worth £100 an acre we should protect him, but the moment by intensive culture the farmer makes the land worth more than £100 an acre my hon. Friend has no concern for him. The Government want to protect them all, and the more value a man puts into his land agriculturally the greater protection he deserves, and the greater protection he gets. This miserable expedient of £100 which the hon. Member has devised in the interests of agriculture does not protect agriculture at all, although it protects a certain value. I know of land which is not worth more than 1s. an acre or 2s. for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes it is worth £200 or £300 an acre. We want to protect the case of building land and not of agricultural land. Do not let the hon. Member pretend that this proposal is in the interest of agriculture, because it is nothing of the kind.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Amendment made in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "locality" ["the inhabitants of the locality"], to insert the words "including access regularly enjoyed by any of the naval or military forces of the Crown for the purpose of training or exercise."
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "benefit" ["of benefit to the public"], to insert the words "or which, although the public have no access thereto, are of benefit to the health and well-being of the inhabitants of the locality, and should in the public interest remain unbuilt upon, or."
  There are about 400 open spaces in London, and only about 50 of them are included in the Act passed at the instance of the London County Council two or three years ago under which the owners of those open spaces gave up their rights to build. There are a number of squares which will not be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, they will.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I suppose they can only be exempted under Subsection (c), which exempts "any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." It will be difficult in the case of London squares to show that they are being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite schemes. I do not think those conditions can be applied in the case of London squares. If they have been laid out in accordance with a definite scheme it will be impossible for the freeholder to show that, and even if he can show it he has only to be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Duty if he foregoes his right to build for all future time, except with the permission of the Local Government Board. Of course, that permission will never be given, and it simply means that he will have to take his choice between paying the Undeveloped Land Duty or giving up the right to build altogether. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that squares will not be exempted except under those conditions, which I think are rather unreasonable.
  These open spaces are of very great value for letting in light and air in crowded districts, and we should do all we can to keep them. I think it is too much to expect owners to give up the right of building for all futurity. It is a great advantage to the public that those squares should be kept open, and I think they should be exempted from this tax while they remain open to the public. The Secretary for War stated that this tax would encourage the freeholder to throw open squares to the children. I do not think the freeholder has any power to do so, because that power is generally left in the hands of the leaseholder. Consequently, the freeholder will have to go on paying this tax with no power to throw the square open to the public, and he will not be exempt from this tax. It is far
  520
  more likely that the effect of this proposal, instead of stimulating people to throw open squares to the children, will not have the effect anticipated by the Government. I think if landowners are willing to forego building on land by laying it out as a garden it is a matter for which we should be grateful. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Amendment the matter will be quite safe, because the Clause provides that the Commissioners are to have the final decision as to whether it is for the benefit of the health and well-being of the locality that the land shall be kept as an open space and exempted. I think the Commissioners might well be entrusted not to exempt undeveloped land unless it is for the benefit of the nation.
  Sir W. BULL: I desire to second this Amendment. There are a number of fields round London which are neither squares nor undeveloped land. As London increases in size farms assume a sort of half-and-half character. The farmers find that they cannot deal effectively with the land for agricultural purposes because there are too many children about who run over the fields. A well-known gentleman in London has discovered a way of meeting the want of playgrounds for cricket and football, and he has made an arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whereby a rent is paid which is something more than the agricultural rent, and something less than the building rent, for the use of certain fields round London for the convenience of various clubs. The scheme has worked well for a long number of years. The land is let for sport, subject to three, six, or nine months' notice, and now a vast number of these fields, the acreage of which runs into thousands all round the fringe of London, are held by this man and by various clubs and institutions for the purpose of games, and games alone. Often an acre is cut up into three or four football grounds, and they extend the whole distance around London, more particularly in the West and the North-West and in my own Constituency. I want to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give any encouragement to that state of things. It is clear that land, when it ceases to be occupied as a farm, is, so to speak, undeveloped land and nearly ripe for building; but there is a hiatus between it being agricultural and building land of two, three, and sometimes even four years. It is here where the land comes in very useful as playing fields for the London clubs. The owner fences it in so that the

  521
  children cannot damage it, and he lets it out to the clubs. He gets a rent, but it adds greatly to the amenities of the city, and encourages healthy exercise amongst the inhabitants. I, therefore, want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot give some encouragement to the very useful class of the community who are supplying these fields. It is a business which has grown in the last 10 or 15 years, and is very well recognised and acts very fairly. Now and again the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or some large landlord round London will give notice, and the result is the playing field manufacturer is driven further and further away. I am afraid this Undeveloped Land Tax will have a very deleterious effect upon this trade. This amount of tax will just prevent the playing field proprietor from letting his fields at anything like a price which some of the poorer clubs are able to pay. At the present moment he makes a reasonable profit, but I am afraid this tax will just make the difference between profit and loss, and hundreds of clubs round about London will suffer. Therefore, I earnestly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this case to see if he can meet it in any way.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was apprehensive that the tax might have an adverse effect upon London squares. That is certainly not the intention of the framers of the Bill. The squares are, I venture to say, a peculiar and, perhaps, unique beauty of London, and there is no desire at all to place on spaces, which are so beneficial, any kind of burden which might interfere with the benefit they confer. There are certainly two, and I think it may be said three, guarantees against the taxation of London squares in the Bill as it now stands. There is, first of all, the provision as to a definite scheme in Clause 17, paragraph (c), which I think clearly protects them:—
  "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part."
  No one can look at the London squares without seeing that their condition exactly conforms with what is laid down there, so
  522
  that that paragraph covers them. It also covers the other case mentioned by the hon. Member. He referred to something I said in Committee when I was dealing with garden cities. It no doubt also covers that case expressly as it covers the squares. In a garden city parcels of land are left under agricultural user, but they are part of a definite building scheme. The words cover that. It puts parcels of land of that kind under practically the same protective conditions as London squares, and I think I may also with some degree of confidence say that they would be protected by the provision as to five acres occupied with a house or attached to a house. I quite imagine that some argument may be raised on this point, but although it was not drafted with that intention, I think it has that effect. Hon. Members will bear in mind, with regard to any ambiguity which arises on the language in this Clause, that it will always be construed against the State if it is necessary to have recourse to the courts. If it is open to a construction favourable to the subject, the courts adopt it. The third guarantee is afforded by Clause 25, Sub-section (3), defining the total value of land. It says:—
  "The total value of land means the gross value, after deducting the amount by which the gross value would be diminished if the land were sold subject to any fixed charges," and so on, "and subject to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made before the thirtieth day of April, 1909."
  Now, of course, these squares are all subject to restrictive covenants.
  "And to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made on or after that date if, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant or agreement so entered into or made was, when imposed, desirable in the interests of the public, or in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood."
  I do not think we need have any apprehension about the London squares; I do not think it is in the least degree likely, but if it were found they have not been sufficiently protected, it is the intention and desire of the Government, and they would do so immediately, but I think they are amply protected by the various clauses to which I have referred.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Clause gives an exemption in the case of parks, open spaces, and so on, where the property is open to the public. Therefore, supposing there is an open space over which the public, as a public, have no right, it would not come within the exception. The open spaces particularised in the Amendment are clearly desirable in the interests of the public, although the public itself has no right to enter upon them and walk over them. London squares and very valuable pieces of land where our young people are able to go and enjoy such games as cricket or football ought not to have this duty imposed upon them. It would have the effect of immediately causing them to be built upon, so as to avoid this duty. Is it the most desirable thing that cottages and houses should be built upon every bit of land in the country? Is it not desirable, proper, and essential that plenty of pieces of land which to-day the public have no right to walk over, but which are valuable lungs of our cities, and valuable for a number of purposes in the interests of the community, should be left without buildings upon them? The Amendment is a very reasonable one, and the Attorney-General, in reply, referred us to three places in the Bill where, if we are sufficiently ingenious, we may perhaps be able to find that the case is covered. He says he will not put it in so many words, which will make it clear that the case is covered, but perhaps, if we look at these three places, we shall find it is covered. He refers us, first of all, to paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and he says the case of the London squares and of these very important pieces of land on the outskirts of London used for games is met by these words:—
  "Where the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme for the development of the area of which the land forms part."
  7.0 P.M.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says that is a reply, but we look a little bit further down the Amendment Paper, and we find that if anybody avails himself of that privilege he forfeits the right for ever to build upon his land, unless the Local Government Board choose to give him permission. I venture to put it to the House, as a matter of common-sense, whether the owners of any open spaces in London would be prepared to give up for ever under any conditions, however the state of affairs may alter, the right to build upon their land simply to secure exemption from
  524
  a comparatively small, but to-day a very annoying, tax? It is obvious, therefore, that the exemption referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one which would not be effective and of which the owners of these spaces under no circumstances could possibly be induced to avail themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman next referred us to Section 17, Sub-section (4), as printed on the White Paper. He said we should find the case would come in under that Clause where there is an exemption of dwelling-houses with five acres of land. I do not know how you can call a London square a piece of land round the house or how you can say it is occupied with a house. A London square, instead of being round the house, is a piece of land round which there are houses, I do not think it could be reasonably argued that a London square is land round a house, but, even if it could be so reasonably argued, is that any reason why this Amendment, in plain and unequivocal language, should not be accepted? Nothing of the kind. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said if you are not satisfied with these explanations I must refer you to some Clause—Clause 25, I think—and you will find that if the land is subject to restrictive covenants the Commissioners may look to see whether they are benefical, and, if so, then it is to be free. I really think this is a case where we ought to protest. If it is desirable that London squares should be exempted from this duty—and everybody will agree that it is—indeed the Government itself have practically admitted it—and if it is desirable to increase the land to which thousands of young men may go out to play football and cricket, then these lands should be relieved from that duty while so occupied. I think every Member of this House will agree with that. Why not say so in so many words? Why not make it clear that these pieces of land are to be exempted? After the months we have spent on this matter in Committee to come up here now and see these further Amendments, and to be met with a refusal on the part of the Government to do something which they admit that they ought to do themselves, namely, to exempt these pieces of land from taxation—when we are met with their refusal, and when their only answer is to refer us to three complicated sections which, in my opinion, do not meet the case, I think it is time we complained. It is not the way in which the Government should deal with a matter of this kind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not add anything to what has been said by my hon. Friend on the subject of London squares and places of that kind, but I should like to get some information from the Government as to the position of gardens. I have in mind a case with which I am familiar, where there is a very considerable garden attached to the residence of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of one of our big towns and which is, indeed, actually surrounded by small houses owing to the growth of the town. Now the public have no access to the place as of right, and the only exemption that could possibly be claimed is an exemption on the ground that they enjoy reasonable access. What has happened in this case is that the owner of the house has been in the habit, not of allowing anybody to come who chooses, but to freely give permission to anyone in the nature of a responsible party to enjoy the amenities of the ground and to spend an afternoon there during the summer months when he and his family are not in residence. Is that reasonable access within the meaning of the Sub-section? Such a case as that, I think, would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not know quite what the Commissioners might determine. Commissioners sitting in London would not be acquainted with the locality, but I would undertake to say the local authority would claim that this was an open space to which the public had access, although not of right, and that it was a general access, although only an occasional access. It certainly would be desirable that that garden should be allowed to remain in its present condition as long as possible. It would possess a considerable building value, but I would urge that it would not be to the public interest to force the owner to build upon it as long as he can afford not to do so. Now such a case as that I think would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I fear that, if it were left to be dealt with on a strictly legal interpretation of the words contained in the Bill, it would not be dealt with in the interests of the locality.
  Sir W. ROBSON: As the right hon. Gentleman has put a question which turns on interpretation, with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to answer. Although we have to consider what is reasonable access, I do not think we are called upon to define it. The point is whether it is possible to substitute any other phraseology. I think if the right hon.
  526
  Gentleman were faced with our task he would find, on the whole, that the words we have used are the most beneficial to the subject. I am not going to bind the Commissioners in any way as to the manner in which they shall construe the words. I can only suggest to them facts which must be taken into consideration when dealing with the word "reasonable." In itself it is a difficult and dangerous word to use in a Statute. But one of the facts which the Commissioners would take into account would be the financial benefit which is, so to speak, the equivalent of the Act. If hon. Members will consider they will see that the financial benefit is very small. Take, for instance, the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke—the case of a large garden surrounded by a town. Say the garden extends to ten acres. It is subject to a building value—a site value. That value, of course, is not by any means as great as the sum for which it may be finally sold. You have also to take into account the cost of development, and I have been told that for making roads and drains in developing land the cost works out at something like £500 per acre. Take the value of the land at £1,000 per acre. You have 10 acres. The duty is only £2 per acre on the capital value, and, therefore, it amounts to but £20. The Commissioners will obviously balance that £20 against the fact that the garden is open to the public, and I, therefore, think they would treat the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in a very favourable manner. They will always grant favourable consideration to that kind of access which is granted by the generous country proprietor to neighbours whose good opinion he desires to retain.
  Lord BALCARRES: We might have drawn a little more comfort from the remarks of the Attorney-General if the decisions of the Commissioners were subject to appeal in the courts of law. But they are not, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that this is not a matter on which any difficulty is likely to arise I think we are justified in doubting the assertion. He starts with the old story that the tax only amounts to £2 on an acre worth £1,000. But we have to bear in mind that the Lord Advocate has informed us that this is only the beginning, and that it may be very considerably increased. The particular point I wish to mention is one raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, which has received no attention whatever from the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned

  527
  Gentleman made a long defence of the exemption of London squares, but there he stopped. He gave us three Sub-sections in the Bill which might, by implication, save the London squares, and he also suggested that if the interpretation given to those Sub-sections did not prove satisfactory an amending Bill might be introduced later on. London squares and squares in Manchester and Liverpool are emphatically open spaces which ought to be preserved undeveloped for building purposes, in the interests of the whole community. Personally I have no right to walk through Berkeley-square or over the grass plots opposite the Members' entrance to this House, but, as a member of the public, I should be aggrieved, and justly aggrieved, if these places were built upon. Our playing fields, in that sense, are even more important than these squares. London possesses a great chain of central parks incomparable in Europe. The parks of Paris are fine, but you have to go 10 miles to reach them, but so far as London is concerned, even if all the squares were built over, you would still possess the lungs of four or five great central parks. But when you come to deal with suburban open spaces a different state of things arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Westminster are both very much interested in this question of recreation grounds for fluctuating clubs, and they have put forward a case to which the Government have attempted no reply. Lord's Cricket Ground and Kennington Oval, I admit, are protected. They are institutions which have funds at their disposal, together with an enormous potential income in the shape of gate-money. They are bodies corporate which are capable of entering into legal agreements by which they can secure exemption. But recreation grounds and open spaces on the fringes of our great towns, not merely near London, but in Lancashire and elsewhere, are not protected under the three Sub-sections to which reference has been made, and we ask, in plain and definite language, that they should be so protected. Our appeal has been refused. I want to point out to the Attorney-General what I am convinced will happen. At the present moment in London alone there are literally thousands of clubs which depend for their very existence upon the temporary use of land. I happen to know of the cases, and there are thousands of these clubs, and I was going to say nine out of ten of them,
  528
  but that would be an exaggeration, but in the large majority of cases they are what may be called fluctuating clubs—clubs depending upon the individual energy of the secretary or captain of the year, who organise the club, which is for that period a well-equipped and well-managed institution. These clubs enjoy the benefit of some of those open spaces organised by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) and mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull), and for a year or two years they exist. They may then dissolve and be re-formed in other names, and go to other parts of the suburbs. I know in central London a club that lasted for two or three years, and one year it played at Streatham, the next at Hampstead, and the next beyond the Great Western Railway terminus.
  These clubs are now protected, but as soon as you put in the three Sub-sections in this Bill and pass the subsequent Amendment which governs those Sub-sections, I believe that the whole of the land devoted to this purpose is doomed. Nobody can afford in the case of land of this character to hold it up, so to speak, in order to be of service to these small clubs, which pay ridiculously small rents for the recreation they receive. There is no right of access; it is against the interests of the club that there should be, because as soon as there is the cricket pitch gets cut up. It is also against the interests of the proprietor that unrestricted access should be given, because that will create rights of way over what will ultimately be developed into building property. I suppose the learned Attorney-General will, as usual, find refuge in the reasonableness of the Commissioners. Personally, I do not trust to the reasonableness of officials whose business it is to collect the maximum amount of tax. I do not know if the learned Attorney-General in his official capacity has to assert the reasonableness of the Income Tax Commissioners, but by every post Members of this House are receiving the most embittered and envenomed complaints against the action of those gentlemen whom we may be told on another clause of the Bill are reasonable gentlemen. I do not at all trust anything short of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to ensure that these lands will be exempt from the tax. The hon. and learned Member, speaking about a particular garden that was mentioned, said that a garden of 10 acres was a very big thing, and was rare. That may be true, but it must be remembered that the word

  529
  "garden" covers much more than the space occupied by flower-beds. It means what in Scotland we call the "policy" as well. I know case after case, and if any hon. Member cares to know the cases I will give him the names, where acres and acres of ground are open day by day to the public within the area of the municipal boundaries, which, if closed tomorrow, would no doubt under this clause be subject to the taxation.
  This clause has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment following it. I am not going to deal with it except to point this out, that under the Amendment the next but two on the Paper, in the event of an owner giving reasonable access to the public to enjoy the amenities of his estate or of his garden, he will never be allowed to build upon it without the permission of the Local Government Board. That is to say, that these playing fields outside London to-day used for the enjoyment of the public and contributing greatly to the health, comfort, and amusement of the public, will be closed forthwith because the owners will never be able
  to admit for one minute that their right of building over that ground in the future shall be subject to the goodwill of the Local Government Board. Everybody knows that it takes six months to get an answer out of the Local Government Board, and when you are developing an estate that you should have to wait not only for the reasonable opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue but also for the reasonable opinion of the surveyors of the Local Government Board is so grotesque that people owning these estates will not submit themselves to the long delays, correspondence, worry and trouble which such a process would involve. I think myself that the proposal is very dangerous indeed. I have assured myself that dozens of these open spaces are doomed in consequence of the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, and if my hon. Friend proceeds to a division I shall support him with the very greatest satisfaction.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 181.

  Division No. 823.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Chance, Frederick William

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Younger, George

  Foster, P. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Burdett-Coutts.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Gordon, J.

  NOES.

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cameron, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brace, William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sears, J. E.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Colonel

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falconer, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Snowden, P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fullerton, Hugh

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Toulmin, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Grove, Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Guiland, John W.

  Morse, L. L.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Myer, Horatio

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Napier, T. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Amendments made: In paragraph (c), to leave out the word "that" ["and that it is reasonably necessary"] and to insert instead thereof the words "where in the opinion of the Commissioners."
  In paragraph (d), after the word "is" ["On the site value of any land which is used"], to insert the words "bonâ fide."
  In same paragraph, to leave out the words "that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality and."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used.
  "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this Section, that land shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board
  532
  give their consent, on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed; and any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as to the mode in which the land is to be built upon as the Local Government Board think desirable under the circumstances."
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: The first words in this Amendment—"or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used"—are in no sense a protection, as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department last night argued they were, to that large class of clubs on whose behalf I spoke. The Under-Secretary represented last night that these words with regard to future use are a sufficient protection to all clubs, including the large class of clubs which cannot make a five years' agreement, and which have not a sufficient corporate existence, continuity, or authority to

  533
  enable an agreement to be made with them, but which at the same time represent and include a vast number of the youth and growing manhood of the poor of London and other great towns. My point is that with the condition of a five-years' agreement, which secures the exemption without any doubt, all the owners of the land, in order to secure the exemption, will let their land to the clubs that can enter into a five-years' agreement. They will not be willing to rely upon the uncertain exemption granted by the first words of this Amendment referring to the future and leaving it to the opinion of the Commissioners whether the future use will be the same. That is a very doubtful quantity, and it is a method of securing the exemption which is very much less certain, so to speak, than the method of the five-years' agreement. Therefore, it is quite obvious that all owners of land, if they wish to secure this exemption, will let their land to clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement. Then what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign such an agreement? If the land is, as it certainly will be, monopolised, to secure this exemption, by the clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement, what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign? I see a real difficulty which may not have presented itself to the Under-Secretary's mind, in the much greater value and certainty that is embodied in the five-years' agreement condition than in the condition affecting the future.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman and myself are both working in this matter in perfect unison so far as the end we desire, and he, of all Members, has a right to speak for these particular clubs. The question was discussed last night in connection with the increment value exemption, and I pointed out that we had tried to meet the case of the poorer sporting public, with which he and I are most concerned, by an Amendment which was framed in connection with those who claimed to represent those particular interests. The original Bill, as it stood, limited the exemption to leases which at the beginning were not less than five years in length. That does not mean that the exemption would not be enjoyed, even though the lease had only two years or one year to run, but it had to be a five-years' lease. The hon. Gentleman very rightly states that a five years' lease is absurd to talk about in connection with large numbers of the poorer boys and work-
  534
  ing people in the neighbourhood of big towns, therefore we tried to devise some alternative for those who could not take these leases, and the alternative we devised was, in our opinion, in about as wide words as we could possibly give: "Where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." That means, for example, this: There is a considerable amount of land in the neighbourhood of London which is not going to be used as building land for the next five or ten years, but which is being held up for ripening—land such as you can see from the London and South-Western Railway on the journey to Portsmouth, where you pass through a whole stratum of football field grounds which are in that condition. The owners do not design to build for a considerable time, and many of them are philanthropists enough to allow, almost at nominal rents, poor boys and working men to play on their ground. We wish to recognise that public service. They would pay a substantial allowance as Undeveloped Land Duty under the Bill without this exemption, but they can show, and they have no difficulty in showing, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in the words of our Amendment, that "circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used."
  On the other hand we have to consider the difficulty from another point of view. There is some land which is on the verge of building land, which will be built upon in six months or a year. That land is often let or given over to working class clubs, but it is really land which is ripe for building, and the fact that it had to pay this tax would not make very much difference whether the land was going to be built upon or not. I do not think, under these circumstances, that the working class clubs and the boys' clubs which now use it would gain any more by the land being exempt from taxation. But there is a very serious danger that land in that condition might escape the Undeveloped Land Tax through clubs being created just to occupy the land during that time, and to be turned out within a very few months. That is not the intention of the exemption. Practically, if we made the exemption very much wider, it would not be difficult for a very considerable amount of the most valuable building land, which the owners intend to build upon in a very short time, to escape the tax while allowing working class clubs to play upon it. I

  535
  offered the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) a suggestion yesterday as to finding any wider form of words which we could adopt within the margin that we desire and free from the danger which we fear. The hon. Gentleman has not repeated the Amendment which he made last night. He realises that it would be no use. The fact that ground was played on five years before would be no guarantee that it would be played on for the next five years. We are not concerned with the past. We are concerned with the future. We have been in communication with the representatives of those clubs which are particularly interested, and they think that we have gone as far as possible in the circumstances.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No one will question the desire of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) to protect the class of clubs for which my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) has pleaded, but I am bound to say that I think it is impossible to defend the wording of the Clause if you are going to impose this tax and at the same time protect those clubs. The hon. Member in dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend used an argument which struck me as one of considerable force. Supposing the owner of land makes up his mind that he is not going to build upon the land for at least five years, he is then able to find a club with whom he can make a five years' agreement. That will not be one of those poor boys' clubs. It may be a club of comparatively well-to-do people. You put every temptation in the way of the landlord to seek out the well-to-do club, and to refuse the poor boys' club, because if he takes the well-to-do club he can sign a five years' agreement and snap his fingers at the Commissioners. But if he takes a poor boys' club he cannot sign a five years' agreement. What is his position then? He goes to the Commissioners and he has to prove to them that it is likely that the land will continue to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Do these words give any protection to such a case as my hon. Friend has spoken of, or even in such a case as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department referred to? Take those lands he spoke of on the London and South-Western Railway. He described them as lands with considerable site value at this moment, but not ripe for building. I did not know that the Government recognised that there was such a thing as land
  536
  with considerable site value not ripe for building. I understood that their view was that where you had building site value you ought to put a building on the site. That was the argument hitherto. Now the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is land with building site value which is not ripe for building, and which may not be built upon for five or 10 years.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said appreciable site value.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the adjective used by the hon. Gentleman was considerable. Clearly there is such land, and the tax would be considerable if levied. According to the hon. Gentleman's statement, which is in accordance with our knowledge of that class of land throughout the country—I have no knowledge of the particular land to which he referred—that land is intended to be built upon. It will not continue indefinitely in this position. Are not the Commissioners entitled and bound to see that it is probable that it will continue indefinitely to be so used? The hon. Gentleman, speaking, not with the responsibility of the Commissioners, and not binding the Commissioners, says, "If you can show that the land is likely to be so used for five or ten years it will be exempt from duty under this Bill." I see no words in the Bill to support that view, and I think he must put in some words if he is going to protect at all the class of clubs which we on both sides of the House desire to protect. I naturally go to Birmingham for my illustrations. I see on every bit of land flat enough for the purpose of games, sometimes within and sometimes without the city boundaries, football clubs, cricket clubs, or lawn tennis clubs. The better-to-do ones which can afford to spend a good deal of money on levelling do not do that without an agreement for five years at least, and probably for more. But there is a great deal of land which is not let in that way. It is let from year to year to a club which exists only for a year, because the Member for the division or—[An HON. MEMBER: "A candidate for election"]—a candidate does not find money in sufficient quantity to keep it in existence. That is really the class of clubs with which we are familiar, and which probably expect from most of us 5s., 10s., and sometimes £1, a year. These clubs are very seldom in a flourishing condition. At the best they can only make ends meet. They are not in a position to enter into a five years' agreement or to take any responsibility. They

  537
  could not give any guarantee. They are not people of substance whose signature would be worth having. These are the people we wish to protect, and I submit that they are not protected at all. Not only have you not protected them, but you will compel the owner of the land, if he is mindful of his interest, or if the amount of the tax is a matter of moment to him at all, where he can get a five years' agreement, to choose the other kind of club in preference. The hon. Gentleman says, "Will you find words?" I will find words at once, but I do not expect that he will accept them. What I really think is that we have a right to ask the Government to make some effort to find words. I can find words so far as the clubs are concerned, but my words might not meet the ease so far as the revenue is concerned. I beg to move, after the word "used," at the end of the first paragraph of the Amendment, to insert the words "for the year of the assessment." The Amendment would then read, "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it possible that the land will continue to be so used for the year of the assessment." That will protect the clubs, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity to put in any other words which may be necessary to protect the revenue.
  Amendment to Amendment proposed, "That the words for the year of the assessment' be inserted at the end of the first paragraph."
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): I confess that this Amendment, and indeed the whole Clause as now proposed by the Government, might very well fill those solicitous about the Revenue with considerable apprehension. I cannot help expressing my surprise that the Clause, as now Amended by the Government, should not be found satisfactory by those who are solicitous about other things than the Revenue in connection with this tax. The Clause provides that Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged upon any land which in the opinion of the Commissioners, is likely to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Think of the immense opening that gives—I will not say for evasion, because it will not be evasion—but what an opening it gives for the adoption of means by which the tax shall not attach. How easy it will be for a landowner to put his land under conditions to which the tax shall not apply. It might be called evasion by those who would consider it wrong to try to escape the tax,
  538
  but it would be a perfectly legitimate device to adopt. How is he to adopt it? The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal of the Government will favour the club that can make an agreement, and not the club that cannot. As the Amendment stands, it will very likely give rise to this operation. The owner of undeveloped land may say, "I would rather not sell this land for building purposes at present. I desire to hold it up a little longer. It will not cost me very much to hold it up, for I see that the framers of the Finance Act of 1909 have kindly provided me with a means by which I can hold it up. All I have to do is to allow the use of the land for sporting purposes to people who may not be good enough to enter into an agreement, but who can play cricket and other games, and who can disport themselves on my undeveloped land." The Government desire to make this tax as light as possible, and to ensure that it shall not fall upon land used by the class of clubs which have been referred to. That is what is done by this Amendment. It is one of the Amendments in which, I think, we have gone too far. If we really desire to collect our tax, we really ought not to go further. I am not sure that his words are necessary, but if they add anything to the width of this exemption I shall oppose them. I hope the Commissioners will not be restricted by the words, "the year of the assessment." I think that would admit the danger of evasion to a greater extent than at presents exists. It is well that the courts will not have to construe this Clause. I say the land is not to continue for ever to be used for games. It is to be so used for some considerable period.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Why not put that in the Bill?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member has a faculty for definition. He would make an Act of Parliament, to his own great misfortune, consist entirely of a series of paragraphs and sections dealing with individual cases. That is not by any means the way in which Acts of Parliament are framed.
  8.0 P.M.
  Where no time is imposed, and where time is important for the purposes of construction, a reasonable time is generally inferred. In cases of this kind, where discretion plays a large part, there must be considerable latitude allowed. There was another point raised—How are you to judge what is probable? This again is as to the facility with which the tax may be

  539
  escaped. In our construction there may he no agreement. Maybe the landowner cannot find any person with whom he could make the agreement. But if he convinces the Commissioners of the probability that the land would continue to be used in this way it will suffice. How is he to bring about that opinion in the minds of the Commissioners? It seems to me quite sufficient that he should write submitting to the Commissioners that he has every bonâ fide intention of allowing this land to be so used. If he writes saying "I am an honest man, a gentleman, a landowner, and I intend that the boys shall play their games of cricket on my land, and do it freely, and continue to do it for a considerable length of time," that will be quite sufficient to raise the probability on which the Commissioners would be justified in acting. Whichever way you look at this Clause you have got a Clause here of a dangerous latitude for the purpose of the Act. I am in favour of allowing as much discretion as possible when you are dealing with exemptions from fiscal burden. I think when you come to define clearly the scope of the exemption you will end by narrowing it. Therefore I am in favour of giving as much discretion as possible. Here we are giving quite enough, and certainly I shall not ask for the House to give more by one single syllable.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I quite agree that the practice of the present day is to make Acts of Parliament as obscure as possible, and I quite assent to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on this.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I said that. My remarks must be more obscure than I thought they were if I gave rise to that impression.
  Sir S. SCOTT: My Noble Friend the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) raised a very important point on the last Amendment which has not yet been touched upon. The Under-Secretary a few minutes ago referred to the case of a certain amount of land which was held by various owners—I think it was on the London and South Western Railway—and that in view of the public spirit of those owners in allowing boys' clubs to play their games there for nominal rents, the Government desired to recognise that. My question is this: If those owners of the land, when the time came for developing
  540
  that land, have to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to build on that land, would such consent be given, and would they have to submit to such conditions as to the mode in which the land was to be built on?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that the Amendments should be got out of the way first. If I may, with the permission of the House, say so, I think that the Attorney-General has given a construction to the words of the Government Amendment which is more equitable than I anticipated, though it does not give all my Amendment asks for, and, therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The discussion has hitherto ranged upon one portion of the Amendment. Perhaps it is rather unfortunate that the two questions should have been put together as they deal with entirely different points. As they have gone past the question of the first two lines, which no doubt more materially affect the question that has been raised by previous figures, I am rather surprised that the Government have not yet given us a single explanation of the long Amendment which follows. The restriction which is applied to a concession which was given in the Committee stage is a very serious one, and it follows the somewhat bureaucratic lines which we have noticed accompany a great many of the Acts and Bills of the present Government. I think if these words are added as they appear in the Bill in connection with the two lines above it they will be a very good instance of the class of rule under which the Government desire this country to be. In one line the Local Government Board are to be the entire arbiters in connection with the matter. Two lines later we are told that the opinion of the Commissioners as to the same matter shall be final, and not subject to any appeal. So you have practically the Local Government Board and the Commissioners given the absolute power. There is no right of appeal whatsoever in connection with the matter which will come before both. Undoubtedly this puts the subject under very great disadvantages. It is a rather strong measure to put this restriction in at this stage when the concessions have been argued in the House.

  541
  I happen to be connected as trustee with a charity in London which owns a considerable amount of land and which has at the present time a very large amount of open spaces in connection with its estate. Those open spaces are under the exemption originally given in Committee, and, as explained to-night, have the advantage of Sub-section (c) a secure remission from the Undeveloped Land Duty. We find now that the Government propose to put a new restriction upon the manner in which all those owners of charities can in future use their estates. The leases are falling in. It is an undoubted fact that any definite scheme framed after the passing of this Act for the development of the land will, in all probability, take a different shape from the scheme which was adopted say 50 or 60 or 70 years ago, and very likely some of these open spaces will have to be built upon, while other open spaces may be set apart for the advantage of the estate in order to bring it up to more modern ideas and to develop it in accordance with requirements. We have now the fact that for all future time, so far as the individual initiative of the estate is concerned, they are bound by the absolute autocratic decision of the Local Government Board, which can, if it likes, put a complete stop to any scheme that the trustees of the charity might put forward, even though, in their opinion, it would be greatly to the advantage of the estate. It does seem to me that the restrictions certainly require some defence on the part of the Government, of which we have not heard a single word up to the present, and that they are a distinct going back on the exemptions granted in Committee. Therefore I would ask for some explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Member's recollection of what happened in the Debate in Committee is not quite correct. The privilege given under Clause 17, Sub-section (c), was the privilege which was definitely given with this restriction. It was part of the same system which was the result of representations made specially by those who are interested in the development of garden cities.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Garden cities are not London squares.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment was on the Paper on the Committee stage of the Bill. The garden city people and all those who are trying to develop suburbs of cities with a larger amount of land than
  542
  is normally given with that development, submitted to us that they desired to build under a definite scheme, by which that larger amount of land was given, especially in the case of the first garden city, where a definite agricultural belt, which would have a considerable value, is left around the City, and is intended for all time to be left around the city and used for the purpose of agriculture and for the general amenities of the town, even though it may still increase in assessable value and Undeveloped Land Duty. Then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was quite willing to meet cases of that sort if there was some guarantee that they were banâ fide, and that these land developers did not merely leave this land vacant because they did not care about building on it at the time, but that the moment it had acquired a considerable building value they should then start building on it. Those interested in the matter stated that they were quite willing to accept the decision of the Local Government Board if and when such question should arise. The Local Government Board was principally brought in because in a very few months it is going to be the authority for town planning, and the garden suburb schemes, which will have to be dealt with are schemes of town planning which deal with the permanence of open spaces. But the Amendment is only a consequential Amendment to the one now in the Bill, and that would never have been put in the Bill if the other one was not present.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The hon. Gentleman was now dealing with the question of garden cities. This evening we were told that Sub-section (c)was being put in the Bill in order to protect London squares and open spaces. Therefore the Government are bound to see that this Amendment must apply to London squares and open spaces.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Incidentally, no doubt, my hon. Friend stated that there were three exemptions under which he thought the London squares could be exempted. But those who remember the discussion in the Committee will recollect that the question of London squares was not brought into this Clause, except with the recognition due under the Clause as a part of it, and the discussion was rather upon this permissive power of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I was about to call attention, just as the hon. Member for Ashford spoke, to the fact that the Under-Secretary confined himself to the question of garden cities. The proviso he now seeks to incorporate into the Bill affects land which is used, destined to be used, or controlled by bodies quite different from those who are responsible for garden cities, and intended for different objects. I do not think that the defence he has made for the Amendment was really adequate to meet the case. Let me put before him a scheme which will be directly affected by the Amendment. I happen to know a property in the southeast of London where the owner was about to try an interesting experiment. In that part of the Metropolitan area it is becoming increasingly difficult for immense numbers of young and active men to find ground suitable for cricket, football, and other pursuits. The owner of the estate in question intended, after looking into the matter, if it was found financially feasible, to start a scheme by which there should be associated with a given number of houses a given area of land, which would be kept open for the recreation of the occupants of those houses. The Amendment you are now trying to put in the Bill will make that impossible. It is an experiment; it might succeed or it might not; but what owner is going to tie up five, six, seven, or eight acres of land in a neighbourhood which is rapidly developing if he is to be debarred at any future time, supposing his experiment failed, from building upon that land except with the sanction of and under the conditions imposed upon him by the Local Government Board? I am afraid that the scheme, which would have been an interesting experiment, would never be undertaken if a proposal of this nature be incorporated in the Bill, and in order that we may have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on it in the Division Lobby, I beg to move to omit the words of the second paragraph of the Amendment from "where" down to "circumstances." I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give me some comfort or satisfaction with reference to the scheme to which I have alluded, because I frankly say I fail to see how it is possible for any scheme such as that even to be considered if words of this kind are to be included in the Bill.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The words which are proposed to be left out have a very limited application. They in no way touch the exception with which we have just been dealing, that in regard to land which is used for games. This is an exception of a very wide and far-reaching character. These words which the hon. Gentleman moves to omit do not touch any case for which exemption is sought on the ground that under some definite scheme it is intended that land shall be left open. Of course, if the intention of the owner is not to leave the land open, but to treat it like other land, giving some user of it until the time he can get an adequate price for it as building land, then we do not by any means desire to give him exemption.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: This was a definite scheme. The land will be kept, not for general purposes, but kept for the use of the occupants of the houses which would be built all round it. That was the scheme, and the land would have been kept open for the purpose of recreation as part of that definite scheme.
  Sir W. ROBSON: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is really putting the case of the London squares. If the land is kept open for the amenity of the buildings then it would have exemption. I have already described no less than three grounds on which exemption can be obtained, two of them being independent of that relating to recreation. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to leave the land open for the amenity of adjacent houses, but is left open for some other reason for a time, being used for games—he might get exemption under games—but if the owner wishes to keep himself absolutely free to dispose of it, then he must take his chance, and I think he would take it very gladly. It is only to those who seek exemption that this provision applies. An owner may say that he did not want to claim exemption for his land, and that he wanted to build upon it, but if he seeks exemption with all the consequences, and if he does not want the consequences he must not seek the exemption. I should say in the case which the hon. Gentleman put the owner would not seek exemption. If he really desired that the land should be kept open for the amenity of adjacent buildings, then he would seek exemption, and would not object to the restriction imposed by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not met

  545
  the point we desired to put. The difficulty is that a London square may be exempted because it is a part of a definite scheme. The Attorney-General said so in a previous speech.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Not necessarily.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The case of which I am speaking is a definite scheme, under which an estate is laid out in squares and streets, and when that is taken to the Commissioners I do not think there will be any doubt that it will be dealt with as a definite scheme. It will not be dealt with under the 5-acres Clause.
  Sir W. ROBSON: There is no need to appeal to the Commissioners.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think it is pretty clear that these questions will be dealt with under a definite scheme. If they are, you are at once brought up by this Amendment which is now suggested by the Government, and, if it is a definite scheme, then the whole matter in all future dealings will have to go absolutely to the Local Government Board. The fact is that this Amendment has been brought up in connection with the special matter of garden cities and I hope that the Government will see their way to withdraw it.
  Lord BALCARRES: I wish to refer to one sentence in the speech of the Attorney-General which I think throws a good deal of light upon the attitude of the Government in this matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. H. W. Forster) has pointed out a particular case in which, according to his opinion, an experiment for making a playground for a particular group of houses may be destroyed. The Attorney-General again refers to the parts of the Bill which he thinks will protect that land from the contingency, but he said that under those conditions it will not be worth while making that ground a playground. I differ fundamentally from the Government upon that point, and from the view of the learned Attorney-General that it is not worth while doing so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think I said so. Why should I say so? I was dealing with the particular case, and I said the owner might not think it worth his while. I did not say it would not be worth his while.
  Lord BALCARRES: I gathered that the Attorney-General said that the owner would not think it worth his while to proceed with his scheme I think he is
  546
  right in thinking that the owner will probably think so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I never said so.
  Lord BALCARRES: I gathered the Attorney-General said that the owner under those conditions might not think it worth his while to apply for exemption, and that he might think it might be better to develop it as building estate instead of as a playground. I say frankly that it is deplorable that any owner of ground in the neighbourhood of a great town should be dissuaded even by the smallest tax from devoting the amount of land he can afford to open spaces and to recreation, The whole tendency of this Clause is going to be to prevent the accretion on the outskirts of our great towns of more of those open spaces which, in my opinion, are far more important for the benefit of the community than nine out of ten of the objects sought to be attained by Parliament. This Amendment is purely a garden city Amendment. I remember perfectly well the circumstances of its adumbration in the Committee stage. It was brought forth on behalf of the garden cities. It is drafted to meet the case of six or nine or perhaps a dozen garden cities now existing in this country. I am perfectly ready to admit that if the garden city movement is satisfied in this Amendment, then they are entitled to have it. My hon. Friend (Mr. Laurence Hardy) doubts that they are satisfied with it, but I have no information on that point. But the Government ought not, in meeting the grievances of the garden cities, prejudice the case of thousands of persons who may be doing work analagous to that of the garden cities by trying to develop their urban property, and, incidentally, not securing 5 per cent. in doing so.
  What is a definite scheme? That has not been defined in any way. The Attorney-General rallied my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) for asking for a definition. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Attorney-General to attack my hon. Friend, considering that the Government have accepted his arguments in upwards of 40 causes by accepting the Amendments he has put on the Paper to the Finance Bill. Personally, I think a definition is, on the whole, a rather useful thing. About 15 or 20 of these Clauses are so nebulous and obscure that, in the absence of a definition, their true incidence can only be certified by the law courts years hence. A garden city has

  547
  got a so-called definite scheme, but there are hundreds of people who are developing their property without a definite cut-and-dry scheme which they could submit to the Commissioners, but who, none the less, are paying great attention to the amenity of the open space movement of the country, partly in their own interest, largely in the interest of the community who live in those neighbourhoods.
  I know a particular case I will quote to the Attorney-General of a great town which leads to another urban area, and from that area to a third, a great long line of closely populated inhabitants, and at the end of one of these parts there happens to be three or four pasture fields. Those pasture fields could be built upon, and they could bring a very large sum if placed in the market, but they are kept as open grass fields in a great industrial district in the North, on a long road closely hedged in on either side with houses and factories. The very fact of those fields—open, fresh, green, and clear—is a benefit to the community at large; but I do not think those fields come in under the amended Clause. I do not think those fields could be said to be kept free from building in pursuance of any definite scheme. They are not. There is no definite scheme by which they are left unbuilt upon. I say it would be a grievance to a hundred thousand people if those fields were built upon, and incidentally it would put thousands of pounds into the pocket of the proprietors. What is going to be the effect of this Amendment on those fields? If the man claims exemption, he has got to show that there is a definite scheme, but he has not got a definite scheme, and, therefore, he cannot claim exemption. But it is quite possible there may be similar cases where there is a scheme, and where he could say he proposes ultimately to do this, that, or the other, and satisfy the Commissioners there is a scheme, and on those grounds he could perhaps certainly secure exemption. But having once secured exemption, should it become necessary in the interest of the community that the land should be built upon, or in the interest of his own finances that the land should be realised, he has got to go to the Local Government Board for permission.
  I may point out to the Ministers in charge of the Bill that this is a question of the control of the central department. In the four speeches we have had this
  548
  point has not been referred to once, except in connection with the garden city. I state my view that the latter part of this Amendment is really an intolerable hardship. What happens? If a man has got his scheme he secures exemption, and very properly; but then when circumstances alter, and when this belt of land round the garden city is to be used for the purpose of factories or residences, or in analogous cases all over the country, he has got to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to have the land built upon, and he has got to satisfy the Local Government Board that it is desirable, in the interest of the public, that the building should take place. Having gone through those two processes, the Local Government Board may settle what kind of building he is to put on it, and they may settle what direction the roads are to take, and how much can be exempted from the actual building. I hold that that is a proposal so drastic and so far-reaching that some explanation from the Government is imperative. I do not know the history of the later words in this Clause; probably they have something to do with a rejected Clause of the Housing Bill in Committee. In my opinion the proposal is indefensible, because a Government Department, however useful it may be when acting in co-operation with a municipal authority in determining housing and town planning questions, is not an authority competent or sufficiently experienced to deal with the development of private estates. I object altogether to the proposal that the Local Government Board should settle anything and everything connected with the building on these estates. That is the meaning of these words. They can make their consent subject to such conditions as to the method in which the land is to be built upon as they think necessary. They may say that a garden must be put here, houses there, extra roads somewhere else, and they may require the design of the houses to be submitted to them. I say that that is carrying the passion for bureaucracy too far. The proposal has not been defended or even mentioned by the Minister in charge, and I think it is a subject on which, if the Treasury officials refuse to deal with it, we ought to have the advice of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. REES: I do not quite understand whether the scheme referred to in paragraph (e) of the Clause is the only definite scheme contemplated by the Amendment which the Government has placed before the House.

  549
  I do not see why it should be. Take, for instance, the extremely common case where inside a park there is a cricket ground to which people have reasonable, though perhaps not altogether unrestricted access. Suppose the owner of the park who uses a portion of it for this laudable purpose chose to make a scheme. Would it be competent for him to make a scheme for a limited period, and to say in consequence that that portion of his park should not be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty? I do not quite know how he could do it under paragraph (e), because it distinctly refers to a scheme "for the development of the area." Supposing he could do it—and it would certainly be advantageous that he should—if he made such a scheme for one, two, or three years, it is possible that subsequently he would not be able to vary that scheme without the Local Government Board being satisfied "that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed." The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) referred to the case of fields outside a town. I have frequently brought a particular case of that character before the House, but, having had no success, I will not reopen it; but I should like an answer from the Attorney-General as to the case I have mentioned.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): I do not see what this has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment is to leave
  out certain words from the proposed Amendment, and so far as I have been able to follow the hon. Member he has not yet said anything which appears to apply to that.
  Mr. REES: I was dealing with the Government's Amendment: "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption," and so on.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question put by the hon. Member does not seem to me to have any reference to what is proposed by this new paragraph, namely, that if an exemption has been granted the Local Government Board must give their consent to building operations in the future.
  Mr. REES: Upon that point I put the question as to what must be the character of the scheme; whether the scheme must be one for the building development of the area; if not, whether such a scheme as I have suggested could be made; and if it could, whether such a scheme could not be determined without the leave of the Local Government Board obtained in the manner provided.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 824.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Agnew, George William

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

  Hodge, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, R. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Falconer, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brigg, John

  Gibson, J. P.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bright, J. A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Luttrall, Hugh Fownes

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Guiland, John W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Byles, Wm. Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Morse, L. L.

  Clough, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Cowan, W. H.

  Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nuttall, Harry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rees, J. D.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Toulmin, George

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, Henry A.

  NOES.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Amendment of the Government is dividable into two parts——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again, but perhaps the House will give him permission?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I shall feel obliged if the House will kindly allow me to say a word or two. I did not know I had lost my turn by seconding an Amendment on this Amendment. What I simply desire to say very very shortly is, that we do not complain at all of the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also the hon. Gentleman beside him, have treated this subject. All that we do complain of is that our desires with regard to shaping the Bill have not been met. The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained to us very lucidly and with exceeding clearness what the Government idea is. Of course, some of us have a very good recollection of how this matter was dealt with in Committee. The whole of what is now complained of in this Amendment—now sought to be introduced—was before the Committee, and it was withdrawn at that time with the assurance that it would be carefully looked into and brought up again on Report. But the same thing has happened. What, however, I wish to point out with regard to
  552
  the first portion of this Amendment is this: That the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has said that these words: "where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used" from either a legal or an Act of Parliament point of view—which is rather different from a legal point of view—means something altogether different from what the words themselves say. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to go with me past a field where some boys are playing cricket. He might say to me: "Is that land going to continue to remain unbuilt upon?" As I might be aware that within the next two or three years it would be built upon I should say "No." We are asked now to believe that under the circumstances the answer should be "Yes." Because the land is not going to be built upon immediately, because bricks are not carted on to the site, or something of that sort takes place, therefore that land is to be continued to be unbuilt upon! I should have thought the Government would have been only too willing to have made it quite clear that, at all events for some years, land might remain unbuilt upon. The second part of this Amendment we object to very strongly, because it takes away the whole benefit of paragraph (c). Nobody in the future will say: "Here is a definite

  553
  scheme; I am doing something in the interest of the community by leaving my land unbuilt upon." Nobody will venture to say that. Why? Because no owner of land will ever allow himself to be put entirely under the heel of the Local Government Board in respect to whether or how that land shall be built upon. For these two reasons we object to the first part of the Amendment. We object to it because it says something absolutely different to what it is intended to mean. Upon that point may I be allowed to say this in reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that before I became a Member of this House I was engaged in drafting, not one Or two, but a good many Bills which have come before this House. I have been brought up as a conveyancer, a draftsman. It has been my business all my life to draft documents of different kinds. The object of draftsmen in doing so is always to avoid obscurity if it possibly can be done. That is the main object of the draftsman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not always."] Well, it always was mine. When the hon. and learned Gentleman says to me "you have to construe these words 'continue to be so used' in a necessarily opposite sense from the words themselves," then I say it is unfortunate. And it is a great pity that, in the interest of lucidity and fairness, we cannot put in two or three words into this Amendment which would make it clear. We very strongly object to this Amendment, both as to its first and second part.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal."
  When this matter was reached in Committee we were promised that it would be considered. I do not say that a promise was made that an appeal should be given, but that something possibly might be done. The Clause relating to appeals is Clause 33, and that Clause starts by saying, "except as expressly provided in this part of the Act any person aggrieved may appeal within such time and in such manner," and so on. In this Clause there is an express provision that there is to be no appeal. There are several points relating to exemption from this Undeveloped Land Duty in regard to which the opinion of the Commissioners is to be
  554
  final. The first is in regard to parks, gardens, or open spaces open to the public; the second is that it is open to the Commissioners to decide whether the land is being kept free of building in pursuance of a definite scheme; the third is where the Commissioners come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the public or in view of the character or surroundings of the neighbourhood that the land should be kept free from buildings; the next is where the land is being bonâ fide used for the benefit of the public, and the fifth is where other circumstances render it probable that land is used under some agreement. The opinion of the Commissioners on all these matters shall be final and not subject to any appeal. I do think, if the Commissioners are to be relied upon as reasonable men to do their work, they would not object to an appeal.
  I have had a little experience in these matters and the Attorney-General has a great deal, and I think he will agree with me that courts where there is no appeal do not do their business any better than courts from whose jurisdiction an appeal does lie. When we are imposing a tax of this kind in the discretion of the Commissioners, I suggest it would be more satisfactory to the general community if there was even a reasonably restricted right of appeal. I do not want to suggest that the Commissioners are likely to be unreasonable people or to be vindictive, but we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the Commissioners are the people who will receive the tax, and to give them an unlimited and an uncontrolled discretion is, I think, carrying the thing a little too far. I think it is desirable, not merely in the interests of justice, but in order to allay any dissatisfaction, that an appeal should lie in these cases.
  Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is never a very gracious task, especially on the part of one who more or less represents the Bar of England in this House, to refuse a request that there should be a right of appeal. At the same time no one knows better than those accustomed to the atmosphere of courts how unsuited they are in regard to certain subjects. Let us take the subjects excluded from the right of appeal. Here we are dealing with exemptions from a general tax, and naturally and necessarily there must be a certain amount of discretion in considering whether or not there

  555
  shall be exemptions. What is the kind of discretion that is given here? Take, for instance, the occasion as to the opinion of the Commissioners whether or not circumstances render it probable that land will continue to be used for games. That is a matter which a man of business will decide, or which an official will decide, very much more satisfactorily than if you have it decided by calling witnesses on both sides and by having the opinion of the judge, who really will not have as good an opportunity of forming such an opinion as a Commissioner. Remember the decision of courts are arrived at, and are necessarily arrived at, under certain necessary disabilities. A judge cannot form an opinion in the same way as a man of business can by making the rounds and hearing what other people have to say. He is restricted as to the material upon which he has to form his opinion. Does anyone, looking at the matter dispassionately, think the Commissioner is not better able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether land is likely to be used to the advantage of the public than a judge? Take, again, the case of a restrictive covenant, or whether by some definite scheme it is well that a certain land shall be left free from building. These are purely questions of belief, not law. This is a question of the kind of information and opinion on which a man of business has to make up his mind twenty times a day.
  As to whether reasonable access is allowed, that again is a matter for the opinion of the Commissioners. I do not think it is a thing to which legal procedure lends itself happily or well, and therefore we have excluded these cases from the Bill. I am certain that in the working of the Act it is better for the subject that these matters should be left to the final determination of the Commissioners. As I am not permitted to speak again on this point, perhaps I may remind the House of the course this matter took in Committee. The point was discussed as to whether there should be an appeal or whether the opinion of the Commissioners or some other Board should be taken, and it was decided that this appeal should be excluded. Upon turning to the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find that the Secretary for War undertook that he would consider before the Report stage whether the Local Government Board should be the body for this work. Later in the Debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
  556
  chequer said that the authority must be the same as was provided in Clause 11. A Division was taken as to whether or not there should be an appeal, with the result that the proposal for an appeal was negatived.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: During the Debate in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) moved the deletion of these words, and the Secretary for War, who was in charge of the Bill on that night, at first refused altogether to entertain the idea. The Debate went on, and it turned on two distinct points. The first was as to who was to decide, and the second was as to whether there should be an appeal. The Secretary for War was certainly convinced on the first point, because he undertook to consider whether the Local Government Board was a suitable body, and he stated that if that was found to be the case an Amendment could be inserted on Report to that effect. The Secretary for War admitted that it was awkward that the judicial authority should be the taxing authority. The right hon. Gentleman was further pressed on the matter of appeal, and he said:—
  "I should like to take time to consider this point, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I undertake to consider with an open mind whether it is not possible to substitute the Local Government Board. I am at present averse to an appeal, but I will consider it."
  There were two questions, namely, the tribunal and the appeal, and the Minister for War, who was in charge of the Bill at that time promised to consider both points. The hon. Member for Kingston later on got up and said that in view of what the Government had said he would withdraw his Amendment. The Amendment was withdrawn on the distinct understanding that the Government would give the matter full consideration, and they promised to do so with an open mind. They had not given the matter full consideration, and they had not approached it with an open mind. But, apart from the history of the question, and speaking strictly on its merits, I think some of these matters are not fit subjects for an appeal to a law court, but it does not follow that there should not be an appeal in regard to them. Upon such questions as whether "access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality," or whether it is necessary in the interests of the public that the land should be kept free from buildings, I think neither the Commissioners nor the law court should decide,

  557
  but some other authority. Again upon such questions as to whether it would be an advantage to the locality that certain games should be played upon certain lands, I would much rather have the local authority as the tribunal in the first instance, and in case a dispute arose there might be an appeal to the Referees. I think on such matters a Referee appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute would be a better tribunal than a judge sitting in the court or the Commissioners. On these grounds I think an appeal should be allowed. If you are going to allow a taxing authority to be the judge in their own case I think you are setting up a bad and a dangerous precedent. I hope the Government will see their way to make some modification upon this point. If they do not I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is a difficult question upon which we can make up our minds as to what is in the best interests of the subject and justice and equity generally. I am very much disposed to agree that many of these questions are not suited for decision in a court of law according to the rules of evidence and all the other expensive paraphernalia attached to legal procedure. I suppose this is necessary when similar questions have to be decided by a court of law as between subject and subject, though not probably between the Crown and the subject. Such a question as whether reasonable access is given must frequently come before the courts. These questions are not quite as strange to the courts as might have been supposed from the way in which the Attorney-General treated the matter. Be that as it may, I quite agree with him that on the whole the questions with which we are now dealing are not questions of law, and, indeed some of them are scarcely questions of fact; they are matters of opinion, and I do not know that much good is ever obtained by taking a matter of opinion into a court of law. Certainly, as one of the subjects of the realm, I can honestly say that the last place in which I wish to find myself is a court of law in any capacity,
  whether as a plaintiff or otherwise. Under those circumstances, I am certainly not inclined to press the Government to give an appeal to a court of law upon all these questions, but at the same time Members of the Government have themselves felt there is a great inconvenience in allowing the taxing authority to be also judge in its own cause—to be allowed to assess the subject and also to say what benefit the subject shall hay from the exemptions. I venture to make a suggestion which I think might reconcile my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Watson Rutherford) and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is aware that the appeal under Clause 33 is not an appeal direct to a court of law. It is an appeal to one of the Referees appointed in the manner determined by the Act. Thereafter, if the party feels aggrieved by the decision of the Referee, he may take his case to a court of law. What I suggest is that under the Sub-section with which we are now dealing there should be an appeal to the Referee, but no further. The Referee would give that kind of business decision which the Attorney-General and I wish to get. An appeal to him would not be subject to all the strict rules, the expense, and the unnecessary procedure of an appeal to a court of law, and at the same time it would meet the particular objection of my hon. Friend, that, as the Bill now stands, the Commissioners are judges in their own cause.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman has put his point so persuasively that I am almost sorry I cannot accept his suggestion. After all, it would be substituting one opinion for another, though I quite agree it may be a less objectionable alternative than an appeal to a court of law. The proposal is one which has its attraction, and, if it were made in Committee, it is one we should say should be considered before Report, but at the present stage I am afraid I am not in the position to accept it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'arising,' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 825.]

  AYES.

  [9.20 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

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

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. W. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cameron, Robert

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Brace, William

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Beale, W. P.

  Bright, J. A.

  Chevy, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Toulmin, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Grove, Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Guiland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Myer, Horatio

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Napier, T. B.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  NOES.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cave, George

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Coates and Mr. Stanier.

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (in the absence of Mr. Cox)Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (in the absence of Mr. Cox) moved in Sub-section (4), after the word "duty" ["Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "or where the tenants of two or more houses have joint user of a garden, on the site value of any land not exceeding one acre in extent for each such house."
  I am moving this in order to obtain from the Attorney-General the view of the Government as to the law on this point. The hon. Member for Preston proposes that you should give exemption to the land occupied jointly by a number of houses.
  560
  That seems to be a fair and reasonable proposition, and I should have thought it absolutely unnecessary to move it but for something the Attorney-General said earlier in the day. If I rightly understood him, his answer would be that that is already covered where there are several houses having a joint user of the garden. The point we wish to get at is whether the exemption will be granted for the land in the case of one house or whether it will be allotted to each house as if they had plots separately attached to them. I will formally move this Amendment in order to get the view of the Attorney-General.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think there is anything in the Bill which will cover the object aimed at by the hon. Member who put down this Amendment, neither do I see how the object would be definitely achieved under any Clause of the Bill. We have a garden of five acres exempt under the Bill, except under very exceptional circumstances; we also have the exemption of all squares, which are really gardens. There may be some cases outside which would be only covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, but is it really necessary that we should make further provision for these? We have to consider that by opening the door we are losing income; we have lost a great deal already, more in my opinion than we ought. We have made substantial concessions, and I do not think we can afford to give anything more away in the shape of concessions. The substantial object aimed at by the hon. Member for Preston is already secured, and to accept this Amendment would be to open the door to further evasions which might have serious results.
  Mr. CAVE: This is a serious matter. The Attorney-General in effect has said that while one class of people who deserve to get off have got off, the Government cannot afford that other people who also deserve to get off should also get off. It very often happens that a number of houses originally on one estate have a common garden—it may be, 10 or 20 or more such houses have between them a garden of 10 or 20 acres. I do not see why houses in that position are not entitled to exemption on the same principle which exempts men with one acre of garden. Surely the case is similar. They have got an acre each of land, and they throw the gardens into one lot and use them together, and they are gardens of all the houses just the same, and no house has really more than the equivalent of one acre. It seems to me that the same principle which exempts the one acre to one house should exempt the 10 acres to 10 houses. I do not see any difference in principle, and I hope some more serious consideration will be given to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) is not here, but he told me that the case he had in view was Gray's Inn, where I understand there is a piece of ground which is used by the occupants of a number of houses. I think
  562
  the hon. Member anticipates considerable hardship there, because they would not like to take exemption in the future as they would be precluded from dealing with the land unless they could obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and that would fetter their action. It really does seem to be a hardship that combinations for the common good—I do not wish to use the word Socialism—should be interfered with.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: In reference to the argument that this Amendment was not necessary, as five acres were allowed, may I point out that, as I read the Bill, the house, stables, and so on all come into that five acres; and if there are 10, 15, or 20 houses using a common garden, there will be very little of that five acres left for garden. Therefore, I do not think that the argument which the learned Attorney-General used is of any value at all to those for whose benefit this Amendment has been moved. I think, therefore, we may wipe that out altogether where there are a number of houses. The space actually occupied by the houses and their yards, stables, outbuildings, and so on will be so great that there will be nothing left of the five acres, or, at all events, nothing appreciable for a garden. I do hope that as the learned Attorney-General brought forward that argument confidently thinking, that these joint users would have the whole of the five acres, and must now realise that they will not have it for a joint resort, he will reconsider the attitude he has taken up, and, if possible, accept the Amendment or something on the same lines.
  Mr. H. MYER: I know of one or two concrete cases in reference to this particular question, inasmuch as in my experience certain squares, with the houses attached to them, have fallen into the hands of the landlords, and the garden of five or six acres, part of which was taken over, was built over, and a large school or orphanage was erected. This ground originally belonged to the people of the houses, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General will say that they will not allow these properties when they fall in to be built upon.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 826.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Haddock, George B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Gordon, J.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

  Agnew, George William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Brace, William

  Hodge, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bright, J. A.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sears, J. E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tomkinson, James

  Clough, William

  Lynch, H. B.

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cowan, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Falconer, J.

  Massie, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gibson, J. P.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Grove, Archibald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Guiland, John W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "grounds" ["the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds"], to insert the word "so."
  In the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "with a dwelling-house, which do not exceed five acres in extent."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, at the end of the same Sub-section, to insert the words:
  "Provided that the exemption under this provision shall not apply so as to exempt more than five acres, and where the land, gardens, or pleasure grounds occupied together with a dwelling-house exceed five acres in extent, those five acres shall be exempted which are determined by the Commissioners to be most adapted for use as gardens or pleasure grounds in connection with the dwelling-house.
  "Where the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds are valued for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, together with other land, the total annual value shall be divided between the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds, and the other land in such manner as the Commissioners may determine."
  Mr. RENWICK: I have read this Amendment with very great surprise, and I think the time has arrived when we ought to ask how the Commissioners are going to carry out the duties which are piled on them day after day. During the course of the Committee and Report stages all manner of duties have been imposed on them, but the height of absurdity is reached in regard to this Amendment. We find that where a garden or pleasure ground exceeds, together with the site of the house, five acres, the Commissioners are to be called in to go round the grounds and decide which five acres are to be exempt. I can imagine them going into the kitchen garden to examine the cabbages, leeks, and onions, and saying they are of opinion that instead of growing leeks and cabbages here they should be grown there. Could anything be more absurd? Then who are these Commissioners? The amount of work which is to be piled upon them will mean a great increase of their number. If they are to be increased are they to have the same status and the same salary? If not, to which county are the best Commissioners to be sent, and to which county are the inferior Commissioners to be sent? I cannot imagine anything more absurd than this proposal, and I am amazed that such an Amendment should be put down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some information in regard to how the Commissioners are going to carry out this extraordinary duty. I wish to treat it seriously, and not as a joke. Suppose I have a house and grounds of six acres, five acres have to be exempt according to the Bill. Have the Commissioners to come down to my place and personally
  566
  go round and tell me which portion of my garden is most suitable for cultivation? One can only learn after years of experience which portion of your grounds are most suitable for gardening. I do some gardening myself, and after years of experience I have discovered which portions of the ground are most suitable for vegetables and which for flowers, and so on. Here the Commissioners are simply to walk round and look at the grounds, without any experience, and say, "Grow your cabbages here and your roses there." The whole thing is absurd, and it shows that this Bill is piling up work for the Commissioners. It will mean such an enormous number of Commissioners and officials that we shall not be able to move about our own grounds.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is not often that we have the pleasure of hearing one Member of the Opposition upon an Amendment put forward by another Member of the Opposition. I am sure it will interest the hon. Member to learn that the Amendment which he is so amazed to find in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one put down at the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman).
  Mr. RENWICK: That does not make it the less ridiculous.
  Sir W. ROBSON: If it is amazing it is still more amusing. The hon. Member was quite indignant that he should be laughed at when he said he was not speaking in a spirit of humour. That is exactly where his humour was most effective. We were much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. The Clause as it originally stood was open to one, I will not say obvious, but very marked objection. The intention of the Clause was to give a more extensive exemption to garden land around houses, and it said that Undeveloped Land Duty should not be charged upon garden land connected with dwelling houses when it did not exceed five acres in extent. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford pointed out that you might have a garden ten acres in extent, and under those circumstances it would not be fair to refuse exemption to it. The wording of the Clause did cut out the exemption in cases of land of ten acres. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would redraft the words in a form that would make it clear that the owner of a ten-acre garden should at least have the exemption which was given to the owner of a five-acre garden. No real difficulty will arise as to the part to be exempted.

  567
  It is left to the discretion of the Commissioners, as we said at the time when the Amendment was promised. No one objected then, because hon. Members happened to know what they were talking about. They were not subject to that excess of indignation which seems to be felt by the hon. Member for Newcastle. It is a very rare case in which a garden will have to be apportioned in any such way, but if it has to be apportioned it is better that the Commissioners should do it.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are two points on which I wish to ask information from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I gather that the allocation of the garden land for this purpose is to be in the discretion of the Commissioners. Is there any appeal from that discretion?
  Sir W. ROBSON: There is an appeal.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As to the other point, I notice that in the Amendment of the Government that where dwelling-houses are valued for the purpose of the Income Tax under Schedule A the total annual value shall be divided in certain proportions which the Amendment goes on to state. I want to know exactly what the Government mean by "total annual value." There are 13 or 14 descriptions of value in the Finance Bill, but among all these there is not one as to what is meant by total annual value. Before we accept this Amendment we ought to know what the Government mean by these words. I think it is an excellent Amendment provided there is an appeal from the determination of the Commissioners.
  Sir W. ROBSON: What is meant by the words total annual value is quite clear under Schedule A.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then the definition ought to be in the Definition Clause.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The learned Attorney-General has attributed the origin of this Amendment to my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman). Whether he would exactly recognise his ideas in the form in which the Government have embodied them I am not quite certain. He is not here to answer for himself, but perhaps he is more usefully engaged in explaining the Budget to people who have less opportunity of knowing what it contains than we have had in this House. On a previous Amendment the Attorney-General used some language
  568
  which led me to suppose that he regarded a square as being, so to speak, a multiple garden attached to the houses in the square. Having spoken of the square in that way, one of the protections which he alleged the square would have was that it would be regarded as a common garden, each house having its own acre.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON indicated dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said so, but I take it he did not. I do not know what meaning his reference to the subject had if it was not that. When I moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston I understood that the case was covered, but because I was not certain I moved the Amendment, and I got an assurance that it was not.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The case of the square of five acres would be covered, but I did not say that an acre should be allocated to each House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I want to do. I will give an example from my own Constituency on the boundaries of the borough of Birmingham, in the suburb of Moseley. There is a great deal of land which in the last few years has been developed for building. A large portion of pleasantly situated land has been developed for building villa houses, each having quite a, small garden attached. In front of these houses there is, belonging to the same owner, more land with a piece of water in it. The residents in these houses first of all wished to acquire that land from the owner in order to keep it as an open space for the benefit of the houses surrounding and abutting on it. They did not wish to be selfish, and they were willing that the occupiers of houses in the neighbourhood should have keys. The owner of the land would not give a 99 years' lease or sell the freehold, but he gave, I think, a 21 years' lease. The water was laid out as an ornamental sheet of water and the place was treated as a park. I was invited to speak there, and I remember dwelling on the advantage it was to Birmingham to have the amenities of its suburbs increased in this way. The tendency of many of our great towns is to lose their amenities for residence, and with the development of transit facilities those who can afford it go farther afield. Having returned home they do not care to take a second journey into the town to participate

  569
  in its public life. I think it is a great advantage to cities to have such suburbs as Edgbaston and Moseley, which we have in Birmingham, where people can find such amenities as they want in a situation that makes it practicable for them to give their services to the public work of the town, on its corporation and its other public bodies. If a man has to take a half-hour's railway journey to get to his home he will not take another journey to come back to a meeting. Therefore by going far afield half his usefulness to the town is lost; and for that reason it is a great advantage to the town to keep him there. That is the kind of argument with which I attempted to support the proposition that a piece of land like this, though
  it was not, as in the case of the dedication of a public park, open to everyone, yet by increasing the amenities of residence did a real service to the town. I think that that claim was recognised by the Attorney-General as not unreasonable. It is very hard if, say, ten of those people were for a position to rent five acres that that land would be franked, but because 100 or more join in common, therefore they are to lose the benefit of the exemption. On that ground I support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division in seeking to reject the words which it is now sought to introduce.
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 60.

  Division No. 827.]

  AYES.

  [10.10 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guiland, John W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rosendale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale).

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Rees, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Robinson, S.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Keating, M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Verney, F. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Clough, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Vivian, Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lynch, H. B.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Maclean, Donald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cowan, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Whitbread, S. Howard

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

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Falconer, J.

  Massie, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morse, L. L.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Grady, J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  NOES.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Renwick and Mr. Cave.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON Mr. J. M. HENDERSON moved to add, at the end of Sub-section (4), the words, "Where any land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid thereafter becomes subject to payment of Increment Value Duty the Commissioners shall allow the amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty so paid to be deducted from the amount claimed for Increment Value Duty."
  The object of this Amendment is to bring into line with this Undeveloped Land Tax the provisions with regard to the Reversion Duty. All these three taxes—the Undeveloped Land Tax, the Reversion Duty, and the Increment Duty—bang together to a certain degree; and where you have made provision for the Reversion Duty to be deducted from the increment in certain cases, I think that the Government would do well to accept this Amendment, so that when the land becomes developed and the Increment Duty becomes payable upon it, the Commissioners should be allowed to deduct the tax which the owner has paid in the meantime. It is well known that I am not a great admirer of this Undeveloped Land Tax at all. I spoke against it on second reading, and I gave there certain arguments against the tax, not one of which has been replied to—not successfully, at all events. With all the desire, and it is a very sincere desire, to fall into line with the Government on this particular tax, I have not been able to do so. I cited the condemnation that John Stuart Mill made of this kind of tax. Nobody answered John Stuart Mill on that. The Attorney-General brushed me aside, and said that this was not the tax he meant; but he did not tell us what tax he did mean. John Stuart Mill's condemna-
  572
  tion was of a peculiar tax on realised property, such as land, public funds, mortgages, stocks, and shares. Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and said, "I am going to put a halfpenny capital tax on Consols," would not that have been a tax John Stuart Mill condemned? I do not think it was very nice of him to make it appear that I was rather misleading the House. I was not misleading the House, because that was really what was meant. Whether John Stuart Mill may have been right or may have been wrong, most certainly he condemned this tax. The point I wish to raise is that this is a double tax taken in connection with the Increment Tax. I entirely approve of the Increment Tax. It is a good tax, and it is a tax worth having, but the Undeveloped Land Tax is not a tax worth having at all, as I shall be able to show you in a very short time. What was John Stuart Mill's condition precedent to the Increment Tax, and he was the first to propose that tax? The condition precedent was this, and I will read his words:
  "The present market price of their land should be secured to them, held sacred from any peculiar taxation"
  That is exactly what the Prime Minister said at Bletchley.
  "We do not go back on the past."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said that the past increment does not count, and even to-day my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said that the past does not concern us. The meaning of that, if it has any meaning at all, is that when the value of a man's land is taken at the datum time, say, at a thousand pounds,

  573
  the Prime Minister says that we do not go back on the past, on that thousand pounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that "we do not count the increment up to the thousand pounds, that is secured to you." How can you go back on that thousand pounds, how is it possible to go back on it but by taxation? Suppose you do wish to go back on it you can only do so by taxation. While they say they do not, straightway they go to the past and tax it. I hope I have made that clear. If you are going back on the past, for goodness' sake say so; but do not say that you are not, and go. What is supposed to be the object of the tax? That you will compel or prevail upon a man to develop his land. Take the case of a man whose land is worth £1,000. You say to him: "Your land is worth £1,000. You may do one of two things—either sell or build upon it now, or wait until there is a fuller market." If he takes you at your word and builds upon it now, away goes both your Undeveloped Land Tax and your Increment Value Tax. If he holds it up, from that moment you, the State, becomes a one-fifth partner in the land—a partner who takes only profit and no loss. But why do you say to your partner, "During the time you are maturing a profit for me you shall pay this tax?" Is that right? It does not commend itself to me as at all right. Objecting to the tax one might naturally approve of the exceptions and exemptions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. He has made a great many; he has so cut the tax down that I challenge anyone on the Front Bench to produce figures showing that the proceeds can for the next three years, at all events, exceed £60,000 a year. He has exempted the whole of agricultural land, all small houses, all land belonging to local authorities, and, what he ought not to have exempted, all land on which the owner has built roads. That means that the Government are actually going to exclude the ripe land, and that all they are going to tax is the unripe land. As to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I would like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Harper, a well-known official of the London County Council. Mr. Harper is entirely in favour of this taxation. He entirely disclaims any intention of rating land only ripening for building. He says that until land becomes ripe for building it would inflict hardship to assess it upon any greater value than the annual revenue. He was one of the best witnesses
  574
  before the Commission. He goes on further to say that "any charge upon the assessment could only fall by anticipation upon the same revenue, which would thus be taxed twice over." I would like the Attorney-General to answer that. It is a thing perhaps not easy to follow, but as a matter of fact that is exactly what you do if you do not accept the Amendment that I have put down. You may say to the owners of the land, "You may keep it; if it improves I claim a fifth." As I said before, I do not care if you claim a fourth. Make your claim what you choose. It will give you more money than by your present methods. But when you say, "I am going to take a share of the increment," I say you are bound to take from that increment the amount of the tax which during that intermediate time you have extracted from the man. There can hardly be any answer to that.
  There is only one other point. There is a popular fallacy, which seems with a great many men in this House to have been elevated to an economic principle, that land which is not immediately built upon is therefore being "held up." My hon. Friend the Secretary admitted that there was land—well known to me—on the South-Western line, which, although it was building land, was not ripe for building. There was an equally large number of fields at Raynes Park where 10 years ago young men by the hundred every Saturday enjoyed cricket. To-day that is built upon, but is not occupied. But if anyone had built upon that estate 10 years ago he would not have got tenants for the houses. The same applies to the fields near Earlsfield. It is a mistake to suppose that because land is ripening that it therefore has ripened! There is a time when it will be ripe. It may be five, 10, or 20 years. You cannot tell. It all depends. I could give an instance of an estate near to where I live. I could show hon. Member a prospectus where the estate is going to be covered in six years and a great profit made. That was 12 years ago. It is not half covered, and £60,000 has been sunk. Do not let us forget that builders, speculative builders, are always optimists. After all, man is a building animal; he always wherever he can puts his money into bricks and mortar, so there is not much danger of the land in the big towns being left unbuilt upon. There is, I admit, holding up of land, but it is not in the large towns. Holding up is done by rich people, who buy estates near small towns and who will not sell. If anyone believes

  575
  that this halfpenny in the £ is a cure for that he is greatly mistaken. What use is it to say to a rich man near a town 70 miles from London, who has sacrificed £300 or £400 capital simply because he does not wish the public to come near him, "You must pay this halfpenny in the £? Axe you going to frighten him by £5 or £10 a year? The only possible cure in such a case is to give the local communities absolute power of purchase, and to force purchase. That is the only way you can cure that evil. A ½d. tax here is absolutely futile The result of all these exemptions must be to reduce the amount of your tax to something that certainly is not worth all the excitement and trouble it is causing in this country. You will remove the last vestige of injustice, or feeling of injustice, if you would only say to a, man when his increment comes to be paid, in the case, say, of land that was worth £1,000 and is now worth £2,000, "We claim 20 per cent., but from that you may deduct the small amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty which you have paid to us."
  Mr. A. CECIL BECK: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: My hon. Friend concluded his speech, which he admitted he was not making altogether for the first time, with the observation that if we accepted this Amendment we should remove the last vestige of injustice. Well, injustice is a phrase that sometimes requires a little explanation, and in this case what my hon. Friend meant was that if we accepted his Amendment we should remove the last remnant of the tax, because he said, and I think with some force, we made so many concessions that he believed—I do not quite know upon what basis—the tax as it now stood was not worth more than £60,000 a year. That does not look like a very gigantic injustice. In fact the hon. Member reproaches us not so much with having imposed the tax, but rather with, the concessions we have made in connection with the tax. He did not appear to have quite made up his mind as to which was the greater sin. The hon. Member made an observation reflecting upon a speech which I made upon a former occasion, and he complained that nobody had answered an argument he adduced from John Stuart Mill. On that occasion my hon. Friend did that which I do not think was quite fair. He read some very strong language from John Stuart Mill, and he said that it ap-
  576
  plied to this tax, I said it did not, and having respectfully contradicted my hon. Friend on that point I looked round hoping my hon. Friend was going to give the context to justify his statement. But Mill referred to a tax very different. What he condemned was an outrageous proposal to collect revenue by a tax on all realised property. By realised property was meant not the property which is engaged in business, or property used by way of capital in industrial or commercial concerns, but land and savings, and there were some fiscal reformers at that time sufficiently bold to suggest that the whole revenue of the country could be raised by that tax. John Stuart Mill pointed out that it would exonerate merchants, manufacturers, and men making large incomes, and would throw the burden of the national expenditure upon thrift. That was the proposal which Mill condemned in strong language.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Will the Attorney-General read the passage?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have already read it to the House. My hon. Friend applied the language which John Stuart Mill had used in reference to that tax on realised property to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and I said that was a wholly unjustifiable way of using a quotation. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have given us an illustration of the tax that Mill condemned, and it certainly was not the Undeveloped Land Duty, which was not thought of in Mill's time. What was the tax which Mill proposed? It was a much stronger tax than any Undeveloped Land Duty, and it was not so much a tax as a policy in relation to land. My hon. Friend also read a further passage from Mill in which he said that you should protect existing values. That is a very fine phrase, and it is something like what we do under the Increment Value Duty. I wish, however, that the hon. Member had gone on to say in relation to what proposal John Stuart Mill was using that language. Although there are now those who seek to detract from the merits of this great economist, I think he was one of the greatest intellects that ever lived, and certainly he was the greatest intellect that ever devoted himself to a systematic study of economic science. His proposal was that you should exempt existing value and take not 20 per cent. but the whole of the increment, and that proposal was in the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which

  577
  Mr. Mill founded in the year 1874. Let me say in justice to Mill that although he proposed to exempt existing values, and suggested taking the whole of the increment, he would not do that without giving the owner the option of selling to the State. I do not seek to bring in John Stuart Mill as an authority on this tax, because his proposals were different. They were in some respects more extreme, and in other respects they were very carefully safeguarded, I do not think he can fairly be appealed to either for or against this tax with any great degree of exactitude.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he makes a very serious charge against me? The language John Stuart Mill used was this:—
  "From the present date or any subsequent time at which the Legislature may think fit to assert the principle. I see no objection to declaring that the future increment in land shall be liable to special taxation."
  That is exactly what this Increment Tax is.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think that controverts anything I have said. It is not that proposal to which John Stuart Mill applied the language of condemnation which the hon. Gentleman attached to this Undeveloped Land Duty. John Stuart Mill said, rightly enough, that it is a fit subject for taxation, but he was in favour of an option of sale, which undoubtedly makes a radical difference. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted rather to an attack upon the tax as a whole than to a justification of his particular Amendment. Speaking of the tax as a whole, it is intended to be a tax on undevelopment. I do not suppose anybody will say it will cure all cases of undevelopment. You may tax drink without curing all the evils of drinking. It is a tax upon land which is being held back. The hon. Gentleman says that if you want to cure undevelopment you must go further. I do not doubt it. He suggests that the municipalities should be given the power of compulsory purchase. Do hon. Members opposite approve of that? If any hon. Member opposite wishes to test the question at any election in the near future he will not find his own party supporting him. He will get the cheers of his opponents.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: In Select Committee on the Scottish Land Values Bill I proposed a Clause to recommend compulsory purchase by municipalities in the
  578
  interests of anyone immediately prepared to develop the land, but I had no support except from my Unionist colleagues and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have no doubt the hon. Member is stating the matter accurately, but I confess I should like to see the exact circumstances.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: You will find the proposal in the Report.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No doubt; and I daresay I shall get an opportunity of looking at the Report as soon as I find time. I do not think, however, the forced purchase of land which is being held back is altogether favoured by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it is, I should like to ask upon what terms the land is to be valued. They are sure to obtain assent from this side of the House if they would only say forced purchase upon a fair valuation. I do not find those in favour of forced purchase on the other side of the House going to that extreme. The hon. Member proposes that when the Increment Value Duty comes to be assessed there should be a deduction from it of whatever has been paid for Undeveloped Land Duty. The effect of that would be that there would be no sort of Undeveloped Land Tax. The owner would know he was merely playing with the State. He has paid his Undeveloped Land Duty, but he knows the time will come when he must sell, and then he will comfortably deduct the whole of it. That is what the hon. Member desires to do, but it is not what we desire to do; and it is scarcely an Amendment which we could accept. He puts forward the argument that the State has made itself in some sort of way a partner with the landlord, because it taxes him. That is a somewhat singular contention. We do not make ourselves partners with dealers in tea, sugar, cocoa, and other things which we taxed. The State simply goes to the trade and puts its hand upon so much profit as it thinks it can tax and applies it to its own purposes. That is not exactly partnership. The State is a very awkward partner. I should not like a partner animated by the principles which animates the State upon a fiscal question. I am afraid I have occupied the attention of the House rather a long time. The Amendment is one which we certainly cannot accept.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had no intention of speaking on this Amendment but for the interesting, contentious,

  579
  and rather discursive speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition, or, rather, he was not so much tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition as to state the views of the Opposition on the subject of compulsory purchase of land for public purposes by public authorities. Let me say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think he entirely misconceives our position. No doubt, speaking generally, we do not like compulsory purchase, but, so far as I know, I may say for all my colleagues that where you can prove a public necessity which cannot otherwise be achieved we are prepared to assent to compulsory purchase. I will not enter into a discussion of the Lands Clauses Act at this stage, but I will make the hon. and learned Gentleman a present of the admission, if he cares to have it, that although in theory it is perfectly fair, in practice it results in frequently giving to the individual, when a public authority is buying from him, more than the fair value. After listening to the observations which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made from this box, I do not think that any views I am now expressing go beyond what he has more than once said in the course of our discussions. Certainly I was brought up under an enterprising municipality, but at the same time a prudent one, and one that desired always to act fairly by those whose interests were affected. I think compulsory powers for public purposes may be used when these purposes cannot otherwise be gained. I agree that under the Lands Clauses Acts an exorbitant price is obtained. I must not be taken to discuss that question now, and I will say it is a very complicated and difficult matter. Certainly if the Attorney-General's challenge extended to the point of saying that we are prepared across the Table to say on what terms we would be prepared to sanction this compuslory purchase, I am not prepared to define those terms better than by saying, fairly. It was because of the introduction of this subject that I described the Attorney-General's speech as rather discursive, and mine has gone round an equally large circle, and now, like the Attorney-General, I come to the immediate Amendment. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) I think quite clearly established his case that
  580
  unless you accept his Amendment you are taxing the same thing twice over. By your Increment Tax you take, as you state, one-fifth of any growing profit that he has realised when the occasion for the collection of Increment Tax comes. In the meantime you are taxing the same subject and the same value in this tax. You are taxing, therefore, the thing twice over. The Attorney-General admits that if you do not tax it twice over you get no money from this tax at all, and although he has not committed himself to figures I think he is as convinced as the hon. Member that there is not much money in the tax now under any circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen dwelt upon a great many important exceptions that had been made by the Government, but he omitted what I think is the most important of all, for, after all, this tax has ceased to be a fiscal measure in the least. £60,000 a year is not a sum a Government really cares about in order to pay for "Dreadnoughts" or provide old age pensions. It is imposed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in order that you may tax undevelopment, and in that you penalise undevelopment in the sense that you put a burden upon the man who does not develop the land, because he does not develop it in the hope that you will force him to develop. Just consider the exception which the hon. Member for Aberdeen did not make in that case—the exception which allows that all land shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty, which is let on agreement for not less than five years to sportsmen. If a man has made up his mind not to develop his land for five years, and is willing to wait, he can hang it up for that period by making that agreement with a cricket or hockey or any other club, and he is exempt from duty. No man who really wants to hold up land need pay Undeveloped Land Duty. The only man who will have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty is the man who finds his land not absolutely ripe for building, but hopes it will be ripe at the end of next year or the beginning of the year after. When you have done that not only have you destroyed the fiscal object of the tax, but also the penal or social object, which is now the sole reason for the existence of the tax.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the "Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 163.

  Division No. 828.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Gordon, J.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Beck.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guiland, John W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brace, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Brigg, John

  Hodge, John

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Bright, J. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robinson, S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seely, Colonel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cowan, W. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, F. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Mickling, Major G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gibson, J. P.

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Glover, Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Grove, Archibald

  Myer, Horatio

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  582

  583

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

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

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "a" ["held under a tenancy originally created"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an agricultural."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. J. FALCONER: I should like to ask what is the effect of this alteration? It has been brought to my notice that there is a considerable amount of land which, prior to 30th April, 1909, has been let on lease which might fall within the definition of agricultural land, because that under the Definition Clause includes a great deal which is not regarded as agricultural land—woodland and such like—but which is not let on agricultural tenancy. Supposing the words "an agricultural" were included as now proposed the result would be that the owner of such land as I have described, who has let it on lease long before this Bill was introduced, and where there might still be some years of the lease to run, would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of land which he was unable, by reason of the lease, to develop. I do not understand that that is the object of the Government at all. I understand that the purpose of the Government is not to levy Undeveloped Land Duty upon land which the owner could not develop by reason of a lease entered into prior to 30th April. I am aware that in the Valuation Clause there is express provision made that in valuing land for the purposes of the duty the valuator is to take into account covenants in leases. That leads me to assume that I am right in what I regard as the intention of the Government. The point I desire to get information on is this: A valuator valuing such land would take the capital value of the land; and if there were three or four years of lease still to run he would make some small allowance with respect of the period of the lease still to run, and the owner of the land would be compelled to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty upon the whole value of the land, less that slight deduction for postponement. It does seem to me that there is really here a case where an owner having land which by reason of a lease he could not develop will have to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty according to the value of the Crown. It might be considerably more than the rental he was getting for the whole of the land. I would
  584
  therefore like the opinion of the Government as to the effect of the words introduced. If the word "agricultural" is not introduced with regard to the tenancy a great part of the evil would be obviated; but if you do introduce the word "agricultural" all the land held under agricultural tenancies will be exposed, subject only to the question of the five acres.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We thought that we had completely covered the case referred to by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer). The object of this Clause was to stop the levying of Undeveloped Land Duty on land in the neighbourhood of towns which the landlord could not develop even if he wished. Subsequently we got a series of drafting Amendments which provided, in a different form from the Amendment which we accepted from the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), that where the landlord has power to break the lease if he has not exercised that power he shall not enjoy the exemption. That, I understand, the hon. Member does not object to. But the hon. Member thinks that there may be leases of woodlands with similar conditions as agricultural lands which may not be strict agricultural tenancies in the strict description of the meaning. In that case we are quite prepared to leave the Clause as it stood, and to omit the word "agricultural" before "tenancy."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Subsection (5) to omit from the word "thereunder" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "Provided that where the landlord has power to determine the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land, the tenancy of the land or that part of the land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this provision to continue after the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which it is possible to determine the tenancy under that power."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This is a case where it is clear that the charge would be increased, because in the Bill as it stands the provision for the exemptions is applicable until the tenancy can be discontinued. But when we come to look

  585
  at the new words which the Government propose to substitute there is the express provision that the exemption is to expire at the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which the tenancy could be made to expire by the landlord. When I recall the Debate on this point in Committee, it certainly does seem to me hard that now, on the Report stage, the Government should tighten up the Clause and make it as inelastic and as onerous upon the taxpayers as possible, because there could not possibly be anything severer than that which it is now proposed to introduce—that at the earliest possible date at which the tenancy could forcibly be put an end to it is supposed to be terminated for the purpose of this exemption. It is for that reason I think the words very objectionable.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As to the increase of charge, we are doing nothing of the kind. If we are doing anything we are making it clear that part of the land shall be treated separately from the whole of the land. As the Clause stands it is exceedingly probable that if only part of the land could be taken out, and therefore be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty, then the whole of the land would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty. We are making it clear that that shall not be the case.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. FALCONER: As the concession made by the Government in regard to agricultural land practically meets my point, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Mineral Rights Duty and Provisions as to Minerals.)
  (1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid for the current and every subsequent financial year on the rental value of all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty (in this Act referred to as a Mineral Eights Duty) at the rate in each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental value.
  (2) The rental value shall be taken to be—

  (a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of that right; and

  (b) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof, the amount which is determined by the Commis-
  586
  sioners to be the sum which would have been received as rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the right to work the minerals had been leased to a working lessee for a term and at a rent and on conditions customary in the district, and the minerals had been worked to the same extent and in the same manner as they have been worked by the proprietor in that year. Provided that the Commissioners shall cause a copy of their valuation of such rent to be served on the owner of the land; and

  (c) In the case of a mineral wayleave, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of the wayleave.

  (3) Every proprietor of any minerals and every person to whom any rent is paid in respect of any right to work minerals or of any mineral wayleave shall, upon notice being given to him by the Commissioners requiring him to give particulars as to the amount received by him in respect of the right or wayleave, as the case may be, and where the proprietor is working the minerals, in respect of the minerals worked, make a return in the form required by the notice, and within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the notice, and in default shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds to be recovered in the High Court.
  (4) Mineral Rights Duty shall be assessed by the Commissioners and shall be payable at any time after the first day of January in the year for which the duty is charged, and any such duty for the time being unpaid shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from the proprietor of the minerals, where the proprietor is working the minerals, and in any other case from the immediate lessor of the working lessee. As between the immediate lessor and the working lessee, the duty shall be borne by the immediate lessor, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, whether made before or after the passing of this Act.
  (5) Mineral Rights Duty shall not be charged in respect of common brick clay, common brick earth, or sand, chalk, limestone, or gravel.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "rights" ["of all rights to work minerals"], to insert the words "under a mining lease."
  This really has the effect of limiting the Mineral Rights Duty to the class of people about whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others always talked when

  587
  they were referring to this tax. They desired to lay it not upon those who were taking the risks necessary for a colliery business, but on those who receive their rents without contributing anything to the rates of the district or in any way risking their money. The consequence of this will be, of course, that it will be necessary to omit paragraph (b), referring to the minerals which are worked by the proprietor. I dare say the House will recollect that on the general discussion we had some very valuable speeches from political economists on the other side, in which they said it was quite unnecessary to modify this, because under no consideration could such a burden be laid upon the proprietor working his own coal make any difference to the price at which it was sold; that it was entirely a burden on rent, which is a separate part of his profits, and that this could not possibly have anything to do with his business. After all the speeches we had on that occasion, when we afterwards came to discuss other minerals than coal, minerals such as chalk and lime and others, immediately the Members opposite at once alleged that this very same burden was of such importance and such decrement to the industry concerned that it was necessary to exclude it. That proposition was accepted by the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members. An especially valuable admission was made by a Member from Essex (Mr. Whitehead), who, at that time sat behind the Government, in a speech in which he defended the attitude of the Government. He said that one particular reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not inconsistent with what he had said earlier that afternoon was that in the districts in which chalk was most used
  "three-fourths of the output of the chalk quarries used in the manufacture of cement are owned by the manufacturers themselves….and would necessarily fall upon them as manufacturers."
  That was just the argument we had tried to put forward in connection with coal. It comes with much heavier weight from coal than from any of the minerals excluded. We were challenged in the House by another hon. Member as to whether there were any cases of owners working their own coal. At once that challenge was taken up in the House, and would be largely taken up in the country. It is not only the people who work the coal as coal sellers who are affected by the much larger class of people who work it as
  588
  auxiliary to other industries, such as iron and steel. Manufacturers of iron and steel obtain those minerals for the purpose of working them, and in that way the imposition of this tax does necessarily act upon the industry with which they are connected.
  It is impossible for them to take the attitude of political economists when they have admitted the exemption in connection with the other minerals. Therefore, I feel we have strong reason for putting this case again on the Government. In fulfilling the pledge to which I alluded, namely, that they do not intend by this Mineral Rights Duty to put any extra burden whatsoever on those who risked their capital, and because it has been already sufficiently burdened by other legislation, the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation, I venture to put forward this again, and to press it most earnestly on the attention of those in charge of the Bill, because, undoubtedly, if this exemption is not made on the same lines as has been given to the cheaper minerals, great injustice will be done. The tax will fall upon several of our most important industries and on industries which have at the present time a very small margin of profit. I do think we have established a new case by the very arguments used as to the other minerals, and I therefore ask the kindly consideration of the Government for this Amendment.
  Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATE: I beg to second the Amendment. In Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to accept an Amendment of mine in regard to cheaper minerals, and, as one living in a county where many owners have developed their minerals, I earnestly appeal to him not to put this tax on owners who have been public-spirited enough to risk a lot of money in developing minerals in different parts of the country. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Mr. Markham) say, in a former Debate, that comparatively few owners of land work their own minerals. In the two counties with which I am familiar—Derbyshire and Warwickshire—I know several cases where they do so. In the neighbourhood in which I live, Sir Alfred Hickman, a former Member of this House, a large proprietor of minerals and a great ironmaster, has laid out large sums of money, first of all in searching for minerals, and then in developing them,

  589
  with the result that a large population has sprung up; houses have been erected at his expense, and the neighbourhood has greatly developed. It is absolutely unfair that people who risk their money in doing these services to the community should be taxed in the way proposed. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he does not wish to put a tax on industry, but he will certainly be doing so if he retains the tax as it stands. It is an entirely different thing to tax proprietors who work their own minerals and have laid out their own money, from taxing people who have not invested a single penny in sinking collieries or developing the minerals; therefore, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: In referring to these taxes on minerals the Chancellor of the Exchequer has all along argued that the infliction on industry and on the iron and steel manufactures of the country would be very slight. His argument was that where there is a heavy royalty, his little tax will be of so small importance that it will not be felt, and that he might very well get 6d. where somebody else is getting 10s. But he has never argued those cases where there is no royalty, where the royalty is part of the manufacture, where there is an actual proprietary right in the minerals, the minerals being worked for the sake, not of the royalty, not even of the mineowner, but of the manufacture which follows on, and is part of the same concern. Even though he thinks it right to take a small portion out of the heavy sum paid to the royalty owner, surely in a case of this kind, where there is no royalty owner, and the tax must of necessity be a tax on the industry, he must agree that the relief sought by this Amendment should be granted. So far as that argument goes the tax would fall on the industry. It was admitted in the case of clay and limestone and those inferior minerals, which are really of comparatively small importance, that it was a benefit to remove the tax from that industry—not from the royalty owner. He had no thought for the royalty owner. It was for the industry. And the great supporter of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), in his speech, said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the worst of the argument in his encounter with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law).
  590
  The hon. Member for Mansfield stated that the argument of the Chancellor was all bad, and that the observations of the hon. Member for Dulwich were right. He did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his argument as to the incidence of the tax on clay and limestone. He said that if these taxes fall on the clay and sand industry, they must equally fall on the coal industry. What applies to coal applies with greatly increased force to iron ore, where the taxes are four, five, or more times as much a ton to what they are on coal, where the nature of the industry is much more uncertain, and where there is no certainty that a man will get a good result from his mine. It is therefore more desirable in those cases that the man who is getting the coal should be not only the proprietor of the mine, but the owner of the minerals themselves, and have no royalty to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must see that the burden which comes on the industry in these cases, at any rate, suggests an equally strong case for its relief in respect of the mines owned and worked by manufacturers, as there was a case for those claypits or limestone quarries or any of those other articles which are absolutely necessary to trade and commerce, as distinguished from those being worked from the royalty-owing point of view, and merely for the profit of the royalty owner. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will recognise that this point was very fully debated in Committee. He has used the same arguments as he used before, even to the point of submitting that the concessions that have been extended to chalk should be extended to the owner of a coal mine. It is true of every concession that it must necessarily be a departure from strict principle. But if a concession is used as a means of extending further concessions it loses its merit.
  Sir J. RANDLES: I do not see that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is then not a concession, but an abandonment of the general principle. You may lay down a general principle and find it desirable in some small cases to make a concession here and there in order to smooth the way. Especially so where it does not produce a large revenue, and probably gives a great deal of irritation. But the concession

  591
  should not be extended in such a way as to completely destroy the tax! What are the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment? He said, "It is not fair that you should charge a man who is working his own minerals." We are taxing the landlord's interest in the minerals. If a landlord expends money on developing the property, like a colliery proprietor, we are not charging him at all in respect of the return he may legitimately expect upon what he expends purely as a colliery proprietor; we only charge him upon his mineral rights. I do not see how we could draw a distinction between the landlord who develops the property himself and the one who leases it. That may be a distinction between a rich and a poor landlord. The poor landlord may not be able to develop it himself and hands it over to a company, but if a man is rich enough to develop it himself he is to be let off all mineral rights. I do not think it would be possible to defend that, and therefore I think we must abide by the decision the House came to in the Committee stage, and refuse to draw a distinction between the two cases. I may point out that in Scotland, where royalties are subject to rates, no distinction is drawn between the landlord who leases and the landlord who works the mine, and if there is no distinction drawn in that case, and the landlords do not seem to complain of it there, I do not see why a distinction should be drawn when it is a matter of Imperial taxation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It cannot be pointed out too clearly that the word lease, as used in connection with minerals, is a confusion in terms. What is called a mineral lease is not a lease at all, and it is out of that point that the present difficulty arises. A mineral lease is really a sale of the minerals to the person to whom the lease is supposed to be granted, and the royalties paid are the prices of taking the article away. It leads to great confusion to call these transactions leases, and it is out of that the present difficulty arises between the proprietor who is working his own coal and the ordinary man who is working the coal purchased from somebody else. If the colliery company has bought the coal out and out the price is paid for that in advance, but if they take an ordinary mining lease the price of the minerals is spread over a number of years. The transaction is the same, namely, the purchase of so much minerals paid for
  592
  either in lump sum or in instalments, as the case may be. This Amendment illustrates the extreme difficulty of the tax itself.
  I should not be in order in discussing the principle of the tax at this stage, but I wish to point out that the consumer of minerals raised in this country must undoubtedly pay any tax of this kind cast upon this industry in any shape or form. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has several times pointed out, that with regard to existing leases the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a very careful provision that this particular tax is to fall upon the landlord to whom the royalties are being paid, but with regard to all future transactions, and where the proprietor is working the mills himself, exactly the opposite case arises. Surely when you come to consider that the iron and coal industries of this country win be affected by this Clause, it will be recognised that these are industries where a few pence per ton makes all the difference between getting the contract either between one establishment and another in this country, or between this and other countries. When these businesses are at the present moment in such an exceedingly difficult and precarious position, I should have thought this would have been the very last moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have insisted upon a proprietor's lease being treated in this way by casting the burden upon the actual cost of getting the material and turning it into money. I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are going to follow him into the Lobby would only pause for a moment and consider what they are doing with reference to the coal and iron industries, they would entirely change their attitude, and something would be done to meet the few cases which have been selected.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to repeat the observations which I made on a previous occasion on this subject when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement of the new form of this tax. I desire, however, to point out to the Government and to the House that the proposal, or rather that part which is challenged by this Amendment, is wholly inconsistent with the justification which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his Budget speech for the establishment of this tax. His justification, in that as in many other instances, is not an argument, but an illustration of the way this Bill is being proceeded with. We are told that without any expenditure on the part of the

  593
  owner very large mineral revenues were being derived. That is what we want to get at, and that is a proper thing to tax. That, however, is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting at in that portion of the tax which is challenged by this Amendment. What he is getting at here is not the man who has done nothing, but the man who has done everything. He is the man who has risked his capital, and he is the very man whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer held up as a model, to be encouraged in contra-distinction to the idle, or it may mean the poor man who has not money enough to develop his own property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has completely changed the tax, and he has put it in a form which is irreconcilable with the arguments he adduced for the tax in its original shape. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have made some observations in my absence in regard to the Opposition raising this point again on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I simply gave that as a reason for shortening my observations.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard as much
  of the discussion as I have he would have known it has been conducted with rather remarkable brevity. The longest speeches certainly have not come from this side of the House, and the number of points we have selected for discussion are very few. We might have challenged each Clause, but we have not. We have accepted the decision of the House that these taxes are to be enforced—it has not been usual, and I do not know whether we ought to do such a thing—and we have devoted ourselves merely to points of detail which were either insufficiently discussed, held over for further consideration, or not satisfactorily met in the Committee stage. I desire to emphasise the absolute contradiction in the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day on the proposals we are now discussing, and the attitude he assumed on the proposals made in his Budget speech I do not know exactly how many months ago.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 829.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

  Gretton, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haddock, George B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Newdegate.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Agnew, George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Falconer, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Guiland, John W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brace, William

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester,)

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Massie, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hazleton, Richard

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

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

  Toulmin, George

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Vivian, Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pollard, Dr.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George Norfolk

  Keating, Matthew

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lambert, George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W. R., Ripon)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

  Seely, Colonel

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved at the end of paragraph (c) Sub-section (2) to insert the words. "Provided that if in any special case it is shown to the Commissioners that the rent paid by a working lessee exceeds the rent customary in the district, and partly represents a return for expenditure on the part of any proprietor of the minerals which would ordinarily have been borne by the lessee, the Commissioners shall substitute as the rental value of the right to work the minerals or the mineral wayleaves, as the case may be, such rent as the Commissioners determine would have been the rent customary in the district if the expenditure had been borne by the lessee."
  Mr. FALCONER: This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the same matter with which the next Amendment standing in my name deals [to insert, "(d) In ascertaining the rental value for the purposes of this section, there shall be allowed to the proprietor a deduction therefrom of such sum as shall represent interest for the year at the rate of five per cent. on all expenditure made by the proprietor or his predecessors in title or by companies, the ordinary stock of which belongs wholly or mainly to him or them, for the purpose of developing the said minerals on boring, sinking shafts, and equipping pits or collieries, or in constructing and equipping railways or docks
  596
  in connection therewith."] It is quite inconceivable that both the proposal which is brought forward by the Government and the Amendment which I have suggested should be inserted in the Bill, because they both deal with the same subject. I am not quite sure, however, whether I should raise the question upon the Government Amendment now, and if I were to allow it to pass now it would be very stupid of me to ask them to take my alternative as well as theirs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's proper course is to object now and to take exception to and criticise the Amendment before the House. If he succeeded and defeated the Government Amendment then he might have an opportunity of proposing his own.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. FALCONER: I am not sanguine of being able to defeat the Government, but I am not without hope of being able to persuade them to modify their Clause, and I venture to say so, because the one feature which more than another I have admired in the Government and in the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the few matters which I have ventured to bring up has been the readiness with which they have listened to representations made when the object has been to make the tax more equitable in its bearings. It is with that feeling, and with no desire to militate against the general principle of the

  597
  tax, that I have put down this Amendment. There is no tax either in this Bill or any other Bill which seems to me to be one more to be commended than a tax which is placed upon the owner of land under which there are minerals, which he himself does nothing to develop, but which he leases out to somebody else, who incurs all the expenditure and all the risk in connection with the development, the owner really receiving a royalty. That seems to me to be an ideal subject on which to raise taxation for the necessities of the country. With that proposition I always agreed, and I still agree. The point of my Amendment and that of the Amendment of the Government is an entirely different one. There you are dealing with a case where the owner of the land has himself made the expenditure and taken all the risk, and contributed all the energy upon which the success of the enterprise has depended, and, if I might give an illustration of a very important undertaking in Scotland, it will explain my argument a great deal better than I can state it in general terms. It is the case of a property in Fife, which belonged to the late Mr. Erskine Wemyss, under which there was a very large area of third-class coal which was incapable of being developed at a profit. It was coal of comparatively low thermal value, and did not fetch a very high price, and it could not afford the railway rate necessary to take it to the nearest port, 15 miles away, and at the time there was no market to be found for coal of that class in this country in any very large quantity. Mr. Wemyss built a dock on his estate and a railway at a cost of £250,000, and he expended in the sinking of pits and otherwise, roughly, £1,000,000, and he built up a business under which he exported about 2,000,000 tons of coal a year. He has thus provided employment for somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. He has built houses which are a model for everyone, and he spent money in tramways for carrying the people to and fro. The rates paid in respect of the enterprise amount to something like £8,000 or £9,000 a year. I do not know of any instance so much to be commended from the point of view of anyone interested in the development of the country. It is a real romance of enterprise which has not been equalled in Scotland in my time, and I commend it as a case which is worthy of every possible encouragement.
  598
  Mr. Wemyss had, of course, to raise all the money. He formed an owning company, of which he held the whole of the ordinary capital and took all the risk. He also formed a working company, of which, again, he held the whole of the ordinary capital and took all the risk, and he held them as a means of giving security to those from whom he borrowed the money to assist him in his enterprise. The royalty which is paid by the working company to the owning company and by another tenant in another part of the field amounts to about £60,000 a year, and the Mineral Bights Duty would amount to about £3,000 a year. If you allow interest on the expenditure which Mr. Wemyss made in connection with that development at 5 per cent. there is £50,000 of the £60,000 already gone in interest. Therefore the £3,000 duty is altogether out of balance, whatever it is, between the interest and expenditure and the amount of the royalty, say, £10,000.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: May I ask what the tenants pay as rent for these houses?
  Mr. FALCONER: I was coming to the question of what Mr. Wemyss got for the houses in rent. I am not pretending that what was done was solely for the sake of philanthropy. He did his work in a manner which was intended to provide the best accommodation for the people, and I think he gets credit for that in the country around. He probably also got feuing value for his land. He was carrying out an industrial enterprise in the best possible spirit, and, no doubt, with a desire to get as good a return as he could. Bents are got for the houses, and I dare say feu duties are paid for some parts of the property which is feued to other people. I do not wish to suggest that he did not get the benefits incidentally accruing from his property, and, if alive, he would be the last to show any desire to shirk paying a fair share of this duty. He would not have thanked me or anyone else for suggesting that be would not have been willing to pay. What the Government propose to do in dealing with this situation is to charge duty upon the royalty which can be got in the neighbourhood. That I am bound to say, looked upon at the first blush, is a very fair way of meeting the case. I do not deny it. On the other hand, it is really not so, because, in the situation I have described, if it had not been for the enterprise and the risk taken by Mr. Wemyss

  599
  with his own money and the money which he borrowed from others, there would not have been any development of that field at all. I do not say that there were no workings in the neighbourhood which his ancestors worked to a certain extent, but it was impossible to have any development of that coal field, and to have that dock accommodation provided, without the large expenditure which he made. At present the proprietor is sinking another pit, with the view to a further development of the field. I think it is a much fairer way to allow interest on the money he has borrowed to be deducted from the amount of the royalties upon which duties are to be paid.
  I do not wish to press the Government in any way as to the figures which I have given. It is the principle that I wish to establish. They can safeguard themselves so that the Commissioners can check and disallow to any extent. For instance, one of the docks that Mr. Wemyss built was sold to a railway company, and allowance must be made for that. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will quite understand that I am not seeking to commit the Government with regard to expenditure without their having the fullest opportunity of satisfying themselves that this is expenditure made for the development of this great property which ought to be allowed. I do not think that the owner in a case like that should lose the benefit from the mere fact that for the convenience of raising the money from his friends and those who joined with him he formed two companies. He took the whole of the risk himself, and this arrangement was simply to enable him to give the form of security that best suited him. Therefore in my Amendment I suggest that these two companies should be dealt with as if he were the owner himself. Further, it should be remembered that this is in Scotland, where the owner of royalties pays his contribution to local rates, which is not the case in England; and while half of the Land Duty is to go to the local authorities in relief of the local rates, as a matter of fact the contribution to the rates from these royalties is being already made in Scotland, and I think that in Scotland, in circumstances such as I have mentioned, there is a very strong case for a provision which would reduce the duty payable by an owner who develops his property by the extent to which he contributes to the rates already, so that he should not be paying twice over.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I promised my hon. Friend yesterday that I would give full consideration to the facts which he has now stated fully to the House of Commons. I think he will admit that I have really gone into the whole of the facts with very great care. The Amendment put on the Paper in my name fully and adequately meets the case which he has presented. I recognised its merits and promised to meet it. If my hon. Friend had been able to point out in what respect I fail in this Amendment to meet that case I think it would have been useful to reconsider the point which he has pressed on the consideration of the House. Full credit ought to be given in a case of the kind, and I submit that full credit is being given in the Amendment on the Paper, and that in a much more effective and business-like way than by an arrangement which would involve an investigation by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the complicated business of two or three companies. I am perfectly certain that the House, although the hon. Member stated his case with admirable lucidity, found some difficulty in following the whole involution of the transaction, because it is a very complicated financial arrangement. I know how difficult it was to follow it when I had all the documents. Instead of going into a complicated business we have taken this very simple method. We take the case of the whole expenditure incurred by the lessee, and we simply charge the lessor on what he has got as lessor, if somebody else has spent the whole of the money. I do not know how my hon. Friend thinks he is helping his case by referring to the local rates. Take his case of the local rates. I am perfectly certain that no allowance of the kind is made in that case, and probably the landlord is charged on the whole of his interest there. I think we have recently met the case fully and fairly in the best and most business-like way.
  Mr. GROVE Mr. GROVE moved, at the end of paragraph (c), to add the words: "Where it is shown that the rental value in any case represents a return for money expended within thirty years by a lessor in boring or otherwise proving the minerals the rental value shall be reduced for the purposes of the collection of duty by the amount which represents the expenditure."
  Hon. Members are aware that in many mining transactions three parties are concerned—the landlord, the discoverer of the minerals, and the working lessee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that he wishes to get rather at the landlord, who does nothing, than at the industrial and commercial man, who puts money, enterprise, and brains into the undertaking. As the Bill stands the landlord has to pay—I do not complain—his fifth of unearned increment, the working lessee has to pay no increment duty at all, and the discoverer of the minerals is put on a level with the landlord and has to pay a fifth of his increment. That is not treating the man of brains, who has expended his capital, I think the House will agree with me, in a perfectly fair way. It is not in accordance with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has truthfully and eloquently laid before the country. I think it is probably a lapse on his part, for even Homer nods, and even a great authority in finance nods. If this Amendment were not accepted, I almost hesitate to mention the name, but the authority, not only of John Stuart Mill would be violated, but also of Adam Smith, because both those eminent authorities say that the most expensive form of tax is that which is laid on the initiation of any industry.
  Tax your spade and you at once put the most expensive form of taxation on an industry. To tax the coal would be less expensive. In this case you are not taxing the spade, but you are doing very nearly the same thing—you are taxing the instrument which the discoverer has made use of, the bore. The coal bore is the commencement of the industry of coal, and you are taxing, in the same way as the landlord who does nothing, the man who takes the greatest risk. A company with which I am intimately acquainted took some 6,000 acres in Yorkshire to exploit. They risked £10,000 to put down the coal bore. They bought from the landlord at £20 per foot per acre, and they sold at £25 per foot per acre—a very good deal. What was the actuarial value of the profit they made? £12,500, of which £10,000 was spent on the bore. Yet, as the Bill stands, the unfortunate discoverer of the wealth, which is so useful to this country, would have to pay increment of 20 per cent., not on the £12,500, but on his paltry profit of £2,500. I maintain that is an injustice which has only to be brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be remedied at once. I claim in the interests
  602
  of the coal industry, for after all the discoverer of the coal is the pioneer of the coal industry, that the tax should be on the same basis as our working lessee. If he does not see his way to do that he ought, before he charges any Increment Duty, to deduct the money they have expended in risking the undertaking. With the utmost confidence I appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. SCARES Mr. SCARES seconded the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member has made a persuasive case with regard to Increment Value Duty, which undoubtedly is a duty of a much more serious burden when it comes to be imposed than the Mineral Eights Duty, but he has put his Amendment down in a place where it applies to Mineral Rights Duty. I dare say it would apply also to Increment Value Duty. With regard to the Mineral Rights Duty, I think the House will agree it is desirable that we should keep to the sweet simplicity of our five per cent. With regard to the Increment Value Duty perhaps different considerations do arise where the colliery owner has added to the value of the minerals before they have begun to be worked by boring operations. It is not unfair—or, at all events, it is not inconsistent with the cases we have dealt with in other parts of the Bill—that some allowance should be made when the original capital value comes to be taxed. But for that purpose it would be necessary to move it at a different part of the Bill, namely, in Clause 22. I think, however, we could scarcely allow so long a period as 30 years. Ten years would be sufficient for all practical purposes. It would involve some consequential alterations in a subsequent Government Amendment, which we will suggest when we reach that Amendment. If my hon. Friend is content that the Amendment should be made applicable only to Increment Value Duty, and moved where it would be restricted to that purpose, I think we can meet him.
  Mr. GROVE: Will you say 15 years?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I will say 15 years; there is not much in it. In fact, I do not think there is much in the whole Amendment. Though my hon. Friend is doubtless familiar with such cases, I have not heard of one. The case is an extremely rare one; but though it is very rare in practice, it is somewhat difficult to resist in Debate.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech of the Attorney-General has greatly surprised me. The Amendment is intended to apply to any case in which the owner has himself sunk the borings which have proved the coal, and have led to the development of the coalfield; and the Attorney-General says that he has never heard of such a case. Has he heard of Lord Dudley's collieries?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The boring is not the sinking of the shaft. That is a comparatively small matter.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The boring precedes the sinking of the shaft. There are many cases where an owner sinks shafts, but there are many more cases where the owner sinks borings in order to get somebody else hereafter to sink shafts. But what interested me was to ascertain the reason why the Government treat the expenditure of the owner of a mine in this respect differently from the expenditure of a man who owns other forms of real property. Again and again we have had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no man should pay Increment Value Duty on any value created by his expenditure. I did not understand that that pledge was limited to Increment Value Duty on land, I thought it extended equally to Mineral Increment Duty, and that the same privilege or justice would be accorded to the mineral owner who had created value by his expenditure and enterprise as was given to the owner of land which by expenditure had been rendered fit for building. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Groves) is satisfied to have this limitation imposed in the case of the mineral owner only. For myself, I cannot see any reason why the mineral owner should not have as wide an exemption as an owner of other real property. If a man has reclaimed land and thereby created its value, or if he has made a railway and thereby created a building value, he is to have credit, not for the amount of money he has expended, but for all the value he has created. Why should not a man who has sunk borings or shafts have credit for all the value that he has created? I really cannot see any reason for the distinction that is drawn between the two forms of property.
  Mr. GROVE: I beg to thank the Attorney-General for the very fair way in which he has received this Amendment. I think he has thoroughly met the justice of the case, and I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) to leave out the words "in respect of" ["in respect of the minerals worked"], and to insert instead thereof the words "particulars as to."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. WHITEHEAD Mr. WHITEHEAD moved in Subsection (5) after the word "of" ["in respect of common brick clay"], to insert the words "common clay."
  When this Bill was in Committee an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and I think that nearly every speaker assumed that common clay would be exempted from this tax. As the line in the Sub-section now stands the exemption only applies to what is described as "common brick clay." I think the words "common clay" ought to go in. It was quite clear as a result of the discussion in Committee that clay which is used for the purposes of manufacture was not to be subjected to this duty, because in many cases it is the manufacturer who is the owner of the clayfield and the tax would therefore fall upon the industry. It is suggested that the words of the Sub-section "common brick clay" are sufficient to cover the case. I understood in the Committee stage that the Attorney-General was clearly of opinion that the legal decisions with regard to clay were somewhat ambiguous, and that it was very uncertain as to what extent clay of particular qualities and kinds could be described as minerals, and in consequence it was very desirable to have a definition and an exemption in the Bill. But I think that the difficulty which already exists in the legal test case has been very much increased by this Clause as it stands.
  A clear distinction is drawn in this Sub-section (5) between "common brick clay" and other classes of clay. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that "common brick clay" is a sufficient description to cover what is generally known as "common clay." If so, I very much doubt whether courts of law or judges to whom the duty of interpretation will fall will not be obliged to consider that the insertion of the word "brick" between "common" and "clay" was inserted for an express purpose, and must therefore be given some special meaning to distinguish "common brick clay" from "common clay." I do not know whether that will be so, but it seems to me a very natural method of

  605
  interpretation. Having regard to the existing ambiguity in the text and to the decided cases, I should like, as representing a constituency where cement is largely manufactured, to have that ambiguity cleared up, and to have the Clause made perfectly straightforward, so that the exemption which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to give should be given effectively in plain English terms. I myself do not pretend to have any knowledge of the distinction between "common brick clay" and "common clay," but I have endeavoured to acquire the information at the best source. I find that in the encyclopædias and other books the articles are certainly described as very largely of a chemical and geological character, but the descriptions of these two articles are very different, both in the geological descriptions and in law; and where there is a distinction in geology and in law existing there can be little doubt that those engaged in the business are looking at this tax, not with a great amount of apprehension, perhaps, but with a great amount of caution. They think that the Clause as drafted will not give them the protection that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to them.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think "common clay" is generally known as "brick clay," and has been so spoken of in a commercial sense. However, we have no objection, if there is any ambiguity, to insert "common clay." I think common brick clay covers the ordinary exemption, but if my hon. Friend has been searching the encyclopædias and thinks there is some ambiguity we have no objection to insert the words common clay.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am rather puzzled at this. If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly he moved his Amendment because he wants to relieve from taxation that clay which was not a raw material of bricks, but was a raw material of cement, and the reason he wants the raw material of cement relieved is because he has got cement works in his constituency, and his constituents feel that the cost of their raw material will be increased if this tax is put upon cement clay. Therefore, we have it, at all events, from one important branch of producers that this tax does increase the cost of raw material. There can evidently be no economic distinction between a tax put upon coal or iron on
  606
  the one hand and a tax put upon clay on the other. We have it now from a distinguished Member upon the other side that if this tax is put upon the raw material of cement the people who make cement believe it will be injurious to their industry. I suggest, therefore, he is bound to vote for every Amendment which relieves everything that can be used as raw material. Everything taken out of a mine comes within that category, and, therefore, the only justification the hon. Gentleman has for his Amendment is the absolute destruction of the whole economic basis of the tax as presented by the Government. I hope in the remaining part of our discussion and in his constituency he will explain that the Government are now putting a tax upon raw materials.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved in Subsection (5) after the word "sand" to insert the words "sandstone, marl."
  Whereas in the iron and steel industry sand is largely used, there are many other industries in which they use sandstone and grind it down into sand for the same purpose as sand is used in the iron industry. Therefore I ask the Government to include the word "sandstone" as well as sand. I should also like to plead for marl, because if the cement people are to be exempted may I point out that marl is used for exactly the same purpose as clay.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not agree that sandstone is quite in the same category. Once you make a concession of this sort in one case it is very difficult to show why you should not make a similar concession to something else. The reason for making the previous concession was because the Government desired to give general satisfaction to the House, and it was accepted by both sides of the House.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: It was thought to be excluded at the time.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think so, because this is quite a different thing. The reason why we excluded sand was because it involved a great deal of trouble in collection, and would not produce much. If we agree to leave out granite someone else will say "why not leave out slate?" That would relieve the revenue of a very considerable amount of money. I think, in this matter, we have gone as far as the House wishes us to go. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot go any further.
  Question put, "That those words be I there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. NEWDEGATE (for Mr. Lambton)Mr. NEWDEGATE (for Mr. Lambton)moved in Sub-section (5) after the word "chalk" ["Mineral Rights Duty shall not be charged in respect of common brick clay, common brick earth, or sand, chalk"] to insert the words "stone used for road making, building stone."
  In the absence of my hon. Friend, I move this Amendment, which is to exempt stone used for road making and building stone. When I moved an Amendment to exclude certain minerals from this tax I particularly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would consider the question of road metal and of building stone,
  The House divided: Ayes, 35: Noes 117

  Division No. 830.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

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

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Sir John Randles.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Agnew, George William

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Robinson, S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, Matthew

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Clough, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lupton, Arnold

  Verney, F. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Watt, Henry A.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Falconer, James

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Massie, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Glover, Thomas

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Guiland, John W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

  and he said, in reference to stone, "That is a totally different thing—I shall have to consider it." I hope the right hon. Gentleman has considered it, because I venture to say it is absolutely necessary that we should have the road metal in this country as cheap as we possibly can. In my own county, the county of Warwick, motor-cars are made to a great extent, and we find it is a very great tax on the county to keep those roads in order. We have excellent road metal for the roads and a good deal of this granite belongs to the people who work the quarries. I do strongly urge upon the Chancellor of the

  609
  Exchequer, especially at a time when he talks of developing roads in the country and of giving grants to local authorities for the purpose, not to put this tax on road metal for the making of the roads. Then as regards building stone, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having exempted brick clay, which is used for making houses, will also consider that it is advisable to exempt building stone which is also used for building houses. There are certain parts of the country where brick clay is practically unknown, and where stone is used for building houses instead, and I venture to hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us this concession, and that he will, having given way on the question of brick clay, give way on the question of building stone. I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if bricks are exempted building stone should also be exempted. I beg to move, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look upon this Amendment with a lenient eye.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to second this Amendment, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it, because he said on the other occasion that he exempted other classes of minerals because they would cause a good deal of trouble to the Inland Revenue to collect. I think the collection of a tax on road material will be quite as difficult, because there are certain parts of Ireland where people build their houses of stones which they pick up from the roadsides. Are the Commissioners to go round and ask the peasants who build their houses whether they pay for the right of taking these stones off the road sides? Apparently the person who receives royalty on these occasions is not to give any notice until he is called upon to do so. Are the Commissioners to send round people to all the districts to examine small quarries and search into cases in which royalties have been paid? If so I think the expense and trouble of discovering this information will be much greater than the amount which will be raised. I also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt road material especially, because I feel that it is a very great grievance in the case of counties like that which I represent, which possess no road material, if this product is to be made more expensive by being taxed, and they are to be reduced again to making their roads of chalk and gravel as they have done in the past. Last time this point was raised the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not a tax upon the local
  610
  authorities, but upon the royalties, but he has admitted that a tax on royalties will eventually fall upon the consumer who buys the minerals. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not know why he has given these exemptions except for that reason, and on account of the difficulty of collection. The difficulty of collection will be just as great in the case of road material, and if there is a case of the exemptions granted on the Committee stage there is just as much a case for that which my hon. Friend has proposed.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment taunted the Government with having introduced numerous changes in the Bill. It is rather a curious way of seeking to amend a concession by taunting us with having already made concessions. I confess I shall take to heart the observations made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that the reason why we had made concessions was because they involved considerable trouble to the Inland Revenue. He forgot the second part of the reason—namely, that they would produce but a very small return. In this particular case a considerable amount of revenue would be exempted by the Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) talked as if road material and building stone were a matter of no consequence in this country. As a matter of fact, there are considerable royalties paid in respect of them.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Not in Scotland for road material, because we are entitled to take it for roads for nothing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In that case there is no tax.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Therefore there is no value in the concession.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is obviously no value to Scotland, but Scotland is not the only part of the United Kingdom. In my part of the country there are very valuable quarries, paying very heavy royalties, where a considerable portion of the business consists in the making of road material. It makes no difference at all to the industry whether we tax royalties. It will be no tax upon the industry, but a tax upon the royalty that is being paid. It involves a considerable amount of revenue. With regard to the Irish hillside case, what royalty is payable to anybody in respect of taking an occasional stone from the hillside?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: My point was that the Commissioners will be put to expense and trouble in making inquiries as to whether any royalties are payable.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not think the Commissioners will spend very much time inquiring into the blasting of
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON Mr. J. M. HENDERSON moved in Subsection (5), after the word "limestone," to insert the word "granite."
  I do not expect much encouragement from the Government after what has just happened, but that will not deter me from stating my case. In Aberdeenshire there are 21 quarries, and the rents begin at £5, the highest being £350. The total rents
  612
  stones by natives on the hills of Connemara or anywhere else. I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 831.]

  AYES.

  [1.5 a.m.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Younger, George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Foster, P. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Robinson, S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Seely, Colonel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Shackleton, David James

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, M.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Verney, F. W.

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Walsh, Stephen

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Massie, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Guiland, John W.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, G. H.

  for the biggest Scottish granite district, Aberdeenshire, amount to £1,800. The tax would amount to £90—not the salary of the man who collected it. I do not believe that in the whole of Scotland this tax will yield to the Exchequer £1,000. Of course, the landlords will pay at first, but eventually it will be put on the rent. I know that Tariff Reformers will say,

  613
  "Here is a distressed industry, and it is subject to very great competition. See what this Government are doing. Instead of putting on a tariff to give you a chance, they are actually putting on a duty and handicapping you!" I know perfectly well how to answer that argument, and I know my constituents are level-headed enough to understand it. But I have not the slightest idea how to explain to them why limestone is exempt and granite is not. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain why he excludes brick clay and not granite, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment, but, as a matter of fact, the excuse is that bricks are the material for building houses. Well, granite is the only material with which they build houses in the North. A brick house is no good to anyone north of the Grampians. It would not stand the weather. Very well, why do you exempt limestone, brickclay, common day, and uncommon clay, and put in granite, when so little is to be got out of it? I do not object to a tax on landlords, or anybody else, but I do object to a tax being put upon something which is very difficult to work, which is hampered in its competition, and out of which so very little is got. I am perfectly certain that in Scotland you will not get sufficient revenue to pay for the expense of collecting the tax. I do not expect much from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, if there is any concession for brick, cement, and other articles, let him include granite, and, if he will not include granite, then let him strike out all the rest. If there is a concession to anything, I think it ought to be to granite, having regard to all that we have heard about it, and considering the fact that the number of granite quarry workers—and for them I am most concerned—are just 50 per cent. of what they were in the Scottish quarries in 1906, so great has been the competition.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to second the Amendment. I have got very large granite quarries in my division. They have been hit very hard indeed by foreign competition, and I really think this will be the last straw for the granite industry, and for the Government in places where there are granite quarries. The competition from abroad is so severe that in a large quarry, which is owned or managed by a great supporter of the Government, almost the whole of one winter they had to work short time because of foreign competition, although the men had always been told that competition did not make any difference. The House
  614
  will probably remember that an hon. Member—a great supporter of the Government for one of the constituencies in Cornwall—showed how foreign competition had altogether knocked out the granite kerb trade in this country. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all those hon. Gentlemen who call themselves Free Traders on the other side of the House, are actually going to tax British raw material, and let the foreigner send the manufactured article free to this country. They tell the people that they are Free Traders, and would not for the world tax anything like food or raw material. It is not quite the same in this House. We have seen, quite lately, that they all trooped merrily at the crack of the Government whip—you might almost say like a herd of dumb-driven cattle—to vote for a double tax on the people's food, and here they are going to vote for a new tax on British raw material We have always been told that, whatever you do, you must not tax raw material, and they tell us sometimes that leather is raw material. If leather is raw material, goodness knows granite is, and I should really think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might accept this Amendment from an hon. Gentleman on his own side, especially when it is backed on this side. I do not think you could have a clearer case to exemplify the absurdity of so-called Free Trade than this tax upon granite.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The inference which my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson) drew from my speech on a previous Amendment was quite right, for I cannot see my way to accept his proposal. I must say I do not think he made out very much of a case—in fact, he gave it away. He and his Seconder do not seem to agree about the general principle on which they advocate the Amendment. My hon. Friend admitted that the tax was not a burden on the industry.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He said he proposed it in the interests of the workers.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He said he could give a most effective answer to that argument. I wish he had given that answer instead of making the speech he did, because it would have been a much better contribution to the Debate. Let us take the case of Aberdeen. The whole of the £1,500 or £1,800 will be paid by the granite quarries to the landlord. Five per cent. will be charged on that—not to those who work the quarry, but to the landlord.

  615
  That is not passed on to the industry. The Income Tax on that £1,500 will not be passed on to the industry, it will be taken out of the rent. If a man has a very large income he will have to pay the Super-tax. He will pay 1s. 2d. if the income is under £5,000, and beyond that he will have to pay the extra sixpence. The hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) does not suggest that the 1s. 8d. is to be paid by the quarry proprietors. It is to be paid by the landowners out of the rent. Some hon. Members are constantly talking about the tax on royalties as if it were a tax on those who are cultivating the soil or working a quarry. I have already answered that point three or four times even to-night.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: What I said was that although the landlords may pay the duty now, the quarries are all held on leases, and the moment the leases run out the renewed lease will bear the tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. Friend's political economy is sound only in parts. It is all right when he says that this is not a tax on the industry, but he is all wrong when he makes the statement he has just made. Take, for instance, the charge under Schedule A—a charge which ran up to 1s. 3d. under the late Government. That did not fall upon the tenant by being added to the rent. If that is so, why should the charge of 6d. in respect of mining royalties be added to the rent. The landowners, you may depend upon it, are charging the best rent they can get. If they can get more they will take it. They are taking it in the South Wales collieries even now on the mining leases—not since the Budget was introduced, but during the last few years. Where the landlords have found they could get a larger rent the mere fact of charging a royalty has made no difference whatever, and they have simply charged a rack rent. I say that this charge will not pass on to the industry at all; it will be charged on rent, which in itself is a heavy burden upon industry. The hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) said that the 5 per cent. which will be charged on the Aberdeen quarries amounts to £75.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: £90.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He says that the £90 is going to destroy the trade of the Aberdeen quarry proprietors, and is going to make all the difference in foreign competition, but that the £1,800 rent will
  616
  make no difference at all. The same thing applies to the case raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rowland Hunt). It will make no difference to the man who works the quarry. It will come out of the pockets of the landlord. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to argue the question of political economy with the right hon. Gentleman at this hour. I will say it is ominous that we have two hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the House each pleading on behalf of his constituents that this tax will fall upon the industry. There was the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Whitehead), who urged that argument with regard to cement, and now there is the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), who urges it in regard to granite. I would venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen that the only possible way of getting anything out of the Government is not to make speeches at two o'clock in the morning, but that all those who are suffering under some grievance on that side of the House should support each other in the Lobby. The hon. Member for Essex is not here to vote for granite, and the hon. Member who now pleads for granite was not here to vote for his hon. Friend, who pleaded for cement. There is no difference between the arguments urged by those two hon. Members or the political economy on which those arguments were based. Neither will support the other, but each pleads perfectly plainly for his own constituency. So long as they do so they will plead in vain. That is a suggestion in tactics which I present to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made use of two rather curious arguments in answering this Amendment. He was prepared to hold that the principle of the granite tax was indisputable because it was supported by two different sets of arguments. He forgets the fact, which every logician admits, that although you cannot get a false conclusion from true premises you can get a true conclusion from false premises. I will not suggest which of the premises is false. The right hon. Gentleman argued that it was impossible for the Mineral Rights Duty to be passed on to the lessee because the Income Tax was not passed on to the lessee in a like case. The obvious answer to that is that every Income Tax payer is not treated alike. One quarry owner who gets a small

  617
  income pays a far smaller Income Tax than his neighbour who has a large income, and another man next door, perhaps, has to pay the Super-tax. When you consider the Mineral Eights Duty you are considering a duty which has a quite different foundation because every person who receives a mineral royalty is going to pay the same duty. Therefore, he will be in exactly the same position, and you will get combination between all those who enjoy these royalties. You

  Division No. 832.]

  AYES.

  [1.30 a.m.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Watt, Henry A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Rowland Hunt.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Foster, P. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Robinson, S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Kigham, John Sharp

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Seely, Colonel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Shackleton, David James

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Keating, Matthew

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Verney, F. W.

  Clough, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Falconer, James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Massie, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Guiland, John W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move "That the further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I confess I had hoped that we might have gone further
  cannot have a combination between Income Tax payers to hand on the tax, because they are treated differently, but you will have combination between those who enjoy these royalties, and, therefore, I believe the tax will eventually be transferred to the industry.
  Question put, "That the word 'granite' be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 117.
  to-night, and I believed that the right hon. Gentleman shared that expectation. I cannot, however, possibly complain of the way in which the Opposition have conducted the business, and, therefore, I cannot resist the Motion.
  Ordered: That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Friday).

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This Bill is one which I do not desire to oppose, but I am anxious to have some information upon it. There is a memorandum in the face of the Bill which does give some information, but it is scarcely sufficient. This Bill seeks, by means of a Schedule, to make a very large number of amendments in the Naval Discipline Act, and when we reach it, I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to give us full and detailed information regarding them. In the earlier part of the Bill there is an important phrase. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, there occur the words "naval detention quarters." I desire to know whether that is a mere alteration of name or whether these quarters are going to be different as regards size, light and comfort from the existing naval prisons in which offenders are confined. My information regarding the alteration of the words "prisoner" and "detention" in connection with the Army, is that it has been an alteration in name only. Although we can claim that in respect of the alteration in connection with the Army there has been some improvement, it has not to any appreciable degree attained what was promised when the measure passed through Parliament. In regard to the Navy we must remember that the places of detention are not all ashore, and that the places on board ship must at all events be less comfortable than those on land. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give us some promise of considerable improvement in the conditions under which the men suffer punishment.
Mr. HAZLETON Mr. HAZLETON moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I propose this Amendment not as a protest against what is in the Bill but as a protest against what is not in it. The House will generally recognise that the Bill is a very excellent one so far as it goes.
620
My complaint against it is that it does not go far enough. The object of the Bill as set out in the Memorandum is to effect for the Navy an amendment of the law to prevent sailors convicted of offences purely against naval discipline being subjected to the stigma attached to imprisonment, and detention is proposed to be substituted in certain cases where the punishment at present would be imprisonment. I think everybody will agree that that is a step in the right direction. It is a humane and sensible course to take, and for my part I only hope it will be carried into law. The reason I have put down this Motion for the rejection of the Bill is because I want to ask the Government why they have stopped here. Why have they not gone further. The Bill proposes to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1884, and I would like to know why they have not proposed to remove what I consider as the biggest blot in that Act, namely, the provision with regard to flogging. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the case for or against flogging. Flogging was abolished in the Army in the early eighties, thanks very largely to the efforts of Mr. Parnell and the Irish party.
Although the provisions with regard to flogging still remain in the Naval Discipline Act, it has been suspended for a considerable number of years. It has been so suspended, not by Act of Parliament, but merely by Admiralty Regulation. There is no security or guarantee whatever that the regulation may not be withdrawn to-morrow by a stroke of the pen. If it has been abolished in the Army I should like to know why the opportunity of this measure has not been taken to abolish it in the Navy as well. Is the Navy more criminal than the Army? Why are the sailors of this Empire to be subjected to a degradation to which the soldiers in the Army are not subjected? I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill what is the justification for the retention of these Clauses in the Naval Discipline Act? Why is flogging retained in it as a legal punishment? Is the liability to flogging to which sailors are subject a good recruiting argument for the Navy? You are building more "Dreadnoughts" at the present time. You will want men to man them, and I do not believe that the fact that you deliberately reserve the right to flog these men will help you to man those ships. I know that so far as my own countrymen are concerned I shall take every opportunity to place before them the facts and the dangers and liabilities

621
they incur by entering the Navy under the present conditions. I am anxious to ascertain the views of the Government on this question. This seems a suitable opportunity for making a very necessary amendment in the law. There would not be any serious opposition to such an amendment in the law if it were proposed.
What is the law on the subject at the present time? Section 52 of the Act provides for imprisonment or corporal punishment. Paragraph (11) of Section 53 provides that: "In any case of corporal punishment not more than 48 lashes shall be inflicted: no officer shall be subject to corporal punishment; no petty or non-commissioned officer shall be subject to corporal punishment, except in case of mutiny." Paragraph (3) of Section 56 provides that: "Except in case of mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the Commanding Officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such Commanding Officer, and his or their opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such Commanding Officer, and the Commanding Officer shall thereupon act as, according to his judgment, may seem right." In conformity with these provisions there is one regulation contained in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which I should like to read to the House. It is Section 752, which says: "By corporal punishment is to be understood the usual punishment at the gangway; it is to be carried out according to the custom of the service, and in the presence of the captain, the officers and the ship's company or so many as can be spared from other duties. Every other description of corporal punishment, by rope, stick, or any other instrument, is hereby forbidden, with the exception of the authorised caning and birching of boys." I have only to say that, in my opinion, the right and proper course for the Government is to take advantage of the measure now before the House in order to repeal the provisions I have mentioned. In bringing forward this Motion I do not intend, of course, to press it to a Division, as I approve of the objects of the Bill otherwise. I merely make this protest.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am very loath indeed to detain the House at this hour, but I think a response to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman is called for. It is necessary that I should say one
622
or two words about the scope of the Bill. It incorporates a very valuable reform, and I am quite sure that with its passage all parties in the House will be glad to associate themselves. We propose to make such verbal amendments in the Naval Discipline Act as will enable us as a rule to set up the punishment of commitment to detention quarters in lieu of commitment to prison in cases of offences purely against naval discipline. We adopt generally the example set by the War Office—already followed by such good results—in setting up Army Detention Barracks in 1906. We have issued a White Paper showing verbal alterations in the Naval Discipline Act, and which are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. Let me take the present system in the Navy. When a sailor commits an offence against naval discipline—for instance, if he is absent without leave or deserts, if he uses insulting language or contempt to a superior officer, if he wilfully disobeys a lawful command, or if he strikes or uses violence to a superior officer—he is committed to a naval prison for a maximum of two years. The theoretical minimum is one day, but in practice it is 21 days. If he is sentenced at Devonport he goes to Bodmin Prison; if sentenced at Portsmouth or Chatham he goes to Portsmouth, if the punishment is 56 days and under, and to Lewes if it is over 56 days. On sentence the man is put into prison rig and taken in the custody of a Metropolitan police officer by train to Bodmin, Portsmouth, or Lewes, as the case may be. Supposing he is coming from Portsmouth to Lewes, he is taken in the train to Brighton, and there taken out, and, whenever I have seen him, he is handcuffed. It may not always be so. Then he is removed by train to Lewes, and taken out handcuffed—at least, the one I saw was. He is taken in a cab to prison, his hair is cut close, and he is confined in a prison cell. The first month he does three hours' shot drill every day, seven hours' oakum picking, and is kept throughout in strict separation, and for the first fourteen days he sleeps without a mattress. If he earns his marks he passes into the second stage after 28 days, and then he does not pick oakum, or do shot drill, but he does about nine hours' industrial work daily, that is, rough sewing work, partly in the cell, and partly in the associated sewing room. He passes in due course, as he earns his marks, on to the third and fourth stages, which do not vary substantially from the

623
second. I am leading up to the changes which we propose, and which are very real ones. Let us go back to the first stage man, with his seven hours' oakum picking and three hours' shot drill. The oakum is picked in the cell, and the work is certainly monotonous and tedious. As to the shot drill, the man does two spells daily, each of 1½ hours' duration. The men do it briskly, and, so far as I could see, without apparent physical discomfort. I tried it myself for a short spell, and I have no doubt whatever that, when a man gets used to it, and his muscles get set to the bending, lifting, and carrying motion, there is no very great strain on a strong man, but it is a useless and stupid task to put a young sailor upon.
The hon. Gentleman asked if we were going to make a mere change in title, and rather suggested that the War Office has done that. Let me tell him that the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport are a very great improvement indeed upon the old prison system. We propose something which is far more than a change in title. We propose, in the cases which I have mentioned, to provide detention quarters at each of the home ports, Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth. The offender will not be a "prisoner," but a "man under detention." He will go to "Detention Quarters," in naval rig, under a naval escort. He will be confined in a separate "room"—not a "cell"—wearing ordinary uniform. He will be under orders of naval petty officers, and the captain of the detention quarters will be a commissioned officer on the active list of the Navy. During the first month of his sentence, as against the old system of oakum picking and shot drill, he will do five hours' physical training, and Service drill and instruction, and five hours industrial work. During the succeeding months he will perform, daily, 4½ hours physical training and Service drill and instruction, and 3½ to 4½ hours' industrial, work. The Service drill and instruction will be of the nature to improve his physique, and to render him more efficient in the discharge of his duties as a sailor when he returns to his ship. That is the genius of the new plan, and I am deeply interested in it, as are all members of the Board of Admiralty. The approximate cost of building detention quarters at Chatham and Devonport, and of converting Portsmouth Naval Prison, will be about £50,000, and the
624
approximate time to complete these buildings from the date of the order will be about 2½ years. The thing will take time, the change must be gradual, and we do not even propose to bring this Bill into operation till 1st January, 1911. We mean to make punishment deterrent—severely deterrent if you like—but not degrading. We want to make it real punishment, but we want to have in view the turning out of the man a better sailor. I have myself carefully studied the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport and at the Corodino, Malta. I also went very closely into the naval prison system at Lewes and Portsmouth. I greatly rejoice that I should have been privileged to have a hand in bringing about this salutary charge, and I am sure that this House will cordially approve it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hazleton) has recognised, as we all must do, that we are engaged upon a salutary reform. With regard to what is called flogging in the Navy, namely, the corporal punishment inflicted under Sections 52 (4) of the Naval Discipline Act, that has been entirely suspended by Admiralty Order since 1881, and no man has since that date been subject to the punishment. The hon. Gentleman has some anxiety lest by a stroke of the pen the old system may be re-enacted. I do not think he need have any anxiety on that point. There is not the slightest prospect of it so far as I know.
Mr. KEATING: Then why not put it in the Bill.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is exactly the point to which I am coming. That would mean such a very considerable change in the whole scope of the Bill, and objections might be taken to it in certain quarters, with the result that at this late period of a very long Session, we might endanger this reform upon which we have set our hearts. If we were revising the Naval Discipline Act my hon. Friend would be able to raise the point.
Mr. HAZLETON: Would the Government put it in them?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. What I want to get is Naval Detention Quarters, and I am afraid that if we asked for anything more just now we should endanger the Bill. I appeal to the hon. Member and to the House to bear in mind that there has been no flogging since 1881, and there is no prospect of the regulation being rescinded in any way. If he will be

625
good enough to leave the matter where it is and give us this reform, he will be doing something to improve the case of the young sailor very much.
Mr. HAZLETON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Two o'clock a.m., Friday, 22nd October, 1909.

  Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
  Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
  French Draft Tariff.
  French Draft Tariff.
  Army Officers (Permanent Disability).
  Army Officers (Permanent Disability).
  Quartermasters and Riding Masters (Retired).
  Quartermasters and Riding Masters (Retired).
  Post Office (Substitution Duties, Belfast).
  Post Office (Substitution Duties, Belfast).
  Southampton Post Office.
  Southampton Post Office.
  Darvel and Strathaven Railway.
  Darvel and Strathaven Railway.
  Admiralty (Purchase of Fabrics).
  Admiralty (Purchase of Fabrics).
FINANCE BILL.
  STAMP DUTIES ON CONVEYANCES.
  STAMP DUTIES ON CONVEYANCES.
  Sinking Fund Purchases.
  Sinking Fund Purchases.
  Skeagh Estate, County Cavan.
  Skeagh Estate, County Cavan.
  Mrs. P. Pyne's Estate, Fermoy.
  Mrs. P. Pyne's Estate, Fermoy.
  Mr. J. Harman's Estate, Mallow.
  Mr. J. Harman's Estate, Mallow.
  Board of Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Board of Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Ballyglass Estate, Ballymoe, County Galway.
  Ballyglass Estate, Ballymoe, County Galway.
  Maguire Estate, Knock, County Galway.
  Maguire Estate, Knock, County Galway.
  Teacher's Retirement (Superannuation Allowance).
  Teacher's Retirement (Superannuation Allowance).
  Retired Teachers' Allowances.
  Retired Teachers' Allowances.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl opposite a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he prepared to make any statement in regard to the course of business in this House during the next few days?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): It is proposed to take the Third Reading of the Irish Land Bill on Monday, and on Tuesday, the 26th, to take the Report stage, and also, if the House will agree, the Third Reading of the Development Bill. That will conclude the business which we have immediately before us, and if the House agrees, and we are able to get through current business by Tuesday evening, I should propose that the House should then adjourn until Monday, the 8th of November.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it would perhaps be wise to avoid finally deciding whether both the Report and the Third Reading of the Development Bill should be taken on Tuesday until we see further how we get on with the stage in which the Bill is before the House to-night.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite agree; and, of course, it will be possible for us to sit on Wednesday next supposing we find that the business cannot be got through on Tuesday.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be suspended on Monday next, and that the Third Reading of the Irish Land Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe)); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill I have just one word to say. I do not see any Amendment on the Paper dealing with the question to which I wish to refer, and possibly it is not one which your Lordships would think it wise to deal with by way of Amendment to the Bill. It has reference to a statement which was made, and which gave great satisfaction to myself and to many who are, like myself, interested in the prosperity of agriculture, by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill at the close of the proceedings on the Second Reading. I asked the noble Earl on that occasion whether he could give us an assurance that His Majesty's Government intended to make provision, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House, that a quarter of a million, or one half of the Development Fund, would be assigned to the purposes of agriculture. Those purposes, as your Lordships are aware, are more precisely described in paragraph (a) of Clause 1 of the Bill which is now under the consideration of your Lordships' House. I may say that representations have been made to the Government by the most influential associations in the country interested in agriculture, such as the Lincolnshire Farmers Union, the Land Agents Society, the Surveyors Institution, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Farmers Club, the Agricultural Organisation Society, the Dairy Farmers Association, the Fruit Growers Association, the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester, the Rothamstead Experimental Station, the Agricultural College at Wye, the Horticultural College at Swansea, and the colleges at Cambridge and Newcastle, all earnestly petitioning before the Bill passes into law that your Lordships should see that some provision is inserted in it which will carry out the pledges we now understand His Majesty's Government have given.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, before the Motion is agreed to I would like to say a word as to the future course of this Bill. I understood the Leader of the House to say that it is proposed to take the Report

201
and the Third Reading of the Bill early next week. That appears to indicate that the Bill is not intended to go to the Standing Committee. There seem to be a great many Amendments on the Paper, and that being the case I hope your Lordships will consider whether it would not be possible to postpone the later stages of the Bill a little longer in order to give more time for consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:

PART I. Development.
1.—(1) The Treasury may upon the recommendation of the Development Commissioners appointed under this Act, make advances to a Government department, or through a Government department to a public authority, university, college, or institution, or an association of persons or company not trading for profit, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they may think fit, for any of the following purposes:—

(a) Aiding and developing agriculture and rural industries by promoting scientific research, instruction and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture (including the provision of farm-institutes), the organisation of co-operation, instruction in marketing produce, and the extension of the provision of small holdings; and by the adoption of any other means which appear calculated to develop agriculture and rural industries;

(b) Forestry (including the purchase and planting of land, the conducting of inquiries, experiments, and research for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of methods of afforestation);

(c) The reclamation and drainage of land;

(d) The general improvement of rural transport (including the making of light railways but not including the construction or improvement of roads);

(e) The construction and improvement of harbours;

(f) The construction and improvement of inland navigations;

(g) The development and improvement of fisheries;

and for any other purpose calculated to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom.
(2) All applications for advances under this Part of this Act shall be made to the Treasury in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
(3) No advance shall be made for any purpose which might be carried out under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, upon any terms or conditions different from those contained in that statute except for some special reason which shall be stated in the annual report of the Development Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that before the noble Earl moved the Amendment of which he had given notice he wished to ask him a question with regard to some words which appeared in the Bill before the words dealt with by the Amendment. He would be glad if the noble Earl could inform him what precise meaning he attached to the words "or through a Government Department" at the commencement of the Clause. The word "through" was very ambiguous. Did it mean with the consent of the Government Department, or was it merely using the Government Department as a vehicle or channel for the advances?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): What is proposed is this. If any association of persons wish for an advance it has to go through a Government Department, and the Government Department are obliged to send it on though they may not approve of the scheme. They cannot hang up the scheme; they must send it to the Commissioners; but, of course, with the sending on of the scheme they would send their report as to whether they thought it advisable or a good or bad or indifferent scheme. The words are that the Treasury may make advances to a Government Department or through a Government Department to a public authority, college or institution, or association of persons or company not trading for profit. I hope I have made it clear that it must go through the intermediary of the Government Department, who send it on to the Commissioners, so that a person has a certainty of his scheme being considered by an authoritative body.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand then that the Government Department's consent is not required?
EARL CARRINGTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are merely a channel?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so. Naturally if the Government Department thought that the scheme was a very bad one it is not very likely that the Commissioners would adopt it. Those words are for the purpose of making it absolutely straight and square and above board, that

203
every person's scheme should have a chance of going before the Commissioners whether they get the advance or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the matter would arise on a subsequent clause, and he would postpone anything further he had to say until then.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to insert "school" after "college" in the list of bodies to whom grants can be made. I may say that the Amendment is in pursuance of a promise given to Sir William Anson.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'college' to insert the word 'school.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved an Amendment substituting the words "body corporate" for "company." He pointed out that a company might be two or three persons, and it surely could not be the intention of His Majesty's Government to make advances to two or three individuals who might have some particular fad to forward. "Body corporate" was the phrase adopted by His Majesty's Government themselves in Clause 7, and therefore he thought there would be no objection to using the same expression in Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'company,' and to insert the words 'body corporate.'"—(The Earl of Derby.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment if the noble Earl would be good enough to allow the two words "or incorporate" to go in as well.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY signified his assent.
On Question, Amendment as amended agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the omission of the words "not trading for profit," which limited the bodies to which grants were to be made. He said
204
that his Amendment must be taken in connection with another Amendment which he had placed on the Paper to be inserted at the end of the clause providing for the particular cases with which he desired to deal. He did not at all wish that advances should be made generally to companies trading for profit, but he had had under his own control when he was at the Treasury the question of advances for light railways, and in deciding whether advances or loans should be made under the Light Railways Act for the construction of light railways this matter always had to be considered. It was reasonably easy to obtain some security from the promoters of a light railway that it should be made, but it was by no means so easy to obtain any security after it was constructed that it should be properly worked and maintained. He gathered that the intention of the clause was that in any case of an advance the application should be made by a public authority, and the case he wanted to deal with was where a public authority being a county council or a county borough council desired the construction of a light railway or tramway within its area, or it might be a grant for the construction or improvement of a pier or harbour. The public authority had to make the application for the advance; but could it under the Bill obtain from the Commissioners either a grant or a loan to a railway company or to a harbour authority for the purpose of the construction of the light railway, pier, or harbour? It would be obviously of great advantage in such a case, in fact it would be almost a necessary thing, that there should be some real security that the railway, pier, or harbour should be worked and maintained in the future; and what he hoped the Government might be willing to do would be to allow the Commissioners to make the advance in such a case although it might be made direct to a harbour authority or to a company trading for profit, provided the advance was applied for by the local authority for the benefit of the people in the locality. This matter had been raised in another place, and one of the representatives of the Government indicated that the Government were disposed to look favourably upon applications of that kind. As the Bill stood, however, he very much doubted whether such an advance could be made and any security obtained for the proper working and maintenance

205
either of the light railway or of the harbour or pier. He moved the omission of h words in this place with a view of the insertion at a later stage of the subsection of which he had given notice.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words 'not trading for profit.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount has put the case so clearly that I need not trouble much with this point. What the noble Viscount proposes to do is to leave out the words "not trading for profit," and then, if I may be permitted to refer to his later Amendment, as the two hang together, he proposes to put in, "No advance shall be made to any association of persons or company trading for profit, except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance, and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners." As the noble Viscount said, Sir Samuel Evans in another place moved an Amendment which was almost practically the same as that of the noble Viscount's, but in view of the general opinion of the House it was withdrawn. In those circumstances I can leave it entirely and absolutely in the hands of your Lordships, saying for myself, although I do not press it, that there may be difficulties in regard to this clause to which I need not allude which might make it difficult for the House of Commons to accept it. With that proviso I will make no opposition to the Amendment, but leave it entirely in the hands of your Lordships to take out the words "not trading for profit" and to bring in the next Amendment, which, I think, carries out what the noble Viscount wishes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved to amend paragraph (b) by adding, alter the word "including," the words "the conducting of inquiries as to the amount and quality of land suitable for afforestation." In the past, he said, there had been a great deal of wild talk about afforestation, and much confusion of thought arose from the fact that no one knew the amount of land that was suitable for the purpose. It seemed to him only logical that before money was actually spent on afforestation there should
206
be a preliminary survey to find out the exact extent of land which was suitable for afforestation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 25, after the word 'including,' to insert the words 'the conducting of inquiries as to the amount and quality of land suitable for afforestation.'"—(Lord Lovat.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I would ask the noble Lord if he would mind my taking Lord Derby's Amendments on this subject instead of his own. We all acknowledge that the noble Lord is a past master as regards the question of afforestation, but the two series of Amendments are very much the same, and the experts would rather take Lord Derby's Amendments than that of the noble Lord. If he would consent to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that Lord Derby's Amendments, which run on all fours with his, will be accepted, it would be agreeable to us.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT said he could not agree to that course. His Amendment went to a survey of the whole extent of land that was suitable for afforestation. Lord Derby's Amendment only referred to the planting of certain lands which had been found after inquiry suitable for afforestation. He thought it was very necessary to make the inquiry indicated by his Amendment. If their Lordships read the Report of the Erosion Committee they would find that they had the very foggiest idea of the quantity of land available for afforestation, some people suggesting two and a-half million acres and others suggesting nine million acres. No scheme could be carried out without first ascertaining how much land was available. On that point, as he had already said, the most divergent views were entertained, not only as to quantity, but as to the altitude at which trees could be grown, and so on.
LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY said that as he had had the honour of presiding over two of the committees which had been appointed on the subject he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words, and he would venture to ask his noble friend not to press his Amendment. The effect of accepting the Amendment now before their Lordships would be to postpone afforestation until a very long inquiry had been conducted into the matter. Those of them who were anxious to see something

207
done as soon as possible concurred with the Government in preferring the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, under which something could be done very soon.
EARL CARRINGTON: We are very anxious to get on with afforestation. I do, therefore, appeal to the noble Lord to be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment and we will try and meet him in every possible way by accepting the Amendments of Lord Derby.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving the first Amendment in his name, said that as he gathered that the Government were prepared to accept it he would only formally move it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words 'the purchase and planting of land,' and to insert '(1).'"—(The Earl of Derby.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the noble Earl breaks up paragraph (b) into two paragraphs, the first being "Forestry, including the conducting of inquiries, experiments, and research for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of methods of afforestation." Then he has a further Amendment later on on the Paper to insert as a second paragraph "the purchase and planting of land found after inquiry to be suitable for afforestation." I am quite prepared to accept both those proposals.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY then formally moved his second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'afforestation,' to insert '(2) the purchase and planting of land found after inquiry to be suitable for afforestation.'"—(The Earl of Derby.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY moved to omit from the clause the words "and for any other purpose calculated to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom." He mentioned that Viscount St. Aldwyn had put down an Amendment to
208
the effect that this purpose should he defined by Order in Council, that the Order should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days during the session, and that if either House presented an Address to His Majesty against it no further proceedings should be taken on the Order. In ordinary circumstances he should be prepared to give way to his noble friend, but on this occasion he felt bound to adhere to his own Amendment and to ask the House to accept it. He doubted whether there had ever appeared in any Bill a clause containing such wide words as those which he moved to omit from this clause. He very much doubted whether even the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could give them any definition as to how many fads, as he might call them, could be roped into that net. He understood from an Amendment he saw lower down that it would be perfectly possible, not only to buy land under which rich minerals were but to work those minerals; and if they were to take it to an absurd conclusion, there was absolutely nothing in the wording of the clause which would prevent any Minister if he sat on one side of the House from subscribing to some Free Trade union, or if he at on the other side of the House from subscribing to a Tariff Reform league, both being claimed for the purpose of promoting the economical development of the United Kingdom. He ventured to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that the words provided too large a scope, and he therefore hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word 'fisheries' to the end of subsection (1)."—(The Earl of Derby.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am, of course, in the hands of the House, but I should be very much obliged to the noble Earl if he would give way to Lord St. Aldwyn. If he presses his Amendment, however, and is supported, of course we are nowhere; but I think we should be able to meet his objections. But Lord St. Aldwyn's clause, if I may be permitted to refer to it, proposes that these purposes should be defined by an Order in Council which is to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty days before coming into operation. We think that that would be quite safeguard enough, and therefore I hope the

209
noble Earl will, after all, change his mind and allow the noble Viscount's Amendment to be taken instead of his.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY said nothing would give him greater pleasure than to afford satisfaction both to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and also to his noble friend, but at the same time he could not agree to withdraw his Amendment. The Government had already in the sub-heads (a) to (g) innumerable objects on which to spend money, and he thought everything likely to arise was covered.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that he put his Amendment on the Paper first because he did not think His Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment of his noble friend, Lord Derby, and secondly because he did think that there was some reason for giving the Government of the day the power of adding to the objects which might be aided, provided always that the control of Parliament was retained. The words as they stood in the Bill enabling the Commissioners to make advances for any other purpose calculated to promote the economical development of the United Kingdom were so vague as to be almost absurd. Practically Parliament would be asked to deprive itself of all control over the action of the Commissioners in dealing with the money which might be placed at their disposal, and therefore he suggested that any fresh purpose in addition to those which appeared in the Bill should be defined by Order in Council to be laid before Parliament from time to time, with ample opportunity for either House of Parliament to express an opinion in opposition to such a scheme if it desired to do so. Personally, he could see that the feeling of the Committee was rather in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, and he did not wish to press his view as against that of the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend subsection (3), which provided that "no advance shall be made for any purpose which might be carried out under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908, upon any terms or conditions different from those contained in that statute except for some special reason which shall be stated in the annual
210
report of the Development Commissioners," by omitting the reference to the Small Holdings Act and substituting the words "any statute." As their Lordships were no doubt aware, the subsection was inserted in the course of the passage of the Bill through another place. The object of the subsection as it stood in the Bill was not to allow the advances which were permitted under the clause to run athwart the provisions of the Small Holdings Act. That Act, as their Lordships would remember, was passed with every sort of precaution. Certain elaborate conditions were inserted, which it was not material for him to enter into, and upon the strength of those conditions the Small Holdings Act was sanctioned. The House of Commons thought, and no doubt their Lordships would be of opinion that they were quite right in so thinking, that now that it was proposed that advances should be made under this clause such advances ought to be subject to the same conditions as those under the Small Holdings Act, because it was evident that if those conditions were good in the case of the Small Holdings Act they must be equally good in respect of advances made for small holding purposes under this Bill. But the principle which the House of Commons had established in the subsection ought not to be confined to the Small Holdings Act, because the same argument held good in the case of any other Act. For instance, he would ask their Lordships to consider for a moment the Light Railways Act, to which attention had been called once or twice. There were provisions in that Act for advances for the purpose of making light railways, provisions which had been very largely availed of in the working of that Act. As much as £200,000 had been advanced under the Act for the making of light railways. Those advances were limited under the Act by a great many conditions which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be assumed to be sound, and if they were sound they were good not only for the light railways but for advances under this Bill, and of course the argument might be extended to other Acts of Parliament. In a word, if the conditions under other Acts of Parliament for these special beneficent purposes were good, then they ought to be embodied in respect of advances under this Bill. His broad proposition was that the principle which had been assented to by the House of Commons in respect to the Small Holdings Act, in subsection (3),

211
was a general principle of wide application, and ought to be applied to any Statute.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'the Small Holdings and Allotment Act, 1908,' and to insert the words 'any statute.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE wished to point out that the House of Commons had put in a provision in the Bill especially affecting the Small Holdings Act, which was quite a new Act only just beginning to get into working order, and therefore they might reasonably be expected to think that that Act should have a trial first. The noble Marquess had referred to the Light Railways Act, and had told them that Parliament authorised advances to light railways only under certain very strict conditions. Some of those light railways had been successful and some had not. There were districts in which light railways were desirable, but, owing to the poverty of the localities, advances could not be obtained under present conditions. Would it not be reasonable that the Development Commissioners should consider such cases with a view to granting additional advances?
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY quite agreed with what the noble Lord opposite had said. There was no doubt whatever that some of the conditions imposed by the Government of the day in the Light Railways Act caused that Act to be less useful than it might otherwise have been. One of those conditions was that no money should be granted by the Treasury unless the light railway was worked by an existing railway company, the effect being that light railways were placed entirely in the hands of great railway companies. He need hardly say that the result of that was not very beneficial to the light railways, and after ten years of that Act he thought everything went to show that it would be a good thing if the conditions could be somewhat lightened. He could not possibly agree, therefore, with what the noble Marquess had said.
EARL CARRINGTON: There seems to be a difference of opinion about this, and that rather strengthens us in the view that the course taken in the House of Commons was the right one. The noble Marquess's Amendment is practically bringing back the Amendment that Lord Robert Cecil moved
212
in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess wishes to include the Light Railways Act in this clause, and that has been violently objected to by two noble Lords who have expert knowledge on the subject. Therefore, although I did not think at first that it was a matter of very great importance, I am of opinion now that we should stand by the words of the clause.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought his noble friend the late Chairman of the Light Railway Commission and the noble Lord opposite had hardly sufficiently considered the words as they stood in the Bill, that "no advance shall be made for any purpose which might be carried out under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, upon any terms or conditions different from those contained in that Statute except for some special reason which shall be stated in the annual report of the Development Commissioners." If such a case arose as his noble friend behind him and the noble Lord opposite had in their minds, and the locality could not provide the sum required by the Light Railways Act, the Commissioners might themselves make the advance, merely inserting their reasons for so doing in their annual report to Parliament.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND thought that the matter was a rather more important one than it appeared to be considered by some of his noble friends. The doctrine apparently laid down was that whenever an Act of Parliament had been sufficiently long in operation to need some amendment, that amendment was not to be carried out by an amending Act but by putting unlimited powers into the hands of certain Commissioners. He spoke with no particular knowledge of light railways, and he dared say noble Lords were perfectly right in what they had said; but what they had said seemed to him to be only a reason for amending the Act of Parliament. The clause did not refer to light railways only, and it would mean giving a general roving commission to the Commissioners to modify Acts of Parliament as they pleased whenever Acts of Parliament had been in force long enough to have become practically obsolete. It was putting into the hands of bureaus of different sorts and kinds duties which had hitherto been carried out by Parliament. That seemed to him to be a very bad principle to establish, and he thought they ought to protest against it.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY pointed out that in Clause 1 of the Bill the general improvement of rural transport, including light railways, was mentioned as one of the objects of the measure. If the Commissioners thought that they could assist a light railway by giving a grant which was not obtainable at present, there would be no harm in their doing so; but the Amendment would act as a warning to the Commissioners not to touch light railways.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY repudiated the suggestion that his Amendment would warn the Commissioners from touching light railways. Light railways were specifically stated in the clause as one of the objects in view, and his Amendment did not mention light railways. His noble friend evidently had not done him the honour of reading the Amendment.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY pointed out that the speech of the noble Marquess was all about light railways.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that it was not his speech but rather the words of the Act of Parliament that the Commissioners would look at.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 20, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
'(4) No advance shall be made to any association of persons or company trading for profits, except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance, and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new subsection providing for the laying of any recommendation for an important advance on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. His proposal left it to the discretion of the Development Commissioners as to whether the advance was of so important a character as to make it desirable that it should be placed before Parliament, and if they decided that the undertaking was of such magnitude that it ought to be laid before Parliament they were to forward a draft recommendation to the
214
Treasury, which recommendation was to be laid on the Table of both Houses for thirty days. The Commissioners would have the indirect influence brought to bear upon them that if they were not to decide that a particular undertaking was of sufficient importance to lay before Parliament and it turned out to be so, they could be called to account for that; but their Lordships would observe that it was only a very mild influence which was brought to bear upon them by the proposed new subsection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, after line 20, after subsection (3), to insert the following now subsection—
'(4) Before making any recommendation for an advance under this Act, the Development Commissioners shall consider the matter with special reference to the magnitude of the undertaking and the interests likely to be affected and the extent and situation of any land necessary for the undertaking, and whether such land is likely to be acquired by agreement, and if a majority of the Commissioners consider that their proposals should be laid before Parliament they shall forward a draft recommendation to the Treasury. The Treasury shall not act upon such draft recommendation until it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making by the Commissioners of a new draft recommendation.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the words "magnitude of the undertaking" in the noble Earl's proposed new subsection. If it was really a big scheme the Treasury would have to go to Parliament for the money, because the Development Commissioners have only altogether £2,500,000 to spend in five years, so that the most they could spend in a year would be half a million. They could not tackle a scheme of any great magnitude with that small amount of money, and would have to go to Parliament with any large scheme. If noble Lords will look at the words of Lord Camperdown's proposal, they are "if a majority of the Commissioners consider that their proposals should be laid before Parliament they shall forward a draft recommendation to the Treasury." That means, of course, that the minority are opposed. If they cannot make up their minds about the merits or the demerits of a particular scheme, their obvious duty, I should have thought, would be to refuse to sanction it, and knock it on the head at once. But it seems to me that

215
the Amendment of the noble Earl, if carried, would encourage a timid Commissioner, and I suppose we shall have such, to shirk his duty. I therefore hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought that the noble Earl was under a misapprehension. The noble Earl had said that in the case of a really big scheme the Treasury would be obliged to go to Parliament for the money. They would not. Surely the £500,000 which was voted was to be applied in such a manner as the Treasury saw fit, on the recommendation of the Commissioner. The Treasury, therefore, if they approved
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
the recommendation, could find this money and give the money without the sanction of Parliament. With regard to the noble Earl's remark that the minority would be opposed to the scheme, there was always a minority in every case, and if the majority thought that the recommendation ought to be laid on the Table of Parliament, why should they not make the necessary motion? He asked their Lordships to accept the proposed new subsection.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Goschen, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Northumberland, D.

Hardinge, V.

Ebury, L.

Rutland, D.

Hill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Faber, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Ailesbury, M.

Iveagh, V.

Forester, L.

Bath, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Grenfell, L.

Bristol, M.

Hindlip, L.

Camden, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Salisbury, N.

Abinger, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Addington, L.

Lamington, L.

Brownlow, E.

Allerton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cairns, E.

Ampthill, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Armstrong, L.

Lovat, L.

Carnwath, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ludlow, L.

Cathcart, E.

Atkinson, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Avebury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cromer, E.

Bagot, L.

Northcote, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Belper, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Derby, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jersey, E.

Braye, L.

Rothschild, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Sinclair, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stalbridge, L.

Mayo, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clamwilliam.)

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

Onslow, E.

Plymouth, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Sudeley, L.

Stamford, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Templemore, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Clinton, L.

Ventry, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Waleran, L.

De Mauley, L.

Walsingham, L.

Churchill, V.

Digby, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dunalley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Falkland, V.

Dunboyne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Haversham, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Hemphill, L.

Lochee, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Airedale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Allendale, L.

Marchamley, L.

Armitstead, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward).

Blyth, L.

Pentland, L.

Carrington, E.

Boston, L.

Pirrie, L.

Chichester, E.

Coleridge, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

St. David's, L.

Russell, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Eversley, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Glantawe, L.

Swaythling, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Tenterden, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
3.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be established a Commission consisting of five Commissioners, to be styled the Development Commissioners and to be appointed by the Treasury, of whom one to be appointed by the Treasury shall be chairman.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the term of office of a Commissioner shall be ten years. One Commissioner shall retire every second year, but a retiring Commissioner may be reappointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed are to retire shall be determined by the Treasury. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by the Treasury to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire.
(3) There shall be paid to not more than two of the Commissioners such salaries, not exceeding in the aggregate three thousand pounds in each year, as the Treasury may direct.
(4) The Commissioners may act by three of their number and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may regulate their own procedure.
(5) The Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint and employ such officers and servants for the purposes of this Part of this Act as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servant so appointed and employed, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(6) The salaries of the Commissioners and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants and any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of their duties under this Part of this Act to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of the development fund.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he had given notice of a verbal Amendment to leave out the words "part of this" in the first line of the clause with the view of raising the very important question whether a Road Board should be separately established, or whether the duties of the Road Board should be carried out by the Development Commissioners—whether, in short, one or two authorities should be constituted under the Bill. It was rather difficult, he admitted, to raise this question now, because they did not know what duties their Lordships would impose on the Road Board; and therefore he would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill where he thought the question could best be raised. He would be quite willing to pass by his present Amendment, which was really almost a verbal one, if in the opinion of the noble Earl the point could be raised on another clause.
218
It did not seem to him to be advisable to decide whether there should be a separate Road Board before their Lordships had decided what the duties of such a Board were to be, and it might be their Lordships would decide that the power of making new roads, and of making them nearly a quarter of a mile broad, was not to be entrusted to the Road Board. If their Lordships so decided, the Road Board would be simply a body authorised to make grants to local authorities for the construction of new roads or for the improvement of existing ones, and he submitted that it would be quite unnecessary to constitute a separate body for that purpose. That work might be done either by the Local Government Board or by the Commissioners.
EARL CARRINGTON: I should almost think, if it suits the noble Viscount, that it would be as well to take the whole question at once on this Amendment, which is the first of a series of Amendments the object of which is to amalgamate the two bodies. I think the Committee should clearly understand that the question before your Lordships is to do away with the Road Board, to increase the numbers of the Commissioners, and to tack the powers of the Road Board on to the Development Commissioners. If your Lordships understand that that is really the question before you, I think perhaps it would be the most convenient and the best place to take the discussion at once, so as not to have any confusion, on the Amendment the noble Viscount now proposes to move.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that in spite of what the noble Earl had stated, he thought the discussion of the question would be rather prejudiced until they knew what the duties were which the Road Board had to perform. He would prefer, therefore, that his Amendment should be passed by at the moment, letting the clause stand so far as he was concerned in its present state, and when they came to Clause 7, which constituted the Road Board, to move the postponement of that clause until they knew what the duties were that were to be cast upon the Road Board.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought that the suggestion of the noble Viscount ought to be adopted, as their Lordships did not know

219
what the powers of the Road Board were or what might be done under the clause.
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the proposal to be that we should pass by all the noble Viscount's Amendments until we come to Clause 7.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he proposed to postpone Clause 7 until their Lordships had settled what the duties of the Road Board were to be.
EARL CARRINGTON: I confess I should like to understand how we are to do it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES said he thought he understood exactly what the noble Viscount proposed. The noble Viscount had several Amendments on the Paper, one, for instance, being that two of the Commissioners should be selected for their special knowledge of the construction of roads, and so on, and, as he understood, he did not intend to move any of those Amendemnts at present, and when they came to Clause 7 the noble Viscount intended to move that that clause be postponed and that their Lordships should consider Clause 7 later. Then their Lordships would come to the powers of the Road Board contained in Clause 8, and on that clause the noble Viscount proposed to raise the whole question as to whether the Road Board and the Development Commissioners should be amalgamated in one body.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN agreed that that was his proposal. He understood that it would be possible for their Lordships to postpone Clause 7 and take Clause 8 and settle the duties of the Road Board, and then go back to Clause 7 and consider whether there should be a Road Board at all, it being understood that various preliminary Amendments should, if necessary, be inserted on Report.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment vesting the appointment of the Commissioners in the Crown by warrant under the sign manual, instead of in the Treasury. He said that one object of his Amendment was for the purpose of endeavouring to elicit from His Majesty's Government some idea of the relationship which was to exist between the Treasury, Parliament, and the
220
Development Commissioners. He had put down a series of Amendments which on the one hand would have the effect of considerably strengthening the Commissioners, and on the other hand would place them entirely under the control of Parliament. He candidly confessed that he was sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that anything which derogated from the effective control of Parliament over the finances of the country was a thing to be deprecated. He regretted that he appeared to be in a minority in holding that opinion nowadays. It seemed to him that the whole trend of modern legislation was to create new Government Departments and bodies which in some mysterious manner stepped between the vote of Parliament and the control of the finances of the country. He wanted to know what the precise relationship of the Development Commissioners was to be to the Treasury.
It seemed to him that the idea of the Bill was that there should be a minimum of Parliamentary control combined with a maximum of Departmental responsibility, and it was a little difficult to understand why it was necessary for the purposes of the Act that such a body should be created at all. If these great schemes were to be carried out he much preferred that duly prepared and well-considered estimates should be placed before the House of Commons, that the House of Commons should have full opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them, and that the money should be expended according to the instructions of Parliament. The House of Commons had apparently seen fit to dispense with the control of a sum of two and a-half millions of money which was to be spent over a series of years. The control as to how that money was to be allocated and how it was to be spent seemed to him to be almost entirely taken away from the House of Commons. They wished to know what the real views of the Government were as to the functions and the duties of the Development Commissioners; and if they were to have an independent body at all, he hoped their Lordships would agree that it was better to have a body which was really independent. He had no wish to find fault with the procedure of appointment by Treasury Minute; in fact, he had had the privilege of holding an office the appointment to which was by Treasury Minute, and he would be the last person

221
to suggest that in many cases that was not the most suitable procedure. But here a body was being created with, as it were, an odour of independence but composed of persons who, from the very nature of their appointment, could not fail to be more or less servants, of the Treasury, dependent upon their wishes and upon their views.
For the purpose he had indicated, he had ventured to place upon the Table of their Lordships' House a series of Amendments identical with those moved by Sir William Anson in the House of Commons, and he hoped if they were carried that they would result in making the body a really independent one. Although the body might be composed of exactly the same individuals, yet, with all respect to Treasury Minutes, he ventured to say that a body of men created and appointed, as he suggested, by His Majesty, with all the dignity and formality of a Royal Commission, would be a far stronger and more independent and capable body than a body which would be recognised as merely a Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury. The language he had adopted in the series of Amendments which he had suggested was practically that which was utilised now, as he understood, in the appointment of Judges. There was a further precedent for his suggestion. Under the Charitable Trust Acts practically the same procedure was adopted, and he failed to see any reason why a body which was to have such vast and comprehensive powers and the control of such large sums of money, which, although limited at present to two and a-half millions would be bound to increase largely if the procedure continued, should not be appointed with all the dignity and formality that he suggested. Such a body would be far more capable of fairly and adequately carrying out such a work than a body which must be more or less liable to Parliamentary influence. He did not say that there was anything wrong in Parliamentary influence being brought to bear in certain circumstances, but in the case of such a body as the one in question there would be the greatest possible objection to it.
If the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment, would they, at any rate, give him some idea of what their views were as to the relationship the
222
Development Commissioners would bear to the Treasury and to the Houses of Parliament? Even if they did not accept this proposal he would like to ask them a question with regard to one of the further Amendments he had placed on the Paper. If the scheme of the Government was adhered to, would it be possible for a paid member of the Commission to retain a seat in the House of Commons? There was some doubt expressed in the House of Commons on that subject. As far as he had been able to read from the reports of their proceedings, the Solicitor-General had expressed the opinion that a paid Commissioner would not be able to do so, but it was not an absolutely decisive opinion. He thought, as far as policy was concerned, that there ought to be a specific agreement that a paid Commissioner under the Bill ought not to be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons. He did not know whether it would be necessary to move words to carry that into effect in the Bill, or whether it was covered by the existing law. He would like to know the view of His Majesty's Government with regard to it, and would withdraw his Amendment on the point if necessary. Meanwhile he would move the first Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out 'there shall be established a Commission consisting of,' and to insert 'it shall be lawful for His Majesty and his successors by warrant under the sign manual to appoint.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This point was very well thrashed out in the other House of Parliament. On Report, Sir William Anson moved a similar Amendment to that which the noble Duke has now moved, and there was a very long debate about it. The feeling of the House was very strong in favour of the present arrangement, and on the division the figures were, I think, 148 to thirty-two. There really seems to be hardly any necessity in this case why the appointment of these Development Commissioners should be treated in exactly the same way as that of Judges of the High Court. Of course, there can be no strong objection to the proposal of the noble Duke, though, as the House of Commons have declared their opinion with regard to it after a long debate on the subject, the Government would prefer to retain the words in the Bill.

223
The noble Duke asked what was the view of the Government as to the duties of the Development Commissioners. I am sure the noble Duke does not wish me to detain the House by going into that question again. I made it as clear as I could in my speech on the Second Reading. But I must join issue with him at once when he says that though there was an odour of independence about them—I think those were the words he used—yet they would be the servants of the Treasury. I can assure the noble Duke that they will not be servants of the Treasury of any sort, description, or kind. They will be chosen for their integrity and honour, and they will be, what they were chosen to be—the servants of the public at large. Perhaps they would not have the same dignity and formality and strength in their appointment as a Judge of the Crown appointed by His Majesty, but they would have the same dignity that most Commissioners created under similar circumstances would have. I cannot for one moment admit that these independent and honourable men would be in any way subject to Parliamentary influence or pressure. No man with any self-respect could undertake a business of this kind with any idea of suffering from Parliamentary influence; at any rate, not the men whom we hope to see filling these positions; and though there is no great objection, of course, to the proposal of the noble Duke, yet I hope, considering the expression of opinion of the House of Commons on the matter, that your Lordships will permit the clause to remain as it is.
There was one more question the noble Duke asked—whether it would be possible for a paid Development Commissioner to be a member of Parliament. The noble Duke has an Amendment dealing with that on the Paper. Perhaps I might answer the question now, as it has been raised. There is no possibility of any man holding a position of this sort being a member of the Commons House of Parliament. If he was a member of the House of Commons at the time he would have to resign his seat from the moment of accepting his appointment, because he would be holding an office of profit under the Crown, and since the days of Queen Anne no person holding an office of profit under the Crown can retain his seat in Parliament.
LORD ASHBOURNE: This would not be under the Crown. It would be under the Treasury.
EARL CARRINGTON: The matter has been looked into, and this is held to be an office of profit under the Crown.
LORD ASHBOURNE: On what ground?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sorry I am not in a position to argue the legal aspect. All I can say is that I am briefed, if I may use that expression, by the highest legal authority in the country to say that a man who holds the position of a Commissioner holds an office of profit under the Crown. That is all I have to say, except that the Government do not wish this Amendment to be carried. But, of course, having made our protest, we should offer no opposition.
LORD ASHBOURNE*LORD ASHBOURNE said there was an obvious convenience in the proposal of his noble friend to make the Crown the source of the appointment, because that would confer certain jurisdictions and powers which would not otherwise be conferred. If a person was appointed by pleasure of the Crown it was as high a tenure as could well be asked for, and, as long as he conducted himself properly, the pleasure would not be determined. But there might be public grounds which made it desirable that it should be determined.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE said that before the Committee accepted the Amendment he would like to know from the noble Duke opposite whether the other Amendments standing in his name were consequential or not. For his own part he had no very strong feeling one way or the other whether the appointment was by Commission established as in the Bill or by warrant under the sign manual of His Majesty, but he saw what he took to be a consequential Amendment on the next page to the effect that the Commissioners should hold office during good behaviour. This was a new thing, and it might be rather difficult to get five men who were really good at the business. The office of a Development Commissioner was going to require a special kind of man, and at the end of ten years, the term of office specified in the Bill, they would be able to find out whether a Commissioner ought to be retained or not. But by the Amendment of the noble Duke they were going to put in five men who were to hold office under the proposal perhaps for life; and in a few years time they might have a body of very old men, two or three of whom had shown their incapacity to do the work.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN confessed that he had not realised that the Amendment of the noble Duke behind him did imply that Commissioners appointed under the Bill should hold office for life. He was disposed to agree with the noble Lord opposite that if that were so it would be an objection. He had seen things himself in the constitution of the Railway Commission which induced him to think that tenure of office for a certain number of years was better than tenure for life. Whether the Commissioners should be appointed by the Crown or by the Treasury was another matter, and he gathered that His Majesty's Government had no very great objection to appointment by the Crown.
LORD WELBY LORD WELBY pointed out that an appointment by the Crown would practically mean an appointment for life, whereas an appointment by Treasury Minute would necessarily mean retirement at the age of sixty-five.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE preferred that the Crown rather than the Treasury should have the appointment, but he quite appreciated the point that had been raised. He was quite prepared, therefore, to withdraw his future Amendment in that respect and have a limited number of years inserted instead.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment providing that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the schedule. He said that on the Second Reading he ventured to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he would be good enough to state on behalf of the Government the names of the Commissioners before the matter passed out of the control of Parliament. The noble Earl was kind enough to make a very sympathetic answer. He said it was not at all an unreasonable suggestion, and he would consider whether it was possible or not to comply with it. He thought that the easiest way of giving the noble Earl that opportunity was to move the Amendment in the form in which he had put it down, but it would be absurd to press it if the answer of the noble Earl was not a favourable one. If, however, it was favourable, he would ask their Lordships to insert the words in the clause, and then it would naturally follow that the names of the Commissioners would be stated in the
226
schedule. The control of very large sums of money, amounting to millions of pounds, was to be placed in the hands of these Commissioners, and their powers, even after the Amendment their Lordships had made to the first clause, would be very wide reaching. Such powers as those no doubt could be properly wielded by certain men and only by certain men; there were very few men who were really qualified to exercise them, and it would reassure their Lordships' minds very much if they knew who the Commissioners were to whom such enormous powers were to be entrusted. They were hardly giving any directions to the Commissioners as how they were to use their powers. They were in the position, he was going to say, of almost absolute monarchs, but certainly in a position of enormous independence. Of course, if they knew the names of the Commissioners they might be prepared to trust them with even greater powers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 26, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'named in the Second Schedule to this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON: When the noble Marquess raised this question on a previous occasion I said the demand was certainly not an unreasonable one, and I am still of the opinion that it is reasonable to ask the names of these men who, as the noble Marquess says, are to have such large sums entrusted to them, and whose powers are to be so far-reaching. There is one great difficulty about this, however, and it arises from the very fact which the noble Marquess himself mentioned. He said, and said truly, that the Commissioners must be very exceptional men and that it would be very difficult to find men so qualified. I quite agree; and that being so it would be most undesirable to make any hurried choice. I know that from the experience I had in the case of the Small Holdings Commissioners whom I was permitted to appoint. There were an enormous number of applicants, and had I been obliged to come to Parliament and hurriedly give names, instead of being able after careful consideration to give the names of those men whom I was fortunate enough to secure, the consequences might have been very disastrous. I have thought this thing over and consulted with the powers that be, and at the present moment it is absolutely impossible to give

227
the names of the Commissioners, especially as, if the noble Viscount's Amendments are carried, the duties of the Commissioners will be to a great extent changed, and a different class of man, of course, would have to be appointed. I am therefore grateful to the noble Marquess for offering not to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that if one of the Amendments on the Paper was carried the office of Commissioner would be made even more important than it was at the present time, and that was an additional reason for his noble friend desiring to know the names of the Commissioners before proceeding with the Bill. When he knew the House of Commons a good many years ago that House never would have parted with a Bill of this kind without knowing the names of the Commissioners who were to be placed in so important a position as the Commissioners proposed by this Bill. Nowadays there seemed to be a change of opinion, but he would venture to press upon their Lordships, in the interests of both Houses of Parliament, not to part with the Bill before they knew who the Commissioners were to be. The appointment was one of grave importance, and these men would be entrusted, practically without any control, to carry out very responsible duties. The least the Government could do was to inform Parliament of the names of the Commissioners proposed before the Bill became law.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE said the noble Viscount proposed to move an Amendment later which would give the Commissioners control of all the roads. How could the Government give the names of the Commissioners when they did not even know whether they were going to have the control of the roads or not? It also seemed to him that the names of the Commissioners who had control of the roads would be different from those who had not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved to amend subsection (4) so that it would read "The Commissioners may act by three of their number, 'of whom one shall be a paid Commissioner,' and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may regulate their own procedure." He said that he was in some difficulty with
228
regard to his Amendment, because it might have to be modified if the duties of the Commissioners were altered; but what he had to say might apply to one state of affairs as well as to the other. He thought that in public bodies generally the salaried officer almost always attended to the business in question, and from the nature of things was likely to be more conversant with the work than one who was not in that position. There might be arguments for and against his Amendment, but considering the extremely important nature of the work entrusted to the Commissioners and the great necessity that the public interest should be guarded as far as possible, he asked their Lordships to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 1, after 'number,' to insert 'of whom one shall be a paid Commissioner.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks this Amendment is absolutely necessary. If we insist upon one paid Commissioner always being present it might seriously hamper the work, as there might possibly only be one paid Commissioner and he might not be available on every occasion. He could not be expected to be present on every trivial occasion.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH pointed out that the constitution of the Commissioners might be altered and there might be two salaried Commissioners appointed, and then it might be laid down that one of them should always be present. He quite saw that in more or less trival work it might hamper the work to insist on the salaried man always being there; but where the work was at all important it would be greatly in the public interest to secure his attendance. He desired to leave himself entirely in the hands of the House, and if the general feeling was against it, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
4.—(1) Every application for an advance under this Part of this Act, whether by way of grant or by way of loan, by any body qualified to receive an advance under this Part of this Act, shall, if

229
the applicant is a Government Department, be referred by the Treasury to the Development Com missioners, and if the applicant is any other body or persons shall be sent by the Treasury to the Government Department concerned, to be by them referred together with their report thereon to the Development Commissioners.
(2) The Commissioners shall consider and report to the Treasury on every application so referred to them, and may for that purpose, if necessary, hold inquiries either by themselves, or by any of their officers, or any other person appointed for the purpose.
(3) The Commissioners may also appoint advisory committees, and may submit to any such advisory committee for their advice any application referred to them.
(4) The Commissioners may also frame schemes with respect to any of the matters for which advances may be made under this Part of this Act with a view to their adoption by a Government department or other body or persons to whom an advance may be made.
(5) Before making any recommendation for an advance for the purpose of the improvement of rural transport the Commissioners shall consult with the Road Board.
(6) The Commissioners shall make to the Treasury an annual report of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament by the Treasury.
LORD KENYON LORD KENYON moved to insert, after the word "referred" at the end of subsection (1) ["to be by them referred"] the words "if they think fit." He thought the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be grateful to him for the Amendment, because it allowed the Department a great deal more latitude than was allowed in the Bill. There seemed to be nothing in the Bill to prevent all schemes, good, bad, and indifferent, being referred to the Treasury, and he thought it advisable, as possibly many of the schemes would be of a "wild cat" nature, that there should be some safeguard.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 23, after the word 'referred,' to insert the words 'if they think fit.'"—(Lord Kenyon.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment because it really would give a sort of idea that everything was not fair, square, and above board. It would be really better to have a "wild cat" scheme, if there was such a thing, sent up to the Treasury than to have people saying that they had been unfairly treated and had not had a chance. The noble Lord said that his Amendment would enable the Government Department to prevent an application from an outside body being sent up to the
230
Treasury if it was a foolish one. No doubt that is a very laudable intention; but, on the whole, I think it better to leave the clause as it is, so that everybody may be certain of getting fair play and in order that there may be no idea of any underhand or unfair treatment or lobbying of any sort or kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved to leave out subsection (4), which empowered the Commissioners to frame schemes with a view to their adoption by a Government Department or other body or persons to whom an advance might be made. He regarded the subsection as a rather dangerous extension of the policy of giving carte blanche to the Commissioners. Every apprehension that was entertained on that side of the House applied to the clause with very much greater force because it changed and enlarged the whole character of the Commissioners. At the beginning of the Bill they were to be a judicial body, and in that character had very large powers indeed; they were able to range over the whole gamut from (a) to (g) as provided in the first clause of the Bill; and now for the first time they were told that they ought also to have the power of framing and initiating schemes on their own account. Their Lordships would be constituting a new body over whom as a Parliament they would have practically no control whatever, except some ex post facto discussions of their proceedings.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, lines 33 to 37, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has moved to leave out subsection (4), which gives the Commissioners power to frame schemes. I do not possess the apprehensions that the noble Lord appears to have, and this really seems to me to be a very useful provision. The noble Lord said that the Commissioners were a judicial body. That is true in the ordinary sense of the word, but they ought to be given power, as they are in the Bill, to frame schemes as well. I may say that this proposal was very carefully gone into in

231
Grand Committee in another place. There was a long debate about it, and it was very carefully thrashed out and eventually carried by a large majority. The Commissioners have a right, as we all know, of modifying a scheme; but supposing that the body bringing forward the scheme would not accept the modification, and it was a good scheme in many ways; surely it ought not to be made impossible for the Commissioners to take up such a scheme and put it forward with the modifications and safeguards suggested by them. The Commissioners naturally would have to obtain Treasury sanction. I need not point out that the advance would not be made to the Commissioners qua Commissioners. The advance, of course, would be made to the Government Department concerned. I really do not think that there are the dangers in the clause that the noble Lord seems to think, and I hope he will not press his Amendment, as I am afraid I am unable to accept it as it stands.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU agreed with the noble Earl that if the Development Commissioners were to be amalgamated, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, proposed, they must have power of initiation as well as power of administration. He was inclined to leave the subsection in.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE pointed out that it was quite possible, when the Commissioners got together, that they might very much prefer to initiate their own schemes than to adopt those put forward by the various bodies cited in the first clause and for whom the Bill was devised. Personally he would prefer to see the subsection cut out, so that the Commissioners might remain a reference body and not an initiating one.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Your Lordships will, of course, deal with the subsection on its merits, but if we were to inquire into its history I do not think the result of our inquiries would be quite so reassuring as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would have us believe. I am advised that this subsection formed no part of the original scheme of His Majesty's Government, but that it was introduced at a thinly-attended meeting of the Grand Committee and was accepted on that occasion by His Majesty's Government. It seems to me to be a very dangerous excrescence on the scheme of the Bill.
232
The Commissioners, as we understand, are to be, primarily at any rate, an advisory body, but this subsection as I read it confers upon them powers of initiation entirely distinct from the advisory functions which are naturally attributed to them. What would be the effect of the subsection? I think something of this kind, that the Commissioners under the subsection would be in the position of having their own scheme referred to themselves; they would initiate a scheme, that scheme would be referred to themselves for approval, and then recommended by themselves. That seems to me to be a very illogical and irregular arrangement and foreign to the principle of the Bill. I therefore will very gladly support my noble friend in deleting the subsection.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This matter is not quite so important a one as some noble Lords opposite seem to think, and in my opinion the somewhat gloomy apprehensions of my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale will not be realised. I do not think the matter is one of the first importance. I think the subsection would be useful in this way, that after a certain number of years have passed and the Commissioners have examined a vast number of schemes of different kinds coming from different Departments and acquired a mass of knowledge which no individual Department possesses, they might be, and I think ought to be, in a position to formulate certain schemes, and particularly schemes which might overlap the work of several different Departments. I quite follow the objection which the noble Marquess who has just sat down has taken, that it does seem somewhat anomalous that the same body should at the same time be reviewing schemes and conceivably making schemes of their own. On the other hand, considering what the standard of the body will be, and bearing in mind, as I have said, that these gentlemen will be in the possession of an amount of knowledge which nobody else in the whole country will possess, I think the power would be a useful one and I should not myself dread its being abused.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said the power proposed to be given to the Commissioners was quite foreign to the purpose for which they were to be created, which was that of an advisory body. To take the very first

233
purpose of the Bill for which money might be advanced by the Development Commissioners to a Government Department—agricultural education; it was quite clear that the scope of the Bill only put the Commissioners in the position of a go-between between the money they had and the Agricultural Department. The Agricultural Department had full knowledge of all the circumstances; they knew what money was required for the purposes of agricultural education and would draw up a scheme accordingly. If the Commissioners were not satisfied with that scheme, they might themselves draw up a scheme totally at variance with the one recommended by the Board of Agriculture. That was quite outside the duties for which the Development Commissioners were appointed, and he could not understand—although, of course, being a very responsible and clever body they might be able to make a good scheme—why such a power should be given to them when they were really an advisory committee and nothing else.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL quite recognised that their Lordships looked with a great deal of suspicion on the Bill and the quarter from which it came, but he did venture to suggest that they had allowed their apprehensions to get the better of their business considerations. Even if the subsection were omitted, the Commissioners would not be prevented from giving the tip to a Government Department that, from the knowledge they had gained, a certain scheme was desirable. Under the subsection as amended the Commissioners would frame schemes and merely recommend their adoption by a Government Department. From an ordinary business point of view was it wise that people who had special experience should sit idle without power to turn their special knowledge to account? Whether the subsection were left in the Bill or struck out would make only a technical difference.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved to amend subsection (6) so that it would read "The Commissioners shall make to the Treasury an annual report of their proceedings, 'including accounts showing the salaries of the Commissioners and their officers and servants and the expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of their duties
234
under this Act,' and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament by the Treasury." He said that under the Bill the Commissioners would undoubtedly have a considerable amount of money to expend and he thought it advisable that, together with their annual report, the Commissioners should provide accounts showing the amounts expended.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'proceedings,' to insert the words 'including accounts showing the salaries of the Commissioners and their officers and servants and the expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of their duties under this Act.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the proposal of the noble Viscount is already covered by Clause 2, subsection (4). By that clause the Comptroller and the Auditor-General have to examine the accounts annually before the 30th of September and the Treasury have to lay the accounts and report on the Table of the House of Commons. I think the noble Viscount will be satisfied, therefore, that what he wishes done is already in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not profess to understand Treasury practice like many of their Lordships but he should have doubted whether Clause 2 covered exactly the same ground as the Amendment proposed by his noble friend. No doubt the Treasury and the Auditor-General would have to be satisfied as to the payments in and out of the fund, but what his noble friend asked for was that in the annual report to Parliament there should be included those facts, which were very simple ones and which were within the cognisance of the Commissioners. He thought the Amendment was obviously not an unreasonable one.
EARL CARRINGTON: My great desire is to meet noble Lords on the other side of the House and I make every possible effort to do so, but in this case what the noble Viscount asks for is really already in the Bill. I am informed on the best authority that that is so, and as this is not a point of great importance I really hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD WELBY LORD WELBY pointed out that the proper place for any account of salaries and expenses was really in the report of the

235
Comptroller and Auditor-General and not in the annual report to Parliament of the proceedings of the Commissioners. The noble Viscount, he trusted, would take it from him that subsection (4) of Clause 2 satisfied the object of the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
5.—(1) Where an advance is made under this Part of this Act for any purpose which involves the acquisition of land, the Department, body, or persons to whom the advance is made, may acquire and hold land for the purpose, and where they are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
(2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or which at that date 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 is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archæological interest.
(3) The Commissioners in making an order for the compulsory purchase of land shall have regard to the extent of land hold or occupied in the locality by any owner or tenant and to the convenience of other property belonging to or occupied by the same owner or tenant, and shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or tenant, and for that purpose where part only of a holding is taken shall take into consideration the size and character of the existing agricultural buildings not proposed to be taken which are used in connection with the holding and the quantity and nature of the land available for occupation therewith, and shall also so far as practicable avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or others employed on or about the land.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN wished to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question with regard to subsection (1). Neither in that subsection, nor, so far as he could make out, in any other part of the Bill, was there anything empowering the Commissioners to make the order, and he submitted to the noble Earl that at the end of the subsection, after the word "Act," he should add the words, "and the Commissioners shall have power to make such order." He believed in almost every Act of
236
Parliament, and he had looked at several, the actual power was conferred to make the order, and he could not find anything of the sort in the Bill before their Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 12, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and the Commissioners shall have power to make such order.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite appreciate the point raised by the noble Earl opposite, which I understand to be that the Department may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order, but, as he thinks, no specific power is given to the Commissioners to make the order. It is, of course, a question of drafting, or, if not simply of drafting, of Parliamentary usage, and I am not certain whether the mere fact of the order being mentioned empowers the Development Commissioners to issue it or not. If the noble Earl is right, clearly some words are necessary, and before Report we will inquire into it.
EARL CARRINGTON: I see the noble Earl's point now, and I may say at once that I am able to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment with a view to exempt from compulsory acquisition land in which minerals were being worked. He said he thought it must have been an oversight in the drafting of the Bill that the protection which was extended to a railway, dock, canal, water or other public undertaking had not been extended to the working of quarries. He hoped that His Majesty's Government would be able to accept this Amendment, although there might be some further questions arising as regards minerals; but if the noble Earl who was in charge of the Bill wished it to be left over, he was prepared to leave it over till Report. But he thought the whole question of minerals required consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 18, after 'dwelling-house,' to insert 'or which is being used for the purposes of working minerals by the proprietor of the minerals, or which a lessee under a mining lease is entitled to use for such purposes,' and in line 22, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—
'(3) An Order under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals under any land in respect of which an Order under this section is made except only such parts of any such mines as shall be necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of works for which an advance is made under this Part of this Act.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL CARRINGTON: Would the noble Duke leave the Amendment over?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes, if the noble Earl will undertake to look into the whole question of minerals.
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes; but there is one question I should like to ask the noble Duke. This applies entirely to surface land, does it not?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE replied that it did apply entirely to surface land. But he would like to ask the noble Earl if he had any intention of applying this Bill to underground minerals as well?
EARL CARRINGTON: You might leave that over.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said that if the Government would look into the whole question he would leave his Amendment over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The consideration of Clause 7 (Constitution of Road Board) was postponed until Clause 8 (Powers of Road Board) had been considered.
Clause 8:
8.—(1) The Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury—

(a) To make advances to county councils and other highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads;

(b) Themselves to construct and maintain any new roads,

which appear to the Board to be required for facilitating road traffic.
(2) In making advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may, where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of maintenance of such new roads.
The sums expended by the Road Board out of income on the construction of new roads or the acquisition of land, or in respect of any loan raised for any such purpose, shall not in any year exceed one-third of the estimated receipts of the Road Board for that year.
(3) An advance to a highway authority may be either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and shall be upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Board think fit.
For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression "improvement of roads" includes the widening of any road, the cutting off the corners of any road where land is required to be purchased for that purpose, the levelling of roads, the treatment of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust, and the doing of any other work in respect of roads beyond ordinary repairs essential to placing a road in a proper state of repair; and the expression "roads" includes bridges, viaducts, and subways.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY moved an Amendment to Clause 8 in order to add to the power of the Road Board, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new toads or the improvement of existing roads, the power to contribute towards the maintenance of existing roads "provided that in making an advance for such maintenance the Road Board shall have regard to the additional expenditure incurred by the highway authority on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic." He said that much additional expenditure had been thrown on various counties as a result of the motor traffic over their highways, and before aiding the construction of new roads the State ought, from the money obtained by taxes on motor vehicles and petrol, to make grants to local authorities to assist them in repairing the destruction which had taken place in their roads through motor traffic. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would see his way to accept this extension of the Road Board's powers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 20, after the word 'roads,' to insert the words 'or the maintenance of existing roads. Provided that in making an advance for such maintenance the Road Board shall have regard to the additional expenditure incurred by the highway authority on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic.'"—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE said that before the Amendment of the Earl of Derby was further discussed, he would like to draw the attention of their Lordships

239
to an Amendment standing in his name on the same subject, in which he proposed to use the words, "and an advance made to a highway authority for the purpose of such maintenance shall be based upon any additional rate per pound rendered necessary by reason of motor traffic." He fully agreed with all that the Earl of Derby had just said, and would not press his Amendment if it met with no support from the Committee. But he would point out to their Lordships that although the abnormal expenditure caused by motor traffic on the roads might be equal in two districts, the amount which had to be raised per pound in rating to meet that expenditure might vary in the two districts very considerably. He bad in mind some of the impoverished districts in the Highlands. Tourists who paid nothing towards the rates and who had no connection with those districts did considerable damage to the roads, and it required very little damage to the roads in some districts to make the rate per pound go up by shillings; whereas in another district the same number of pence per pound might cover the same damage. He thought that in allocating any money or advance on the principle that the noble Earl had just suggested regard should be had, not only to the expenditure of the district, but also to the capacity of the ratepayers of that district to bear the burden. He had, therefore, suggested in his Amendment that an advance made to a highway authority should be based upon the additional rate per pound rendered necessary by reason of motor traffic.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said they had had an undertaking from the Government in the House of Commons precisely to the opposite effect of this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was speaking about this scheme particularly stated—and he had his words spoken on the 16th of June—that he did not propose that any money should be spent on ordinary road maintenance. To take money from a special class and spend it on a road used by all classes of vehicles would be a manifest injustice. Reference had been made to Highland roads, many of which had fallen into disuse, but it would be in the competence of the Road Board to make special grants to get better material or to add to the width of the roads, and in that case it would be an advantage; but to insert
240
a clause, as the noble Earl wished to do, to make maintenance a charge on the funds of the Road Board would be, he thought, a great mistake. The roads had been brought up already to a very much better state, and not only motor traffic but many other kinds of traffic had increased. If they put in the word maintenance, the money for maintenance would only come from the light motors, and not from the heavy motors, which they all agreed did more damage than any other form of motor traffic. For instance, they might have a road entirely ruined by traction engine traffic, or by the running of motor omnibuses. Neither of those classes of vehicle, according to the decision in another place, would pay towards the funds of the Road Board. The inclusion of maintenance would be a breach of the agreement that the Government had entered into, which was that the Road Board should keep in view the fact that all this money came out of one special class of vehicles and should be used for the widening of roads, the diminution of dust, and the other objects set forth in the Bill. On these grounds he was sorry that he could not agree with his noble friends on the Front Bench.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT said there seemed to be an understanding, judging from the noble Lord's speech, between those who wished for rapid running on the roads and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which indicated the existence of a sort of alliance between road-hogs and a predatory Chancellor. He failed to see why their Lordships should make themselves in any way a party to that agreement. He desired to put the point of view of the two parties who were mostly concerned in the road—firstly, the ratepayer; and, secondly, the non-road-hog motorists who used the local roads. With regard to the ratepayer, he would divide the districts into two. First, those which had big trunk roads through them; and, secondly, such districts as those which the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, had quoted in the Highlands, the roads of which a large number of motor tourists used for a short period of the year. Over the trunk roads there was undoubtedly a very large number of cars running, not on six days of the week only, as was the case with ordinary traffic, but on the seven days of the week. It was a traffic which contributed nothing to the public purse or to the local authority.

241
Then they had in far-away parts motors which used the roads for two or three months, as in the case of the Highlands, and used many roads which were otherwise never used at all.
He would give them a concrete case—that of a road leading from Inverness to Perth, a road which ten years ago for a distance of about twenty miles had absolutely no traffic at all. Bridges were broken down and grass was allowed to grow in the road, because no one travelled over it. That particular road now had to have a very large sum expended upon it, because in one month there was an average of seventy-nine motor cars passing on that road in a day. That had, of course, added enormously to the local rates of Inverness and of Perth. There was a petition, he believed, handed the other day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which showed that the cost of the roads of Perthshire had gone up by nearly thirty per cent., and the whole of that was ascribed to increased motor traffic. In the same way in Inverness-shire there were three or four roads upon which hitherto there had been practically no traffic, but now they had to be kept up entirely for motorists. Surely they had a right to expect, before any grants were given for the making of roads or the rounding off of corners, that they would get a grant to pay the local authorities for the damage actually done to the roads.
The rounding off of corners was really to suit the individual motorist, who wished to swish round the corner at top speed. The local man would have to pay more for the road, because all the motorists would then be running at a very much higher rate of speed, and would therefore do more damage to the surface of the road. Then the question would be raised as to how this damage was to be assessed. It was a point which was very often raised on this particular question as to how they were going to assess the damage done by motor cars. It was perfectly simple. The damage could be assessed on the principle of what was known as extra ordinary traffic. Many noble Lords had no doubt paid in this way in the case of cutting down woods or in connection with collieries. There was excessive traffic over a certain portion of a road and it was assessed, and the individual who caused the excessive traffic had to pay the difference. He had known cases
242
where the cost of roads had caused the rates to leap up twenty-five and thirty per cent., and he thought that the motorists ought to pay out of this grant those differences. He supported the Amendment.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE referred to the statement of the noble Lord who had just spoken that in the Highlands there was a very large traffic that did not pay anything at all to the roads, and said he lived in a district of South Wales where they had to a less extent the same thing. But they had to remember this, that though those tourists did not pay anything directly to the rates, undoubtedly they brought an immense amount of money into the district. It was certainly true, in the county in which he lived, that little places by the seaside that practically never saw a tourist before, now did see tourists who came in their motor cars, and though the roads suffered to a small extent, there was a great deal of money brought into the districts, and in those places this traffic was not regarded unfavourably. At the same time, he would like to see the motor fund large enough to give grants where the local authorities suffered from the wear and tear of motors, but at present the fund was a small one and nine out of ten people would say that the first consideration was to deal with the dust nuisance. Tar ought to be laid down in every town and village, and for two miles outside the towns and one mile outside the villages. It had been calculated that £400,000 would be required for this purpose throughout the county and the Road Board might contribute £200,000 towards that amount. It was admitted that where tar was laid down the roads undoubtedly lasted much longer, and it was not only a benefit to the public in the summer but an actual economy in the winter. If the Road Board had power, as it would have undoubtedly under this Bill, to contribute largely to reduce the dust nuisance, he thought that the Road Board, and the motorists through the Board, would contribute largely to remedy one of the greatest grievances against motorists. The second object for using this money was the question of corners. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Lovat, spoke as if the rounding of corners was going to increase the speed of motorists enormously. In some cases that might be true; but, after all, the motorist did

243
not want corners rounded off so that he could go more quickly round them.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Yes, he does.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE said he was afraid the noble Lord suspected motorists wherever he saw them. He had not the privilege of being in the House last week when the noble Lord spoke on this subject but he read his speech with great interest. It seemed to him (Lord St. David's) that if they put this question not only to motorists but to everybody who drove a vehicle on country roads, they would want corners not rounded off, but cut down. A motorist liked to know whether there was a cart coming round the corner, but the carter was much more anxious to know whether a motor car was coming round the corner. He thought that some noble Lords misapprehended the wishes of motorists in this matter. What they desired was not to be able to go quicker round corners, but that the corners should be cut down so that they should not be endangering their own lives, and still more, the lives of anybody else. If some of the worst corners in the country were cut down there would be in a very few years, and possibly months, a very marked diminution in the number of accidents. Subject to what he had said, he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that it would be only fair that grants should be made for the maintenance of roads. Lord Montagu had said that there would be cases where the owners of light motors, who at present were the only people taxed, would be called upon under this Amendment to provide for damage done by an entirely different vehicle. He had a case in mind on the road to Fishguard. On that road they had a very large number of motor cars. They had Irish and American motor cars and other tourists' motor cars going through the country, and they all ran on the same road and did a certain amount of damage. But on that road as a whole there was nothing like what was known as a motor track—they all knew what a motor track was—except in one particular place. There was a little bit of the road in Breconshire along which a motor omnibus ran all the year round. It was owned by the railway company and was run in the public interest between two points not well served by the railway, and where that motor omnibus ran there was a well-defined track all along the road. Under the Amendment
244
it would be rather unfair that a fund contributed to in the main by the owners of light motors should have to pay for damage obviously done in a particular place by one heavy vehicle. Any one who motored along the road to Fishguard could see that spot for himself. Subject to that he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that it was unfair that the owners of motors who lived in a town should run over the roads of the county and contribute nothing whatever towards them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said he was not quite sure what the conclusion of the noble Lord's speech was, and whether he was going to vote for or against the Amendment. He agreed with most of what the noble Lord had said, but the conclusion brought to his mind was that they ought to support the Amendment and not oppose it, Lord St. David's had said with truth that the most important thing to do with the roads was to cover them with a treatment of tar, and the noble Lord thought that was secured by the Bill without the Amendment. He (Lord Salisbury) did not think it was. It was quite true that to cover the road with tar in the first place was included in the words of the Bill as it stood, but once the tar had been laid on the road, the maintaining of that tar application could not be paid out of the money of the Road Board. That would be ordinary repair, and the cost would have to be found by the ratepayers, He lived in a county where they suffered acutely through the wear and tear of the roads by motor cars. When motorists got to Wales or Scotland they could not get any further, and therefore there might be something in the noble Lord's plea that a great deal of money was brought by motor cars into the country. But, unfortunately, motorists rushed through Hertfordshire in large numbers, not, as Lord Lovat very rightly said, on six days of the week but on seven days, and the cost of their roads had gone up enormously entirely owing to the motor cars. They did not want what Lord Montagu seemed to suggest, payment for increasing their road accommodation, at least, not in the first place. What they wanted to-day was to be repaid the loss which they now sustained and which they ought not to have sustained by motor traffic. That was obviously an equitable proposition. They desired to maintain their roads in the highest condition of efficiency. Most of their Lordships who ran motors in the neighbourhood of London would agree

245
that the local authorities had succeeded in maintaining their roads in as efficient a condition as possible, but it had cost them an enormous sum of money, and they did think they were entitled to receive part of the money drawn from the motor cars. If he might give a word of advice to his noble friend who represented in their Lordships' House what he believed was called the "motor interest," he thought they would be wise not to resist this just demand and thereby endeavour to conciliate public opinion.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL said that although motorists were desirous of conciliating public opinion in every possible way, yet he had never discovered how a motorist could do it, and he had never seen public opinion conciliated. They had had from the noble Lord below the Gangway opposite what he took it would be called by the anti-motorist Press a reasonable and temperate statement of the case for the public. The noble Lord began by saying that the roads he was speaking of in the Highlands were traversed by cars from a distance which contributed nothing to the rates. The noble Lord undoubtedly meant contributed nothing to the local rates. He did not suppose that the, noble Lord suggested that owners of motor cars did not contribute both to Imperial and local taxation, just as other people. He lived in London and contributed to the maintenance of the streets, and did not complain of it. Shoals of travellers in cabs, principally from the North, passed his door, and why should the noble Lord, because he lived in Perthshire, complain of him when he visited Perthshire? Surely it was an advantage that roads should be made, and he should have thought it was also an advantage that roads should be used, but one would not have gathered that from the speech of the noble Lord. One thing the noble Lord said was that before this shocking advent of motor cars, which caused such terror to the local inhabitants, these roads had not been used at all. What were roads made for? Were they made in order to be looked at or shown upon a map? What object was there in making a road except that it should be used by road traffic in going from one place to another? The noble Lord had said that these roads were so bad that they had fallen into disuse, and that the bridges had been broken down and the grass allowed to grow on the roads. He thought he understood Lord Lovat also to say that there was now a constant stream
246
of motor cars passing along the same road. Surely the question came naturally to one's mind, Why had that road been repaired and why had those bridges been put right for traffic? The local authority were free to leave the road in a state that it was not fit for traffic.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL said that noble Lords said "No," but he heard no suggestion that the local authority had neglected their duty; but if they had neglected their duty all these years, all that the motor traffic had done had been to bring them to a sense of their duty. If the local authority were liable to be indicted for having neglected their duty, the noble Lord could not blame motorists for bringing them to a sense of that duty. Then it was said that these roads were kept up entirely for motorists. Why? Was it not the case that the population desired to have these visitors upon their roads? Motorists brought a good deal of money into these districts. Did the noble Lord think if he polled the people of Perthshire as to whether they would have motors there or not, they would vote anything but in the affirmative? If the noble Lord thought that, why did the local authorities keep up those attractive roads which brought large numbers of motorists into the country? It might just as well be argued that because somebody did not reside and pay rates in a seaside resort he should not be entitled to use the esplanade or promenade. Arguments of that kind suggested a policy of a community making a road only for the inhabitants. That was not the system on which we worked in this country. Local authorities fully recognised that it was their duty to provide and maintain roads not only for ratepayers but for visitors. There was a case in the Potteries where two large towns fairly close to each other were connected by a road maintainable by the county council. The traffic there was entirely the traffic of the towns, but the road had to be paid for by the county. He had always admitted that a county which had to incur a large expenditure for a road of that sort might naturally feel it had some grievance; but the remedy for that sort of thing was to place the main roads under the control of a larger body or to make them national roads. If they were to make the individual motor car pay, why not make the other

247
individual traffic pay? Large traction engines, which were not to be taxed one iota, did more damage to the roads than all the light cars had ever done.
The Amendment was that these taxes were to be used for the maintenance of the roads. He suggested that that in itself was not a reasonable proposition; but there was a stronger reason against considering any Amendment of this sort at this stage. The noble Lord poured scorn upon what he described as an alliance between road-hogs and a predatory Chancellor. But the road-hogs, as far as he knew, were distinguished members of the Automobile Club who had not previously been so named, and the bargain amounted in effect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he was going to take a certain specific tax from a specific class of the community for a specific purpose. The Amendment suggested, as the proper development of that, that the taxation should be taken from the specific class, but that it should be allocated to quite a different purpose. That would be contrary to the whole spirit of the arrangement, and he hoped the noble Lord would not insist upon his Amendment
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND denied that any body of motorists had any right to make a bargain with Parliament. That their Lordships were to be influenced in their decision on the assumption that a voluntary body, which chose to take up an expensive amusement, extremely obnoxious to their fellow-countrymen, had entered into a bargain with the Government was the most extraordinary argument he ever heard. They were sometimes told that their Lordships' House was out of sympathy with the people, that they I did not know what the people said or what the people thought that they did not know the people's grievances or what they wanted. He had always repudiated that accusation, but he must say that when he heard debates such as they had had that night he did not wonder that people outside held that opinion. And the most extraordinary part of it was that the speeches to which he referred came from the opposite side of the House, which usually arrogated to itself a knowledge of the wants of and sympathy with the people. Lord St. David's had told them what he regarded as the great grievance of the motor traffic——
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE: The public grievance.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND agreed; the grievance of the public in consequence of the motor traffic. According to the noble Lord, the main grievances were dust and comers. Dust was a horrible nuisance, and a great pecuniary loss to those who lived by the sides of the roads. As to corners, he was rather sceptical. He did not think that the carter whom the noble Lord spoke of as going round a corner in great terror would be in that terror if motor cars always went, as they should, at a proper pace round corners. Then as to the great benefit derived from tourists, he thought that was entirely a matter of chance. No doubt in some parts they did good, but in other parts that was not the case. He entirely corroborated what fell from Lord Lovat. He lived in the North of England in a very thinly-populated county. He granted that some of the inns on the high roads benefited by motor traffic, but what happened to the whole of the rest of the thinly-populated district? The real grievance of the present condition of affairs was the rising rates throughout the country. Farmers who were miles away from the road had to pay rates increased by a traffic from which they derived no advantage and never would. That was the universal cry. It had been suggested by Earl Russell that the cars or their owners contributed to the rates just as other people. Yes, but they did about three times the damage others did. The truth of the matter was that there was here a new development of a new form of locomotion, which had imposed not only dangers and inconveniences but a considerable annual loss upon the people of the country. It seemed to him but justice that those who had been responsible for producing that state of things should contribute to the relief of the excessive burden which their pursuit had imposed upon the country. He must say that it was a great pity that in that House motorists should show such little sympathy and such little understanding of where the shoe pinched their fellow-countrymen, though in their individual capacities he was sure they were as unselfish as any of the community.
LORD RIBBLESDALE*LORD RIBBLESDALE said that at the risk of adding to what the noble Duke had described as the mischievous character

249
of this debate, he desired to say a few words. Like his noble friend he, too, lived in the North of England. He lived in a county which was supposed to have many amenities as regarded its scenery and peculiar unkindness as regarded its climate, but still a great many people came there in motor cars. He could not say he agreed with the noble Duke. He liked motor cars, and he believed other people liked them. They brought a certain current of life to lonely districts, and there was a willingness to share the money which the motorist was supposed to lavish in his progress through the various counties of England. But it was felt at the same time that those who ran their motors over the roads added a deal to the expenses of the locality, and he had considerable sympathy with Lord Derby's Amendment, though from its wording he thought it went rather further than he could wish. From the way the Amendment was worded, it seemed almost a direct instruction that the maintenance of the roads should be found out of moneys specifically granted for other purposes. He did not now whether the point could be made clear in any other way. He would like it more clearly expressed that the advances would be only "towards" the maintenance of these roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said that if the noble Lord's Amendment was adopted he thought it was only just to the case as it stood to-day that they should insert the words "light motor car traffic," because at the present time it was not proposed to tax any commercial vehicles or traction engines, and these did an enormous amount of damage. He was sure the noble Earl did not wish to ask light motor car traffic to pay for the damage done by heavy motor car traffic.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I put "motor traffic" in and I hope it will stand, and that it will result in the taxation of these heavy motors of which such complaint has been made.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Will you alter the Amendment so that it would read, "the Road Board shall have regard to the additional expenditure incurred by the highway authority 'towards' the maintenance of existing roads"?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN suggested that after the word "roads" Lord Derby should
250
insert the words, "or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by a highway authority on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that was practically Lord Lovat's Amendment, if their Lordships would look at the words on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY said his Amendment had this object in view, that the Road Board, in addition to making advances for new roads and for improving existing roads, should also have the power of making advances to those districts where on account of abnormal motor traffic abnormal damage was done to the roads. The Amendment did not compel them to give such advances, but if they thought that in a particular district this money could be justly applied towards meeting the additional expenditure involved by motor traffic, then he proposed that they should have the power to give such money. He did not see that the noble Lord's suggestion would really alter the sense of his Amendment. His Amendment did not provide that the Road Board should pay the whole of the increased cost, but that they should be able to make a grant towards it. It, however, the noble Lord opposite would like him to put in the word "towards," he did not see that it made any difference, and he would gladly accept it.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I think Viscount St. Aldwyn's suggestion is the best.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE asked the noble Earl who moved the Amendment whether he would accept the suggestion about the light motor car traffic? He thought the noble Earl rather liked the idea that the heavy motor car traffic should pay, but as their Lordships' House had no power to make it pay, and the light motor car traffic was finding the money, it was only reasonable that it should be protected in this manner.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN confessed that the Amendment as it stood on the Paper did go rather beyond what he desired, because it would give the road authority power to make a grant for the maintenance of roads in ordinary circumstances. No doubt there was a proviso that the Road Board were to have regard to the additional expenditure incurred, but he did not think that his noble friend or their Lordships desired that in a case where there was no extra

251
ordinary expenditure a grant should be made for maintenance. He again suggested that these words would meet the position, "or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by the highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic."
LORD RIBBLESDALE: That would meet me.
THE EARL OF DERBY*THE EARL OF DERBY said the noble Viscount's suggestion entirely carried out his wish, and he would be glad to substitute it for his Amendment. He therefore withdrew his Amendment, and moved it in a new form, which would make the subsection read as follows: "The Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to county councils and other highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by the highway authority in the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic."
EARL CARRINGTON: We have had a very interesting discussion on this clause, and I think the first thing I ought to say is that His Majesty's Government do sincerely recognise the very liberal way in which they have been met by the motorists of the United Kingdom. The motorists have come forward in a very generous way. They have cheerfully accepted a very heavy taxation for public purposes, and I think not only the Government but the country generally ought to recognise the way in which motorists have so generously faced the position. I need hardly say that any alliance between His Majesty's Government and motorists would be as much repudiated by motorists as by the Government. We all agree, of course, as to the hardships which have been so eloquently put forward by Lord Lovat and others; but, as Lord Ribblesdale said, the question really is that the noble Earl, Lord Derby, wishes advances to be made from the Road Fund for the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic. That is what we have got to decide, and if I may respectfully say so all the other points raised are more or less side issues. What this Amendment really means, if it means anything at all, is a grant to the rates. That is the sole and only object of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has on several occasions pointed out that this is not a measure for the relief of rates. It is no more a measure for
252
the relief of rates than it is a Right to Work Bill. I made that as plain as I possibly could in my speech on the Second Reading, and I hope your Lordships will not lose sight of that. It is not a measure for the relief of rates, and it is not a measure to provide work in bad times. The road problem is an absolutely different problem altogether, and ought to be treated in a different way; and if I may venture to say so, this proposal is not the right way of facing it. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in Committee in another place, if this money is used for this purpose it will be thrown away. But still under the Bill the ratepayers will to a certain extent benefit, because it allows money to be spent towards the improvement of existing roads. The Board will be able to assist, as has been said, by making grunts for cutting off corners and making gradients easier, and so forth. There was one question asked that I think I ought to answer. It was whether tar sprinkling, which is of such enormous importance to the unfortunate dwellers on the roadside, would come under the category of the improvement of roads. I think there is no doubt about that, because in Clause 8, subclause (3), you will find these words—
"For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression 'improvement of roads' includes the widening of any road, the cutting off the corners of any road where land is required to be purchased for that purpose, the levelling of roads, the treatment of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust," etc.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl will look further on, he will see it is only "beyond ordinary repairs."
EARL CARRINGTON: Quite so; but as I read it road sprinkling can be safely done under Clause 8, subclause (3). In these circumstances and as the Amendment is simply and solely a grant to the rates, it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept this provision. We have to take a very strong line upon this, and if the Amendment is persisted in I am afraid I shall have to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
On Question, whether the words "or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by the highway authority on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic" be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wicklow, E.

Faber, L.

Rutland, D.

Forester, L.

Wellington, D.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Grenfell, L.

De Vesci, V.

Hindlip, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Kenyon, L.

Bath, M.

Hill, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Bristol, M.

Hood, V.

Lamington, L.

Camden, M.

Iveagh, V.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Salisbury, M.

Lovat, L.

Addington, L.

Ludlow, L.

Cairns, E.

Allerton, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Camperdown, E.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Mostyn, L.

Clarendon, E.

Bagot, L.

North, L.

Cromer, E.

Barrymore, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Basing, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Derby, E.

Belper, L.

Sanderson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Sinclair, L.

Jersey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

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

Kimberley, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Ventry, L.

Malmesbury, E.

De Mauley, L.

Waleran, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Digby, L.

Walsingham, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Waldegrave. E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Airedale, L.

Haversham, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Allendale, L.

Marchamley, L.

Armitstead, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Atkinson, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Blyth, L.

Pentland, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Boston, L.

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

Braye, L.

St. David's, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Russell, E.

Eversley, L.

Swaythilng, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Weardale, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to leave out the words which gave the Road Board power "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads." He wished to make it quite clear that he did not at all desire to do what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu objected to—namely, deprive the Road Board of initiative in this matter. He spoke of the Road Board as it now stood in the Bill, but he referred to any authority who might be entrusted with this part of the Bill. As the Bill originally stood, the Road Board was entrusted with very great powers with reference to the making of new roads. The idea then was that the Road Board should, as it were,
254
map out the country and propose some great new roads such as from London to York, or from London to Exeter, and that these roads, when made, should not be general highways, but solely main ways for motor traffic. Motors were to be allowed to go at any speed they liked over those roads. It was a conception of an entirely different kind, he was glad to say, from anything that now existed in the Bill. That proposal was rejected in spite of Party ties, by the commonsense of members in another place, and they had now a very truncated form of the power originally proposed to be conferred on the Road Board. This power was solely for the construction and maintenance of new roads, which were to be ordinary highways, used like other highways for ordinary traffic.
He did not think it was advisable or

255
necessary to confer such powers on the Road Board. In the first place, he doubted whether they had, or would have, means at all sufficient for this purpose. They were already bound by the clause as it stood, and by the Amendment to which their Lordships had just agreed. In the first place, before they constructed or maintained any new roads, they had to make advances to county councils and other highway authorities in respect of the improvement of existing roads and towards the extraordinary cost of maintenance in consequence of motor traffic. Therefore, out of their £600,000 a year, there would necessarily be but a small amount that could be devoted to this purpose, and that amount was carefully confined under subsection (2) of this clause, to one-third of the estimated receipts of the Road Board for any year. It could not, therefore, in any way exceed £200,000, a year. Some persons, as he had observed in the Press that morning, had a very extended idea as to the possibilities of the construction of new roads by the Road Board. They had suggested, for example, a new road round Brentford, new roads to connect London with the North and West or South of England, and other proposals of that kind, which could not be carried out except by expenditure far in excess of anything that could possibly be available to the Road Board under this Bill. Practically confined as the Road Board were to a maximum of £200,000 a year, all that they could do under this Bill in the construction of new roads would be to construct a few new roads in country districts where land might be reasonably cheap, and where such new roads would certainly be less wanted than in more populous areas.
Now, was this the best way of improving the roads in England? He did not believe it was. If the Road Board took upon themselves to plan out a new road through the district of local authorities who did not approve of that road they would be from the beginning in practical antagonism to those local authorities, who would say "If you make this road you will make a road we do not require; you will impose on us (under the Bill as it stood) the liability for the future maintenance of the road; you will increase our rates to that extent, and you will do it against our will." He did not believe in the efficiency of that
256
kind of compulsion. What he did believe in was the power of the purse, which was really provided by subsection (1) of this clause. If the Road Board desired a new road to be made through the district of any local authority all they would have to do if, as he proposed, paragraph (b) were left out, would be to communicate in the first place with the local authorities concerned, and suggest to them that a road should be constructed between such and such places. If the local authorities were willing to undertake the work, the Road Board could under the Bill give them a grant towards the cost. The county council, necessarily and rightly fortified as it would be under the Bill with the power of compulsory purchase of land, would be able, aided by this grant, to construct the new road infinitely more to the satisfaction of the people concerned and infinitely more efficiently and cheaply than the Road Board could construct it. Every road authority had at its command a surveyor and a staff experienced in the construction and maintenance of roads, who would be able in such circumstances to give their services for this work; but the Road Board or the Commissioners, whoever their Lordships might decide upon as the authority under this part of the Bill, would have to form a staff of the kind for themselves at great expense, and, as he said, at an absolutely unnecessary expense as compared with the procedure he had just indicated. Surely before they gave a central board of this kind authority to construct roads against the wishes of the local authorities, they ought to try to see whether they could not persuade the local authorities to do the work themselves.
If anybody looked back at the history of the roads of England for the last twenty years and compared the state of those roads at present with the state in which they were before county councils were instituted, he would realise the extraordinary improvement that had taken place. He ventured to say that in no country in the world had the state of the main roads progressed more than in this country in the last twenty years. Could they say, then, that these county authorities which had already done so much were not likely to rise to what was necessary in the future, and, aided as they might be by the central authority under this Bill with grants from

257
the Imperial Exchequer, do all that was necessary for the improvement of the roads? All he contended was that they ought to try thorn first. If, having tried them, they found that the work could not be done, then Parliament might interfere and place greater powers, as some persons now desired, in the hands of a central road board; but, considering what had been done and the willingness of the county authorities to aid in this work of improvement, surely they ought to pause before placing in the hands of a central authority of this kind powers which were already so well exercised by the local authorities. The noble Earl the Lord Steward knew a new-road in the county in which he (Viscount St. Aldwyn) lived, Gloucestershire, towards which a very large grant had been made by the county council. There was no hesitation in granting what funds were necessary for the construction of that new road. He believed the same was the case all over England. Let them give the county councils what they would have under this Bill, compulsory powers for the purchase of laud at a reasonable rate, and they would make as many new roads, with the aid of a giant from the national Exchequer, as could possibly be desired.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 27, to leave out the words '(b) themselves to construct and maintain any new roads.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount proposes an Amendment the effect of which would be to deprive the Road Board of the power of constructing new roads. In the powerful speech he made he said that you ought to try the local authorities first. But we must remember that in old days all the main trunk roads of the kingdom were made by turnpike trusts under Act of Parliament, and, in view of the national importance of these roads, I think the noble Viscount would be the first to agree that it would be impossible to allow one single authority to upset a scheme, though, of course, as I said before, the Road Board would go in the first place to the local authority and see what could be done to obtain the sanction of that authority. London is, of course, different from the country districts, but all those who have been on the London County Council know what terrible difficulty there was with the tramways owing to the borough authorities
258
refusing to allow the tramways to go through the areas of their different jurisdictions, and even when permission was given, conditions were exacted which enormously increased the cost of the undertaking. If that was done in London, although I agree that the conditions are dissimilar, I really do not see why it should not be done in the country; and therefore if we are ever to have these big roads in any particular district where they are wanted, would it not be much better to have some central authority to make them? I repeat that it is not in any way intended under the Bill to make it the first duty of the Road Board to construct great trunk roads, and to rush wildly into any great expense. The noble Viscount also pointed out the difficulty that might arise on account of the small amount of money there was to spend. One-third of the £600,000 is the limit under Clause 8, subsection (2), and therefore. I think that would be a guarantee that no immense expenditure would be run into. Though, of course, the money is a small amount, at any rate a beginning might be made towards carrying out a very big scheme which might be of great national importance. Then, of course, there are the safeguards which I have already pointed out, that before approving the construction of a new road the Treasury have to consult the Local Government Board, and objections raised by any highway authorities will be considered. I think under these conditions the objections of the noble Viscount are not perhaps as serious as he makes out. As this Amendment strikes really at the root of the whole Bill, it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept it, and I must, therefore, ask your Lordships to adhere to the clause.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said he had listened with the greatest interest to the noble Viscount, and he was glad to hear him say that he would not object to the Development Commission or the Road Board, or whatever authority was appointed, having the power of initiative. That, to him, was a most welcome admission; but in moving this particular Amendment, the noble Viscount was, as the noble Earl opposite had said, striking at the very essence of the Bill. Perhaps it was not generally recognised that in this country there had been no main road construction since 1837. While Governments of every country in Europe had encouraged

259
the making of new roads, this country, with its enormously increasing traffic, and a traffic which had become much more rapid in character, had stood still. Not a single mile of main road had been made for something like eighty years. He would take the concrete case which the noble Viscount mentioned—that of Brentford. He would assume for the sake of argument that some day this Road Board had the desire to make a road from the corner of Goldhawk road to Hounslow, where it joined the Southampton, Exeter, and Bath roads. If the Road Board, after consultation with the Local Government Board and having exhausted all the means of persuasion and pecuniary inducements failed to induce the local authority to make the road, the Road Board ought as a last resource to make the road itself. If the noble Viscount's Amendment were passed it would be entirely at the mercy of some small district council between these two points—a matter of some six miles apart—to block the progress of that road for an indefinite time. They had had experience of that in other directions.
He would recall a case in the Midlands. The want of a main road between Birmingham and Wolverhampton had become very great indeed. The result had been that a circuitous route had had to be used for years, a bad road along which horse flesh had toiled uphill and down. Only recently the two great towns had agreed with the authorities in between so that they were able to construct a trunk road. That was just the sort of case in point. He was informed that it had taken fifteen years to get the agreement through. Under this Bill the Road Board, after having exhausted all other means to make a new road, could construct it themselves. He could quote a number of other instances of short cuts between main roads which were in a similar condition; but it seemed to him that if the Development Commissioners or the Road Board were really to have any effective power and to be able to resist what he would call, without offence, the blackmailing of the smaller councils, they surely ought to have the power to construct new roads without appealing to other bodies. It must be remembered also in this matter that if the Road Board constructed these roads it would be out of money provided by one special kind of traffic, and that, although only one special kind of traffic was to pay for these roads, they were to be usable by the public at large,
260
to be subject to the general highway law, and a speed limit was to be imposed. These roads would be made really at the expense of the motorists largely for the benefit of the public at large. Motorists would contribute, moreover, in perpetuity, out of the special taxes falling upon them, towards the upkeep of the roads when made.
He could not see any great danger or anything revolutionary or Socialistic in the construction of roads at the expense of motorists for the use of the general public. To refuse roads made at the expense of one class of traffic for the benefit of all classes was to look a gift horse in the mouth. If the roads were going to be made out of the rates, the representatives of the ratepayers on the county councils would have the right to object; but under the circumstances he could see no reason for taking away from the Road Board or the Commissioners the power to make new roads. He had been recently in France studying some questions in a more or less official sense, and he could assure noble Lords that the desire of every civilised country in Europe to-day was to improve the facilities of roads. In the case of Vienna, Paris, and Berlin roads were to be constructed at the expense of the whole community; whereas the roads proposed to be made under the provisions of this Bill would be wholly constructed and largely kept up by taxes raised on one special class of traffic.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE said it seemed that this kind of enterprise was eventually bound to become a very serious burden on the rates. By Clause 10, subsection (2), where the highway authority to whom the advance was made was a county council the new road, when constructed, would be a main road and in any other case would be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large. No matter from what source the money was derived in the first instance, this kind of enterprise would in the end become an additional burden upon the ratepayers. Their Lordships had no doubt listened with great interest to Earl Russell's speech, in which he pointed out that if they did not pay rates in one part of the country they did in another. That was a very old argument, and in a certain sense it was rather a plausible one; but those who used motor cars did not correspond with

261
the ratepayers, the majority of whom did not own motor cars. It was the non-motor owning portion of the community who felt the burden of the rates much more than those who owned motor cars, and upon whom eventually the burden would fall for all these new roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU pointed out that by subsection (2) of the clause under consideration the new authority had the power to contribute towards the maintenance of the new roads.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE said he did not contest that proposition for a single moment; but there was the fatal phrase in subsection (2) of Clause 10, "inhabitants at large." The noble Earl, Lord Carrington, had said that motorists had behaved extremely generously in this matter. He would not at all question their motives but he most humbly and most respectfully desired to register a protest against the argument of which they had heard so much lately, that because a particular section of the community who indulged in a particular kind of pastime contributed, whether by arrangement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not, some money towards the general taxation of the country, that that money should ipso facto be ear-marked for a particular purpose, and that they should stretch the maxim that "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and, having paid this money, should consider that they had a right to engineer and direct the public policy in matters of this kind. He could assure the noble Earl that if he would join with the rest of the community in making roads passable both for motorists and everybody else he for one would support him.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he did not like to allow the debate to pass without saying a few words. The noble Viscount had undoubtedly raised a most important point by his Amendment. This was not only a question whether the Road Board should have the power of making a new road or not; if this power were taken out of the Bill the noble Viscount proposed to do away with the Road Board so far as it was to be a road authority at all, and to have no board with administrative powers as to roads. In fact, any money that the Commissioners had to dispose of would be handed over to the county councils
262
to spend on improvements to their own roads.
He thought the noble Viscount had missed one point which was of some importance with regard to the future development of roads. In the last few years there had been a marked change in the traffic on the roads, and it was likely that in the next few years there would be a still greater change. Those who had studied the question were convinced that there must be some system of roads besides that now in existence—that there must be national trunk roads not paid for out of the rates but out of State funds. He was not merely giving his own opinion or the opinion of those who acted with him on the County Councils Association. Earlier in the year there was, as many of their Lordships might be aware, a road conference attended not only by all the road authorities in the kingdom, but also by those whose business it was to keep up the roads and by representatives of all the classes of people who used the roads. It was natural in such a large body as that, sitting for two days, that there must have been a great many differences of opinion, but to his mind it was extremely satisfactory that there were certain points on which there was a general agreement. One of the first of the resolutions passed by a very large majority was that the classification of roads should be undertaken by some Government Department and that they should be classified under two heads—primary and secondary roads; the former to be supported mainly out of a grant given by the Government. The point that ran through all the discussions which resulted in those resolutions was that there must be some system of roads beyond the system of local roads supported by local authorities. If they had an opportunity to start any system of that sort he very much doubted whether it would be wise on their part to take action which would at all events prevent it having a fair trial.
He could quite admit what the noble Viscount said as to its not being likely at present that there would be any very great trunk roads constructed throughout the whole of England; but what he thought likely was that if there were a road authority, and that authority consisted of gentlemen not only of ability but also of experience and thoroughly conversant with local conditions and local government,

263
a great deal might be done in the direction of carrying out the resolutions passed at the road conference, because use might be made of existing roads to some extent by making new pieces of road from one to another. There might be opportunities to a central authority of making through roads from great centres of population, but which no local authority had any chance of carrying out. If these roads were carefully thought out and well laid down they might not only be of great advantage to through traffic, but might relieve local roads of a great part of their traffic, and by that means a saving in the rates might be effected. Was it wise to look a gift horse in the mouth if they had an offer of a sum of money paid by the central authority not only to improve existing roads—and he understood that the sum given for that purpose would be handed over entirely to the county councils and the work would be carried out by them—but for making new roads which might be of advantage to the general traffic of the district? He himself hesitated about taking such a responsibility as would be upon them if they refused to give a trial to such a system.
The noble Viscount had stated his case, as he always did, with the utmost moderation and ability; but he (Lord Belper) was bound to say that he could not go quite as far as the noble Viscount in thinking that if a grant were made by the Government to a county council for a large road in their county, they would be willing to find the rest of the money to carry it out. His own opinion, founded on his knowledge of the funds of the county councils at the present moment, was that they would not feel justified in casting a greater charge on the rates than they were absolutely obliged to do. For that reason, at all events, if an offer were made to throw the whole cost upon a central fund they ought to accept it. The noble Lord who spoke last was entirely mistaken with regard to Clause 10. If the money were contributed by the Development Commissioners to the county council for making the road it would become a main road and would be repairable at the expense of the county council; but if the Road Board themselves made a new road they would be responsible for the whole maintenance of the road.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Oh, no.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he believed he was entirely right in that; indeed, they had had a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this very question of the maintenance of the roads. Where the new road had been made by the county council, either with a contribution or full payment from the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to insert a clause which was now in the Bill—namely, subsection (2) of Clause 8, to the effect that "in making advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: "May."
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he was perfectly aware of the word. That was the point. He did not think it was quite reasonable to say that in all cases it should be done; but the Road Board "may, where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of maintenance of such new roads." In the case of a road constructed by the Road Board, he ventured to think—and the noble Earl opposite would make it clear if he were wrong—that that would be a trunk road, and that the expense would be borne by the road authority themselves, because the road would go through the districts of a great many local authorities, and it would be impossible for one local authority to undertake the work. If he were right in that contention, so far from its being a disadvantage for the Road Board to make the road themselves it would be a distinct advantage; and in the opportunities he had had of discussing this Bill with gentlemen who were thoroughly conversant with the matter he was assured that there was not the slightest idea either of interfering with the county council in the management of, or the carrying out of any improvements to, their own roads; nor was there any intention of putting any cost upon the county councils unless it was in respect of the roads they made themselves.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It does.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said that was the contention; but he did not think it did. Under those circumstances he hesitated to support an Amendment which he was afraid would have the effect at all events of preventing this experiment from being tried upon the roads, and which experiment, if carried out with judgment, might prove of great advantage to the country.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE said he was not quite sure that he correctly understood the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, and he would like to ask him one or two questions. If the noble Viscount got rid of the words which he proposed to omit by his Amendment, he assumed it was in the mind of the noble Viscount to get rid of Clause 7 altogether.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Yes.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE said he understood that the noble Viscount's chief argument against the Road Board was that from the nature of things at present it would not be able to do very much; that it would have very little money to do all the great things expected of it, and that those things could be very much better done if the Commissioners allotted them to others such as the county councils. The question he desired to ask was whether, when he spoke of the insufficiency of the funds at the disposal of the Road Board, the noble Viscount contemplated that they would have to acquire the land on each side of the road. He quite realised that if they had to buy 220 yards on each side of the road, it was only in the outlying districts that anything could be done. Very little could be done anywhere else with the funds at the disposal of the Road Board, though he thought his noble friend below him looked at it very fairly when he said they could not do very much harm if they could not do very much good.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he should be very happy to answer the noble Lord so far as he could. Of course what he had in his mind was the Bill as it stood. He did not know whether the Government would agree to the omission of the remarkable provision which would enable 220 yards on each side of the road to be taken by the Board. He had considered the matter from the point of view of the Bill remaining as it was, and he might say, further, that he could not agree with his noble friend Lord Belper that if a road were constructed by the Road Board it would necessarily be maintained in future by the Road Board. No doubt it might be so maintained if the Road Board desired it; but in Clause 9, subsection (1), were these words "Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such
266
roads accordingly." Surely those enactments involved a liability on the rate-payers to keep the road in repair. Of course, if His Majesty's Government were to tell him that they were prepared to agree to the omission of the provision enabling the Road Board to take a width of 220 yards on each side whenever they made a new road, and were also willing to make it compulsory on the Road Hoard either to maintain the roads constructed by the Road Board or to give such grants to the county councils as would enable them to maintain those roads, he would be quite willing to reconsider his Amendment.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE asked if he was to understand that the noble Viscount went so far with him as to say that if these expensive fringes were out of the Bill he would see no objection to the Road Board.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I should like to discuss that a little later.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH asked if the noble Viscount had directed his attention to the first part of Clause 9, which said, "For the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement and enlargement of or dealing with any road constructed by the Road Board, the Road Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council." The duties of a county council with regard to roads was to keep them in repair, and it seemed perfectly clear in Clause 9 that if a road were constructed by the Road Board that Road would have the same powers and duties as a county council, and therefore the road would be a highway repairable by the Road Board and not by the county council.
EARL CARRINGTON: I might make it perfectly plain that the Road Board will be responsible for the maintenance of new roads constructed by them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: In all cases?
EARL CARRINGTON: In all cases, because as regards those roads the Board will be subject to the same duties as the county council are subject to with respect to main roads. Clause 9, subsection (1), makes it perfectly clear, so that there can be no doubt whatever that the Road

267
Board will be responsible for the maintenance of the new roads constructed by them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said they were very interested to hear what was in the mind of His Majesty's Government, because that was sometimes a little obscure. But the Bill seemed to be quite clear in the opposite direction. The paragraph which their Lordships were now discussing ran, "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads." Subsection (2) read as follows: "In making advances to highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may, where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of maintenance of such new roads." That was the very point.
THE EARL OF CREWE: But it is an entirely different thing. In one case the Road Board make the roads, and in the other they advance the money to the county council to make roads of their own.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said he was very much obliged to the noble Earl for his interruption. Could he take it from the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government would make it clear in the Bill that wherever the central authority made a new road they would be entirely responsible for its maintenance?
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I point out to the noble Marquess where that is provided for. Clause 9 says that, "For the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or dealing with any road constructed by the Road Board, the Road Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads." That is the liability to keep in repair.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: How does the noble Earl interpret the words "the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply"?
THE EARL OF CREWE: My impression was that the words were put in in order to make it clear that these roads were not to be kept for a particular class of traffic—that they were not to be motor
268
roads, but were to be used by the public in the ordinary way as highways.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND asked how the noble Earl got over the argument that the enactments relating to highways made it the duty of the local authority to repair them. If every road constructed by the Road Board was to be a public highway and the enactments relating to highways were to apply to such roads, it appeared to be contradictory to the first part of the clause.
LORD said he rather agreed with Lord Belper. Clause 8 seemed to refer to roads apparently to be constructed by the county council, aided by grants from the Road Board. In that case the Road Board might subscribe something towards the maintenance of the roads. Clause 9 dealt with a different kind of road—namely, roads constructed entirely by the Road Board; and in that case the I expense of maintenance fell entirely on the Road Board. It seemed to him that the two clauses were quite distinct.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said they I ought to have this quite clear, and accordingly he suggested that if their Lordships agreed to retain the words he had moved to omit, there should be inserted at the end of the subsection: "Provided that it shall not be the duty of the county council or other local authorities to maintain any roads constructed by the Road Board."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the same result would be achieved by leaving out later on that part of Clause 9 to which the noble Duke has taken exception. I think we might have no objection to that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in the earlier part of the Bill for the purpose of combining the Road Board with the Commissioners, but he quite admitted that in doing so he had in view the possibility that their Lordships would omit the power of the Road Board to construct and maintain any new roads. The retention of that power no doubt, had to some extent, weakened his argument for the amalgamation of the two bodies; but he would move at this point to leave out "Board" in order to insert "Commissioners," with

269
the object of ascertaining the views of there Lordships on the subject. As he had placed the Amendment on the Paper he thought at any rate he ought to give their Lordships an opportunity of debating the point. His object was to avoid the unnecessary multiplication of authorities of this kind. This was not the only case in which there seemed to have been a desire on the part of the present Government to multiply central boards for the performance of duties which had hitherto been performed—and he believed on the whole satisfactorily performed—by local authorities.
There appeared to be a sort of notion prevalent in high quarters at present that the elected local authorities were incapable of properly performing their duties, and that they must be not merely supervised but compelled to perform those duties, by pressure from some central authority. He had had experience a long time ago of Irish Government, and he thought anybody who had that experience would be aware that if there was one thing more denounced than another in connection with Irish Goverment it was the multiplication of boards in Dublin Castle. He trusted a similar process was not to be repeated in England. If a new authority was to be constituted, for the sake of economy, if economy was any object to anybody nowadays, they should endeavour to place as many duties as possible under one board. The first part of the Bill proposed the appointment of Commissioners who were to be men of high standing and very considerable ability and experience to carry out a very varied list of duties. They had to consider the necessities of agriculture and all kinds of matters connected with that great industry; they had to consider forestry and the reclamation and drainage of land, rural transport, harbours, inland navigation, and fisheries. It would not be very much to add to this wide and varied list of work which was to be considered by the Commisisoners the question of grants to local authorities for the construction of new roads, and even administrative work in what he would submit were the rare cases in which it would be necessary and possible for this body to construct new roads themselves.
It had certainly been admitted in the course of the debate, and it must be
270
admitted by everybody who considered the possibilities and the amount of funds which would be at the disposal of this body, whatever it was, that the construction of new roads could be carried on by them to a very small extent, and therefore it would not be necessary for them to engage for that purpose any considerable permanent staff. He knew there had been a feeling in certain quarters associated with the motor industry that there ought to be, in the authority dealing with these matters, some special representation of the great interests in which they were concerned. He entirely agreed, but that representation could be given equally on the Commission as on the Road Board. Could it be said that men of the great ability and experience necessary for Commissioners would be incapable of all administrative work simply because under the first part of the Bill their main duties would be rather judicial than administrative? He did not believe it. He believed it would be perfectly possible for the Commissioners as constituted under the first part of the Bill, with the addition of a couple of members specially qualified by experience either in the construction or in the use of roads, to carry out the work. He would gladly see words inserted to enable the motor industry to be represented on the Commission. He believed it would be perfectly possible for such a body to perform satisfactorily all the duties which were imposed on the Road Board by the second part of the Bill. There would be also the great advantage that they would have one Department instead of two Departments. They would have one Department, perhaps, with a couple of additional members, possibly one of them paid, which would be a small matter, and they would avoid all the expense connected with the staffing and housing of two Departments. He believed one Department would be not only more economical than two, but infinitely more efficient. They were by the Bill conferring on two Boards powers with regard to rural transport, and surely nothing could be more inconvenient than to exclude from the power of the Commissioners anything connected with the construction or improvement of roads, although the Bill empowered them to deal with the making of light railways. Thanks to the great extension of motor traffic light railways were much less needed than they were twenty years ago. Practically they were conferring

271
by this Bill on two Boards powers with regard to rural transport which ought to be exercised by one only, and in consequence of that proposal they had actually to insert clauses in the Bill to require one of the boards to consult with the other before making any recommendation for an advance for the purpose of rural transport. He really thought that that subsection was almost enough to justify his proposal without any further argument.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, lines, 31, 34, and 37, to leave out 'Road Board' and to insert 'Commissioners.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE said the agricultural ratepayer for many years past had been anxious that some of the main roads of the country, at any rate, should be taken over and managed at the expense of the Government. Was there any better chance for the rural ratepayer than this? If a Road Board was once established then those who represented in this country the great industry of agriculture would be far more likely than they ever were before to get the main roads made a national and not a local charge. From the point of view of agriculture, it was very advisable that the Road Board should be started. He could not help thinking that we would have in this country before long a demand for the construction of main roads from quite a different source. He was struck by a report in that morning's newspapers of a discussion the previous night at the United Service Institution on the need for motor traction for the Army. It was now admitted by soldiers that if there ever was a raid in this country the military forces would have to be taken largely, not by rail, but by road; that was a line of argument which was going on at the present time among military reformers. Therefore they were going to have a demand that roads should be made in this country for military purposes, and if those roads were ever to be made it was necessary that there should be a Road Board. He was convinced that a body of men who were not giving their whole time to this business would never be able to do this work.
The matter of the roads under this Bill, if attended to carefully, was going to be a
272
business that must take absolutely the whole time of those who attended to it. Some of the members of the Board were to be paid and some unpaid. He thought those who would be unpaid would be very self-sacrificing gentlemen. The work of the Board would involve an immense amount of detail. It was generally agreed that a good many corners of roads ought to be cut off. Supposing the sum of £50,000 was to be at the disposal of the authority to be given every year to local authorities to remove corners. The estimate was that a corner would cost about £50 to remove. As an average sum he thought that excessive, but at £50 a corner the sum of £50,000 devoted to this purpose per annum would mean one thousand corners. That would involve a great deal of detail work for the Board who would have to dole out the money to the local authorities and see that it was not wasted.
The other day Lord Willoughby de Broke had called attention to the great nuisance on the roads caused by great trains of trucks drawn by traction engines. They undoubtedly were a great nuisance; but, after all, this traction was connected with business. In going about the country most of their Lordships had seen places where there were large quarries worked, and the stone was conveyed from the quarries to the railway station two or three miles distant by means of these traction engines. The business in which they were employed was advantageous to the landowner, to the labour in the district, and to the industries they supplied. All these cases had to be gone into in detail on their merits. His own view was that if this work was to be done properly it would take absolutely the whole time of the gentlemen in charge, and he did not believe, speaking as a matter of business, that there lived a body of men who could do all the things set out in the first Part of the Bill and also manage in detail improvements all over the country of the main roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU entirely agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down. He looked upon the setting up of the Road Board as one of the most essential parts, in fact the most essential part, of the Bill. He looked forward to the Road Board becoming eventually the central highway authority of this country. He hoped to see it eventually the parent

273
of national roads, paid for not by the local ratepayer but by the nation and the traffic using them. They were starting with an income of £600,000 a year, and this would probably increase to £1,000,000 a year. To hand that over to seven Commissioners, only two of whom would have any interests as regards roads, would be an unsound thing from a business point of view.
The study of roads and traffic was a very special study. For some years past he had devoted a good deal of time to it, and felt that he had just learnt a little about it. No one who had not attended the international conferences that had taken place on this subject and who had not followed the reports of the various commissions and committees that had reported in the last ten years, could have any real idea of the national importance of this question. The railways in this country might be taken as having twelve hundred millions of capital invested in them; the roads had at least three times as much as that invested in them in solid cash. Again, not only did the whole of the traffic using the railways make use also of the roads during some part of its transit, but millions of individuals used the roads who seldom used the railway. Good roads were a great asset to a country. It was quite impossible for this Bill to do any good either from the point of view of improving the roads for traffic, abating dust, or relieving danger if they did not have a Road Board. There was not a single Departmental Committee or Royal Commission from the time of the Departmental Committee on Highways in 1903, of which he had the honour to be a member, to the Royal Commission on London Traffic which had not recommended the establishment of a central highway authority; and even in the case of London, with its comparatively small mileage of roads, a Traffic Board was recommended for the metropolis in order to secure continuous, consecutive, and competent road policy. If the noble Viscount's suggestion were adopted the Bill would be of very little use so far as the highways of this country were concerned, and would make confusion worse confounded in the future.
He urged their Lordships before giving definite support to the noble Viscount to consider how very important the Road Board was. The noble Viscount had
274
named various duties of the Commissioners, which he said could easily be added to by putting the work of the Road Board upon them. He thought that was an argument in precisely the other direction. As the Commissioners were to have so much put upon them already, it was very inadvisable to add a new set of duties of a highly technical nature, and which could not be properly carried out except by an authority appointed ad hoc. Their Lordships would make a mistake if they refused to sanction the appointment of a Road Board, and he was sure the people of this country would regret it in the long run.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY supported the view taken by the two noble Lords who had spoken last, and gave an instance in connection with the Light Railway Com-missioners. He said that in the early years of the Commissioners when there was a feeling in favour of light railways, they had from eighty to a hundred applications each year, and it was almost as much as the engineering member of the Commission could do to prepare the plans for their consideration. This Bill when it became an Act would be very popular in the sense I that there would be a great many applications under it. It would be impossible, he was certain, for those applications to be properly considered by the Commissioners under the first portion of the Bill. After ail, it must be borne in mind that the objections presented to applications would have to be considered. The Commissioners would have to go down in many cases and view the spot. He thought it would be quite impossible for sub-departments of the Commission to undertake the duty. He agreed with Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that it was essential in the interest of the public—he was not a motorist—that they should have a Road Department thoroughly to investigate these matters, to go all over the country, see the spots where improvements could be made, and in some cases perhaps to check the disposition of local authorities to get the money spent in their own districts. But to say all that could be done by adding two members to a Commission which had already very important duties of a different character allotted to them would not be wise on their Lordships' part. Therefore, he hoped the noble Viscount—although he was sorry to differ from him on matters of country life—would see his way to

275
withdraw the Amendment; and give to the country districts the only chance they had ever had to improve and widen their roads.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH hoped the House would support the Amendment. Nobody was more keenly alive than he was to the great necessity of keeping the roads in this country in order, because, apart from what had been already said, they would see as the roads went on more and more traffic diverted from the railways on to the roads, and therefore it behoved all authorities, whoever they might be, to keep the roads in as good condition as possible. It seemed to him that the object of this Amendment was to do what he was sure all would wish to do, and that was to avoid the misuse and the useless and unnecessary expenditure of public money. The proposal of the Government was practically to start two entirely new Government Departments with their various expenses and salaries, and he did not think it had been proved to the satisfaction of their Lordships that the work proposed to be done could not be done quite as well by the Commissioners with perhaps a slight addition to their number. It could not be denied that the country was already fully equipped with roads, and he could not help thinking that the question of new roads, although important, might be rather a small one. It might be desirable here and there, perhaps, to construct new roads, but he thought the instances would be very few and far between, and in that case he did not see why the question of new roads should not be undertaken by the same Department as the Commissioners would preside over. In any case, he thought, where there was a question possibly of making a new road in any district or of improving an existing one, it was surely a question of which local authorities could judge for themselves equally as well as the central authority in London, and without putting the country to the very serious expense of an extra Department.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think it must have struck every one of your Lordships who listened to the carefully-reasoned speech of Lord Zouche what a mercy it is that this question, which is one of immense importance, is in no way a Party question. It is simply a matter of administration, and simply as a matter of administration
276
it has been very calmly reasoned on both sides. The matter in my opinion is of the greatest possible importance. It is almost impossible to exaggerate its importance. The proof of that is the great interest it has aroused, not only in Parliament, but also outside, and, though I do not want to put it too high, I think I can fairly say that public opinion is on the whole in favour of two boards and against the idea of the two boards being rolled into one. We have heard to-night a powerful speech by Lord Belper, who spoke on behalf of the Association of County Councils and is in favour of two boards, and I may claim as being on our side The Times newspaper, which I suppose I may say under its new management represents a very large body of public opinion. The London County Council also, I believe, is in favour of two boards. Lord St. Aldwyn laid down the maxim that one board would be more efficient and economical than two. That would be so in most cases; but there are exceptions to every rule, and I venture to think that this case is an exception, and that two bodies are needed to carry out the provisions of the Bill as they should be carried out.
The noble Viscount asked whether it could be said that the Commissioners would be incapable of administrative work. Most certainly not; but the work which the Commissioners will have to do and the work of the Road Board are essentially different. The former will be a consultative and semi-judicial body, while the Road Board will be an executive body in part at any rate, with the power under the Bill to construct and maintain new roads. For this purpose they will have to acquire land compulsorily in some cases—I hope not in many—but an order will then have to be obtained from the Commissioners. The adoption of the Amendment would entirely upset that arrangement, which is a great protection to landlords. I happen to be a landlord myself, and I have a sneaking kindness for anything that is put in the Bill that may be a protection to myself and my fellow landlords. I should like to point out that the qualifications of these two bodies are very different. It is true that under the proposal of the noble Viscount two members of the Commission, which is to be increased if he has his way from five to seven, are to be road experts, and if the work is to be left to them there is no real advantage in

277
merging the bodies. It would be only two members as against five.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The whole staff.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is economy. That is not my point. If the work is to be done well it would be hardly worth while skimping the expense. Many a ship has been spoilt for a ha'porth of tar, and I should recommend that if the work is to be thoroughly well done the money would not be wasted by paying well for it. If the work was left to the two expert road commissioners there would be no advantage in merging the two bodies, and if it was not they would be out-voted by people who admittedly had no special knowledge of roads or traffic. There is only one thing more I should like to say, although I am almost afraid of mentioning the subject. Motorists, though we hear they are very unpopular, have met the Government in the most fair way. I know that is received with merriment, but it is a fact, and we ought to acknowledge it. There is no suggestion whatever, good, bad or indifferent, as to these roads being motor roads only. They are to be public highways, and as the motorists have met us fairly I think we ought to meet them fairly. They are entitled to consideration. I have only to impress upon the House as respectfully as I can the absolute importance of this clause, and to say that the Government look upon the clause as vital, and hope it will be allowed to remain unchanged.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said there was one point in the noble Earl's speech with which he was prepared to agree, and that was that economy was not the only point to be considered in this matter. If it was clear that the Road Board would be more efficient for its purpose than the Commissioners, added to as he proposed, then be quite admitted that additional expenditure would be justifiable. It was not his opinion that this would be the case, but he recognised that it was a point which might fairly be argued. In the course of the debate on the Bill opinions had been expressed against his proposal. There was one school, he believed, who expected that the institution of a Road Board would lead to the assumption of the cost of maintenance of the main roads of the country by the State. He thought his noble
278
friend Lord Jersey, was a little influenced by that opinion, and certainly his noble friend Lord Belper was so influenced earlier in the evening. It might be that in days to come some Chancellor of the Exchequer would arise who would be prepared to undertake that liability, but he had certainly not had experience in the past of any Chancellor who would do so. He did not believe if they instituted a Road Board they would ever get the State to undertake so great an expenditure as that which was now discharged by the localities on the maintenance of the main roads. Still, he felt there was a great sympathy with the Road Board on that ground, and he quite admitted the force of that feeling.
Then there was the case of the motorist. His noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had placed that forcibly before the House. He hoped his noble friend would pardon him for suggesting that motorists were rather selfish in the matter because he (Viscount St. Aldwyn) could not trace in his noble friend's speech a feeling for anybody except the motorists. His noble friend alluded to the way in which His Majesty's Government had been met by the motorists. He hardly knew what his noble friend meant. Was the meeting on some backstairs? Where was the agreement arrived at? He need not add his voice to the protest made on that side of the House against the idea that their Lordships could in any way be bound by any agreement of the kind. The additional taxation on motorists had long been due. If the motor industry had been in its present position when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and motorists had used the roads to anything like the extent they did now, he was quite certain he would have imposed additional taxation on them without constituting a Road Board or confining the proceeds of the taxation to the purpose proposed in this Bill. He felt that his argument in favour of the amalgamation of the two boards was weakened by the fact that for reasons to which he had already alluded their Lordships had been induced to agree to the construction and maintenance of new roads by the Road Board. Having that feeling, and bearing in mind the high authority and experience of Lord Jersey, who had spoken against the Amendment, he did not wish to put their Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he only intervened to put himself right on one point. If he appeared to express any opinion in favour of the Government taking over main roads he was entirely misunderstood. His view was that there would have to be a new system of trunk roads constructed by the Government, and supported entirely by the Government, but the main roads would continue to be supported as at present by the county councils.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU wished, before the Amendment was finally withdrawn, to make one observation. The Road Board would be financed out of special taxation on motor cars, and there would be no charge on the public funds.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to insert at the end of the first subsection of the clause a proviso that it should not be the duty of county councils and other local bodies to maintain any road constructed by the Road Board. He remarked that he had informed the House already that he attached great importance to the point raised in the previous discussion upon the construction and maintenance of new roads by the Road Board. The point he referred to was mentioned by his noble friend Lord Belper—namely, that the Bill could not impose any kind of liability on the county councils or other local authorities for the maintenance of roads constructed by the Road Board. He did not think that was at all clear in the Bill. Undoubtedly the Road Board had the power to maintain such roads, but the Bill did not say that they should do so.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 29, to insert: 'Provided it shall not be the duty of a county council or other local authority to maintain any road constructed by the Road Board.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to ask the noble Viscount what fault he finds with the first paragraph of Clause 9 as meeting his point. Surely the statement that the Road Board are subject to the same duties as a county council for the purposes of the maintenance of a road must mean that they are bound to maintain it.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It does not say so.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess I find great difficulty in agreeing with the noble Viscount. It is quite true subsection (b) of Clause 8 does not say so.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Then if this is meant, why will you not agree to the words I propose?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Because it is undesirable to say the same thing twice over in the same Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that undoubtedly the noble Viscount's words were much clearer than those of the noble Earl. That being so, it was evidently better that they should be put into the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL moved an Amendment with the object of ensuring that the expression "improvement of roads" should include the permanent improvement or reconstruction of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust. He confessed that, looking to the Budget speech, in which this taxation was first introduced to the public notice, and to the subsequent utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he certainly understood the distinct intention was that this fund should be applied entirely for the permanent improvement of the roads and not for mere palliatives such as covering with tar. He rather regretted to see the word "treatment" in the Bill. It was not in the Bill originally, and he believed it was introduced in another place. He was quite sensible to the fact that the attitude of their Lordships, House had not been at all favourable to concessions to motorists, or even to carrying out the understanding that existed, and he did not, therefore, propose to press his Amendment if it was objected to. But he felt that the funds that would be at the disposal of the Road Board might very easily be frittered away, and be expended merely in temporary alleviation of the dust nuisance by such expedients as tar painting, which would have to be renewed two or three times a year. A far more proper method of dealing with the funds would be to apply them to really permanent improvements of the road which would have the effect of

281
mitigating the dust nuisance once and for all. As the amount of money at the disposal of the Board in comparison with the number of miles of road in the country to be dealt with was not very large it would be a pity if the money were wasted, and not put to the best possible use.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: What is a permanent improvement which would mitigate the dust nuisance once and for all?
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL said that a permanent improvement would be effected by the well-known method of reconstructing the road with tar macadam. Under that method the road was not merely painted with tar, but it was reconstructed with macadam granite combined with the use of tar, and the surface was properly consolidated.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, to leave out 'treatment' and to insert 'permanent improvement or reconstruction.'"—(Earl Russell.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am bound to confess that there is a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Russell has said, and of course he is an expert in these matters. I hope he will not press his proposal, however, because it would do away altogether with tar sprinkling. I am bound to admit that is only a palliative, but it is a very necessary one. If the Amendment were carried the effect would be to perpetuate the miseries of the unfortunate people who live on the side of the road, which I am sure my noble friend would be the last person to wish to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH proposed an Amendment in order to ensure that in connection with the improvement of roads under the Bill the Road Board might make a grant to a highway authority for the freeing of a bridge or the acquisition of a ferry. Obviously, he said, it would be very bad policy on the part of the Road Board to spend a large amount of money in improving a road on both sides of a bridge which was subject to a toll without first relieving the bridge of the toll. Many of their Lordships could no doubt recall instances of toll bridges, and they would agree that in nearly every case had the tolls been taken off
282
before the growth of population took place in the vicinity of those bridges the saving to the public would have been very great. It was obvious that in the case of a road improvement one of the things which it was most necessary to ensure was that the road should not be cut in two, as it were, by a toll-paying bridge, and the same argument would apply in a lesser degree as regarded the acquisition of a ferry.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 11, after 'repair,' to insert 'and a giant may be made to a highway authority for the freeing of a bridge or the acquisition of a ferry.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
EARL CARRINGTON: Though there will be a good deal of sympathy with the object of the noble Lord's Amendment, I am afraid that it is clearly outside the scope of the Bill. The question was brought up in the House of Commons, I think by Mr. Renton, but the Solicitor-General could not accept the Amendment, as it was not within the four corners of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that and will not press his proposal.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said that no doubt a grant for this purpose would have a very beneficial effect, because it was not easy for a county council to give a large sum to free a bridge. Such a grant as was proposed would act as an inducement to those using a toll-paying bridge to contribute to get the bridge freed for the use of ratepayers and others.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH had some difficulty in understanding in what way the proposal was outside the scope of the Bill, especially as power was given to the Road Board to make a grant to enlarge a bridge. Here the public was in possession of a bridge, with a right of way over it, but there was a certain want of property in the bridge represented by the fact that the people who crossed it had to pay a certain amount of toll. If the bridge were washed away or disappeared from some other cause, there was no question that the Road Board might give a grant to rebuild it. In this case they had a bridge a great part of which belonged to the public, and it was held to be outside the scope of the Bill for the Road Board to give a grant for the acquisition of that portion which was not

283
in the hands of the public. The object of the Bill was to improve the roads, and the improvement of a road could not be better carried out than by getting rid of what was essentially a hindrance to the traffic. He would not, however, press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (the consideration of which had been adjourned), agreed to.
Clause 9:
9.—(l) For the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or dealing with any road constructed by the Road Board, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges. Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions:
Provided that—

(a) Communications between a road or path and a road constructed by the Road Board shall be made in manner to be approved by the Road Board; and

(b) The Road Board and any highway authority in whose district any part of any such road is situate may contract for the undertaking by such authority of the maintenance and repair of the part of such road in their district; and for the purposes of such undertaking the highway authority shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties and liabilities as if the road were a road vested in the highway authority.

(2) Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive from any such authority
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL moved an Amendment in subsection (1), after the words "Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall," to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this section." This, he explained, was in itself merely a drafting Amendment, and he moved it in order to pave the way for the insertion of a new paragraph in the following terms: "The Road Board may,
284
subject to the approval of the Treasury, make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them, and may by such by-laws impose a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, enforceable on summary conviction for any breach thereof."
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 21, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this section.'"—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY understood that the noble Earl the Leader of the House was going to leave out the words: "Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions." He rather gathered in the course of the discussion that the noble Earl admitted, or at any rate did not deny, that the later words of the subsection were inconsistent with the former words, and therefore he proposed to strike them out.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for reminding me on this point. Perhaps, if the noble Marquess will agree, the matter had better stand over until Report. It is quite true that the words to which the Duke of Northumberland took exception as to enactments relating to highways and bridges, which he was afraid conflicted with the words which went before, "subject to the same duties as a county council," might be spared; but I do not think it would meet the views of noble Lords opposite to omit the words saying that every road constructed by the Road Board shall be a public highway, because if they were left out the Road Board would be enabled to make one of the great trunk roads into a motor road only.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN observed that as the Road Board was to maintain the roads it should have the powers of a county council for preventing and removing obstructions.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL
thought it desirable to repeat that the particular Amendment before the House was only a drafting one,

285
and was moved for the purpose of introducing the second Amendment. If their Lordships would consider the matter for a moment merely as business men interested in the roads, without any question of prejudice against the origin of the Bill, or the motorists who were supposed to be at the back of it, he thought they would agree that it would be proper and useful for the Road Board to have the power of making some sort of regulations with regard to the user of these roads. He did not wish it to be supposed that the words he suggested were meant in any way to enable regulations to be made which would close a road to all traffic except motor traffic, or anything of that sort. Motorists were the first to say that they did not wish to have special roads which would be merely motor tracks; but it was not unreasonable when they were trying experiments that there should be some power to regulate the user of the roads. Some of the roads might be sixty or one hundred feet wide as was the case in Kingsway, and it might occur to the Road Board to lay down portions of the road in a different manner. One portion might be constructed in a way which would be suitable to rubber-tyred traffic, another portion might be constructed in the ordinary macadamised way, and a third portion might be constructed with stone setts for the purpose of traction engine traffic.
It was clearly desirable if they were going to make a road of a special character to have plenty of room alongside for ordinary traffic, and there should be power to apply special regulations. These observations applied to ail main roads which were of sufficient width to admit of discriminating treatment. The Highways Act, which now dealt with roads, was a little out of date. The fact was that when they had a track made up anyhow they did not want much in the way of regulations, but they now had special kinds of traffic, and the roads, therefore, must be dealt with in a special manner. A similar experiment was tried on the Champs Elysées in Paris, where a special section of the roadway had been set apart for motor traffic only. When they looked at the matter from an engineering and construction point of view, he thought their Lordships would admit that it was very proper for them to adapt the Bill to the way in which it was going
286
to be used for making a road in different kinds of ways for different traffic. As their Lordships knew, a very smooth and hard surface, which was suitable for rubber-tyred traffic, was not particularly safe for horse traffic. It might be desirable, for example, on some particular stretch of road where a particular kind of material was being tested for experimental purposes, to forbid the traffic altogether of traction engines which would destroy the value of the experiment.
It was not an unreasonable thing to give the Road Board power to make these regulations, which would be subject to the criticism of Parliament. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was not opposed to some regulations of this sort, and, indeed more stringent regulations were suggested in the first instance, but the matter did not receive adequate discussion in another place. It would be a pity, when they were doing a thing of this sort, to spoil the experiment by not giving the people who were conducting it all the powers they required. He did not suggest that the by-laws should be used to exclude any kind of traffic altogether from the roads, but they might be used for the purposes of differentiation. If their Lordships decided to adopt the Amendment and give the Road Board an opportunity of obtaining this power, he had reason to believe that the proposal would be agreed to in another place.
The experiments which would be tried in regard to the best methods for the construction of roads might have the result of saving thousands of pounds to the ratepayers. Lord Willoughby de Broke had already been offered by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill all the 220 yards on each side of the road for the purpose of hacking out to cover. He did not think, therefore, there need be any difficulty in allowing the Road Board to make these experiments in a reasonable manner, and to try to see what could be done in the new methods of road construction and the dressing of road surfaces in order to meet the needs of particular kinds of road traffic.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU entirely supported what the noble Earl opposite had said. He would like to give an instance of how special arrangements were already made in the case of some roads to meet the needs of particular

287
kinds of traffic. Until very recently on many of the London bridges crossing the Thames there was a sort of plateway at each side which was designed to carry the wheels of very heavy traffic. Supposing the roads were constructed of dustless material, it would be very destructive to the surface if they allowed traction engines to go down the middle of the road under certain conditions. The idea was merely to allow certain kinds of traffic to be confined to the sides of the road, and powers were only those which were asked for by borough councils with regard to approaches to piers and other places. He thought it might safely be left to the Treasury to see that the regulations did not interfere in any way with the access of the public to the roads.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think your Lordships will agree that the two noble Lords have made out a very good case. I was very much struck with what Earl Russell said about the way in which the traffic was managed in Paris, and I believe in that city the method is a great success. But I would remind your Lordships that this question was discussed in the House of Commons. It was brought forward by Mr. Berridge, and, as my noble friend behind me says, it was inadequately discussed. Yet the feeling voiced by Lord Morpeth and others was so strong against the proposal that the matter was dropped. I think on the whole it must be acknowledged that public opinion at the present moment has not advanced so far in this direction as my noble friend has done. Therefore I should hope that he would not press his Amendment at this stage, though as years roll on he may see his wishes bear fruit.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said the Amendment would really enable the Road Board, with the consent of the Treasury, to prohibit all but motor traffic over the whole of these roads. That was what the Treasury proposed to Parliament, but they had to abandon it.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL did not know why the noble Viscount should assume that the Treasury would consent to absurd regulations. He could not conceive that the Treasury would sanction any regulations which were universally distasteful. The noble Viscount went on to say, in effect, that some opinion was expressed against this proposal in another place; but surely
288
that was not a sufficient reason why their Lordships should not consider it on its merits. There might be the greatest possible use for these by-laws, and their Lordships could do no harm, if they took that view, in assenting to the Amendment. It would be unfair to deprive a Board, consisting of people who were to command confidence, of powers which might be of great use to them in the public interest.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU suggested that the views of those who objected to the Amendment might be met if they put in the words "Not affecting the access of the public."
EARL CARRINGTON: I could not agree to it at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
11.—(1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose, and may in addition acquire land on either side of the proposed road within two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road.
(2) The Road Board may acquire, erect, and furnish such offices and other buildings as they may require, and may acquire land for the purpose.
(3) Where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, or an advance is made to such an authority in respect of the improvement of an existing road, the authority may acquire land for the purpose of such construction or improvement.
(4) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this Bart of this Act by the Road Board or a highway authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Part of this Act, except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and section one hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if the Road Board and the highway authority were referred to therein.
(5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. Provided that the provisions of Part I of this Act prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in subsection (3) of section five of this Act shall apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board.
(6) The Road Board shall have full power, with the approval of the Treasury, to sell, lease, and

289
manage any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act and not required for the new road, and any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to omit the following words from the first subsection, "and may in addition acquire land on either side of the proposed road, within 220 yards from the middle of the proposed road." He did not think any one realised the extent of the ground that would have to be taken by the Road Board were this proposal passed. He understood it was calculated that if they took 220 yards for a distance of half a mile it would mean forty acres on each side of the road. Therefore it would mean taking eighty acres for every half-mile, which their Lordships would agree was rather a formidable proposition. There appeared to be a great idea in the minds of some people of allowing public bodies to acquire land, and it seemed to him that under this Bill they were embarking upon a very dangerous policy.
Another question also had to be considered. If the Road Board were empowered to buy large quantities of land on each side of the road they would have it in their power practically to block the neighbouring occupants from getting to the road at all. He asked their Lordships to consider some of the statements made in the Memorandum which had been placed in their hands to explain the Bill, though how much of it held good now he did not know. The Memorandum stated—
"A new road constructed by the Road Board will be primarily a road confined to motor traffic, and the speed limit will not apply on such a road. The Road Board will, however, have power to allow the road to be used for other kinds of traffic if it sees fit, and may impose charges for the use of the road on traffic other than motor traffic."
Another paragraph a little later on was to the following effect—
"In addition to the power of acquiring land for the purposes of new roads proposed to be constructed by the Road Board, the Board is given power to acquire land in rural districts on either side of any such proposed road to the extent of 220 yards in depth. This power will enable the Road Board to a great extent to reap the increment in value of lands adjoining the new motor roads due to the construction of those roads, and
290
it is hoped that this source of revenue, as well as the charges for allowing private roads leading to houses in the neighbourhood to communicate with the new motor roads, may go some way towards recouping the Road Board for the expenditure on the construction and maintenance of the new motor roads."
If that was not an extraordinary interference with the right of every individual who lived in the country to use the public roads without being charged by the new Board for getting to those roads, he would like to know what it was. It was all very well to talk about recouping the Road Board, but he was sure that the ratepayers did not want to have motor roads made and then for a charge to be put on themselves for getting to those roads. Their Lordships ought to remember that there was a great possibility that houses might be built between the occupiers of the land at the rear and the road, thus destroying completely their amenities. It was quite unnecessary for the Road Board to acquire land to such a large extent.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 26, to leave out from 'purpose' to the end of subsection (1)."—(Viscount Galway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount allows the Road Board to take land compulsorily for the road, but objects to the 220 yards on each side. The noble Viscount puts a very pertinent case. He said that the communication might be cut off between the road and all the hinterland left in the rear of the strip on each side taken by the Road Board. He argued that if the strip was taken it would be very hard for the landowner to have his land shut off from the road altogether. I may remind your Lordships that that point was brought out by Lord Sheffield the other night, and I frankly admit that it ought to be met. There must be some access to the back land, and if the noble Viscount will allow the matter to stand over I will consider it and see what we can do on Report.
It may be well to note what is done on the big roads on the Continent. Naturally it is perfectly impossible to live on the road itself, so it is intended there shall be nothing but these strips immediately alongside the road. On the Continent you will find the streets are driven out at right angles, right and left of the roads, and houses are built. The people, therefore,

291
have all the advantages of living on the main road without any of the discomfort of noise and dust, and the other concomitant horrors to which dwellers on motor roads are liable. Of course, we do not and we cannot permit that national money should be given to develop individual estates. I think everybody in the House will agree that that could not be right or fair. If an estate is developed the owner ought to pay a proper share of the cost of the improvement. On the other hand, we have no wish in any way to interfere with the rights of the landlord. I will make a note of the noble Viscount's objection and bring up the question again on Report.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Are we on the Housing and Town Planning Bill or on the Development Bill? It seems to me we are discussing a compulsory scheme for erecting houses with gardens and all that kind of thing in connection with the Development Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said it seemed to him that the noble Earl did not at all answer his noble friend Lord Galway. The point was not whether the Road Board should have power to make a road across a man's property or not, but whether, in making the road, they should take a tract of land so wide as 440 yards. He took it that the roads on the Continent which the noble Earl referred to were not 440 yards wide or anything like it. What was the necessity of taking that large area of property when a road was made? The noble Earl's argument with reference to developing a man's property at public expense did not apply; because the present proposal was made only in favour of the Road Board.
Supposing the Road Board made a new road across some country district and took a piece of land 440 yards wide; they might in that process cut off one portion of the landowner's estate entirely from the other, thus depriving his property of all the amenities it would otherwise enjoy and making it absolutely useless for purposes for which it was now used. As to the suggestion of the noble Earl that roads in the rural districts could be lined with villas and shops, it must be apparent to any one that that was a perfect absurdity. If the Road Board
292
chose to make a road to the property of a landowner, of course they were entitled to some advantage and that advantage should be obtained by making some charge to the landowner for access to the road, or by making him pay something for any improvement to his property, to be ascertained in the manner provided in the Schedule. All that would be perfectly fair; but why this extraordinary provision permitting 220 yards of land to be taken on each side of a road should be proposed except as part of the idea of the nationalisation of land he could not understand.
EARL CARRINGTON: There is no intention to put in the thin end of the wedge of land nationalisation. This is a new idea in this country, and, as is always the case with new ideas, there is thought to be hidden danger in it. In America land has always been bought on each side of the railway. There is really nothing new in the principle of the proposal. I am at a loss to understand the great alarm of noble Lords opposite. It would not interfere with a man's property. On the contrary, a road going through some of our agricultural properties would do an immense deal of good. I should welcome the proposal in the case of some parts of my own property, because it would be developed and increased in value to a very considerable extent. I cannot understand why there should be this terror of this proposal, because if there was any severance of the estate the landlord would be paid at a proper price for that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said the noble Earl did not see any possible reason why the authority should not hold land. The view which noble Lords on the other side took appeared to be that in the case of local authorities the more land they held the better. There was, however, a good deal of risk of loss to the ratepayers in pursuing a policy of that kind. He would mention an instance of this which was within his own recollection. The London County Council in one case bought land largely on each side of the road in connection with an improvement, with the result that they had now property of the value of six millions which they could not sell. They thought to recoup themselves for the improvement which was effected and bought far more land than they needed

293
when they made the road. The result was, however, that for years the London County Council had paid £200,000 in interest; and that had been done at the expense of the ratepayers, who were the sufferers by the miscalculation. It seemed to him the idea was that they were to take a great wedge of land through half a county in order that at some future time the Government might reap increment value on it. Their Lordships ought to be informed what was the minimum of land really required for these new roads, and they should not sanction any proposal which might involve a serious loss and which would be burdensome on landowners.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think that a somewhat unnecessary amount of prejudice has been imported into the discussion of this question. The proposal of His Majesty's Government is undoubtedly one way of arriving at the process of betterment. The other way is the one which we had in the Housing Bill, a measure to which the noble Duke opposite referred as being in some way kindred to this Bill. It was strongly disapproved of by noble Lords opposite, and received the kind of treatment to which we are accustomed in the case of such proposals at the hands of noble Lords. The kind of betterment which was to be found in the Housing Bill is disapproved of. This is a different kind. Supposing you do not put something of the kind in the Bill, what happens? You reach this absurd result. Entirely at the public expense a road is made straight from Liverpool to Manchester, or from Birmingham to Wolverhampton. The land up to that time had only the most remote building value, but great blocks of it now become of the highest building value. As regards the land away from the main road, the landlord has to make the roads himself at his own cost, but you give him that splendid frontage for nothing. That seems a most strange and illogical proceeding. It is quite true there may be some other ways of arriving at the same result, and the area capable of being taken would no doubt only be desired to be taken in very rare cases. It must be remembered that it has to be paid for, and in many cases at a very high price. Then in running a road through agricultural districts I cannot imagine that as a rule the Road Board would wish to acquire any land at all. If noble Lords do not like our way of achieving the result which is aimed at they
294
can suggest something else; but we cannot admit that in every case where a road is made entirely at the public expense it is reasonable, in view of the opinions which are held not only by people of extreme Socialistic views but by people of moderate views on these matters, to hand over the whole of the value, which may be enormous, to the landlord without his making any contribution whatever towards the cost of constructing the road.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not want to revive the controversy over the Housing Bill, but there was no one in the House who defended the betterment proposal which the Government put forward in that Bill. It was universally condemned, and yet, though it was not defended by the Government themselves, it was a proposal which the noble Earl taunted the Opposition with not accepting. As regarded the present proposal, what they had to say was that if this were a Housing Bill it would, perhaps, be right and proper that they should consider what the enhanced value of the frontages might be to the landowners. But when one of these roads went through a country district it would if anything tend to deteriorate rather than to advance the value of the land.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Why only through a country district?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that in dealing with an urban district the Town Planning Bill was the proper measure to proceed under. In dealing with country districts under the Development Bill the noble Earl must remember the sort of confusion that would result from all sorts of motors rushing backwards and forwards over improved roads. It seemed to him that the result would be worsement, if he might use such a word, rather than betterment owing to the loss that would be caused to the landowner by reason of the spoiling of what would otherwise be a nice building estate.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY could imagine that even where the roads passed through rural districts the frontage value would in many cases be considerably increased. Supposing a special road were made from London to Brighton, the frontages would everywhere be of great value and houses would spring up everywhere on the route.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No one would ever dream of building on such a road.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY said there was no principle of private legislation more clear and certain than that when a town improvement was effected and a new street made the local authority was to have the frontage as well as the road itself in order that the full value given by the improvement might accrue to that authority. The clause was necessary for the logical extension of that principle to suburban and rural districts, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would adhere to their proposal.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE thought when he heard Lord Carrington replying to the arguments of Viscount Galway that he had been convinced by them and was going to consider the question of the road frontages when the Bill came up on Report. But he now understood that all the noble Earl was going to consider was the means of giving access to people who became sort of backwoodsmen by the taking of these strips of land between their property and the road. He was very sorry that the noble Earl was not disposed to go fully into the matter and he rather agreed with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it was gravely to be questioned whether any one who owned land in a country district would, under the circumstances, find his property improved in value by the construction of these roads. When the noble Marquess made that remark the noble Earl the Leader of the House at once interjected "Why only in country districts," leaving it to be assumed that the object of providing for these large strips was to enable land to be bought in urban districts where it would be very expensive and its acquisition would cripple very much the beneficial operations of the Road Board. As he was anxious to see the Road Board entrusted with as much money as possible for what he conceived to be the properly defined duties which their Lordships had more or less settled that it should exercise, he was very much averse to the Board engaging in land purchase operations of a speculative kind which might end disastrously and prejudice its powers, of useful work in other directions.
LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE LORD ST. DAVID'S OF ROCH CASTLE said the noble Marquess opposite appeared
296
to think that no one would want to live near a motor road, and that if a road were constructed through the property of a landowner the result would be not betterment, but worsement. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, had really given the answer to that argument, because his view was not at all the same as that of his noble friend. The noble Viscount, who was a business man and had experience of property, said it was very hard for the land behind the strips that were taken to be shut off from the roads and that the properties should be deprived of all their amenities. The two noble Lords, therefore, were actually answering one another The question had been asked why the right to acquire frontages should only be given where a road was constructed by the Road Board. The answer to that was that where a road was made by a local authority the cost of construction fell upon the ratepayers, and the landowners in the districts were necessarily rated on a large scale for the improvement. In that case it was fair that the frontages should not be taken from a landowner. But when the road was constructed and frontages were created entirely out of moneys provided by Parliament, surely there was a fair claim on the part of the public that they should be allowed to take at a valuation those pieces of land, which previously had not been frontages at all. He agreed that there would be a great value in those frontages in the neighbourhood of many towns, and when Parliament had given local authorities like the county councils power to take land for betterment purposes he did not see why the power should not be given to the Road Board in the present instance.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY considered that the question of laying out estates and building houses did not arise at all under this Bill. If there were improvements to be effected in that direction the Housing and Town Planning Bill would be available for carrying them out. He objected strongly to any attempt being made to turn the Road Board into a jerry-building and speculative body.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL said that supposing a road of the kind contemplated in the Bill were going to be constructed by a private commercial syndicate the first thing they would attempt to do would be to get by means of an Act of Parliament a sufficient amount of land on either side of the road to

297
ensure that the scheme would be a benefit to them. The frontages of these roads would in many cases have a great value for shops for trading purposes, and it was an extraordinary proposition to say that if there was an advantage the State, which was making the road, should not enjoy that advantage. He doubted whether the fear of noble Lords as to the worsement and depreciation in value of these strips was so
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to insert in subsection (5), after the words "Schedule to this Act," a proviso to the effect that "the provisions of Part I of the Act prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in subsection (2) of section five of this Act shall apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land for the purpose of the construction of a new road." He said that in moving this Amendment he was guided by what had been provided for in Clause 5, which stated that "No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground,
genuine as they wished it should appear; and he hoped His Majesty's Government would in no circumstances depart from their proposal.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-contents, 64.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Marchamley, L.

Wolverhampton, L. (L. President.)

Blyth, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Boston, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Denman, L. [Teller].

Pentland, L.

Eversley, L.

St. David's, L.

Beauchamp, L. (L. Steward.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.].

Welby, L.

Russell, E.

Haversham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Hood, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rutland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Harris, L.

Wellington, D.

Hindlip, L.

Iveagh, V.

Kenyon, L.

Bath, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kesteven, L.

Bristol, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camden, M.

Abinger, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Addington, L.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Allerton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bagot, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Camperdown, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Basing, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cromer, E.

Belper, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Derby, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stalbridge, L.

Mayo, E.

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

Onslow, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Rosslyn, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Waleran, L.

Wicklow, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Walsingham, L.

De Mauley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Dunleath, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Hill, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house." He was anxious that the same provision should be inserted in the clause under discussion, because he thought that it ought in all fairness to apply to land which was taken compulsorily for the construction of a new road.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 9, after the first 'Act,' to insert 'provided that the provisions of Part I of the Act prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in subsection (2) of section five of this Act shall apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land for the purpose of the construction of a new road.'"—(Viscount Galway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This matter was thrashed out on the Small Holdings Bill, where in the case of a home farm it was decided to prevent the construction of a new road through the land adjoining the house, but not to compel the taking a long or inconvenient detour. Clause 5 does not apply to the construction of a road but to the 220 yards which has been struck out of the Bill. The difficulty of the noble Viscount's proviso would be found in an extreme case, such as in a road to be taken across a railway. The Road Board could not get across the line either by a bridge, or a subway, or still less by a level crossing, and that would put a stop to the road altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was afraid the Amendment was open to the objection raised by the noble Earl. But there was another objection. Although personally he was not in favour of these new roads being constructed by a central authority, yet if they were to be constructed they must presume it was for the public convenience. The Amendment laid down a doctrine it would be difficult to defend, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY failed to see why the Bill should take away land in front of a man's house, and he was not prepared to waive the point.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN saw difficulty in the Amendment as it stood. It would not be fair to prevent the making of a new road merely because it crossed a man's park; but consideration ought to be had for the owner of the park, and to meet that point he had tabled an Amendment in the schedule providing for compensation for injury.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved a new subsection providing that no land should be authorised by an order to be acquired compulsorily which had at the date of the order been acquired by any corporation or company for the purpose of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, but such an order might contain power to acquire compulsorily an easement over such land for the purpose of carrying any new road over or under the same. He said it
300
must be allowed that any land taken for one authority by Act of Parliament should not be taken away compulsorily by another authority without the sanction of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 13, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection—
'(6) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, but such an order may contain power to acquire compulsorily an easement over such land for the purpose of carrying any new road over or under the same and shall in that case contain all such provisions as the Development Commissioners may deem necessary for the protection of the owners of such land and the prospective development thereof for the purposes of any such undertaking and for securing the safety of the public using the same and the free and uninterrupted passage of traffic thereover.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. This subsection goes a great deal too far. We must have the right to purchase land opposite the road, otherwise the road would come to an abrupt conclusion. The clause extends not only to railways but also to wider areas and to water companies. In a case where a water company are bound to protect their water supply an easement would hardly be sufficient for the purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY saw no reason why one public undertaking should give up land to another public undertaking, except by the authority of Parliament. That principle was enforced throughout the Housing Bill. But there was a difficulty in the case where a railway or canal lay in the route of the road. That evidently ought not to stop the road; they might have to go either over or under the railway, and that would be provided for by the word "easement," which, in fact, would provide everything necessary to meet contingencies.
THE EARL OF CREWE: So far as a railway is concerned the noble Marquess is quite right; but this would not meet the case of water or dock companies. Some dock companies might own a considerable extent of waste land through which the road had to be made. That would not be an easement, and it is such cases that the clause is intended to meet.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said he must press the Amendment, and if deemed necessary it could be further amended on the Report stage.
EARL CARRINGTON: Very well. I have made my protest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
12.—(1) All expenses of the Road Board under this Part of this Act, including the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman and the salaries and the remuneration of officers and servants, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of the road improvement grant.
(2) Any sums received by the Road Board under this Part of this Act shall, subject to regulations made by the Treasury, be carried to the account to which the road improvement grant is required to be carried under the Act under which the grant is provided, and shall be treated as part of that grant.
LORD HAVERSHAM LORD HAVERSHAM moved an Amendment to Clause 12, in order to secure necessary precautions in dealing with the fund.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new subsection: 'The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the receipts into and issues out of the development fund in the financial year ended on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament shall be next assembled.'"—(Lord Haversham.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I see no harm in inserting the Amendment, but the case has already been met by a provision in the Finance Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON asked whether the salaries would be annually voted by Parliament, or removed altogether from the jurisdiction of Parliament.
EARL CARRINGTON: There will be an annual vote.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
15. For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression "highway authority" includes, as respects the administrative county of London, the London County Council.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment in order to remove any doubt as to whether the county council was a highway authority.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 12, to leave out from 'includes' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'the council of every administrative county in England and Wales.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the noble Lord will see that the Amendment is not really necessary, because county councils for the purpose of the Bill are to be treated as highway authorities. The London County Council are put in a special position because in London there was a doubt with regard to the maintenance of main roads.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY hoped the Amendment would be accepted. There was a little doubt upon the point, and it ought to be cleared up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
16. This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
The expression "highway authority" means a county or town council acting as, or possessing the powers of, a local authority under the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, and the expressions "road" and "main road" mean a highway as defined in the said Act. References to a county council and to the powers and duties thereof shall as regards their respective areas be deemed to include references to a county road board and a district committee of a county council and to a town council being a highway authority and to their respective powers and duties:
The expression "county borough" means a royal parliamentary, or police burgh, the town council of which is a highway authority:
The expression "Local Government Board" means the Secretary for Scotland.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to omit the words, "The expression 'county borough' means a royal, parliamentary,

303
or police burgh, the town council of which is a highway authority."
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, to leave out lines 26 to 28."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved the following Amendment at the desire of the county boroughs.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 16, and to insert the following new clause:
'This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications—
The expression "highway authority" means a county council or a town council, and the expression "road" means any road or street maintainable at the cost of a highway authority. References to a county council and to the powers and duties thereof shall as regards their respective areas be deemed to include references to a county road board and a district committee of a county council and to town council and to their respective powers and duties.
The expression "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police borough.
The expression "Local Government Board" means the Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
18. In approving, executing, or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had so far as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit Clause 18, said that since putting it down he had seen an Amendment by the Marquess of Salisbury which he desired to support. By his Amendment to leave out the clause he did not desire to suggest that regard should not be had to the state of employment; but the direction as it stood in the Bill had been misinterpreted, and might be misinterpreted in the future. He was anxious that
304
the work under the Bill should not be carried out with undue expense. He would not, however, move his Amendment.
The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY then moved the omission of Clause 18, in order to insert a new clause providing that, in the execution of any work already approved which involved the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard should be had to the general state and prospects of employment. He was anxious that nothing should be done by the operation of the Bill which could come under the scope of relief works, which had been universally condemned by the High Court; and with a view to translating the noble Earl's emphatic assurance, given on the Second Reading, into concrete shape, he had tabled his Amendment. If Clause 18 had been struck out the Commissioners or road authority would say that it was intended by Parliament that no notice should be taken of unemployment. Whilst they agreed that there must be nothing in the shape of relief works, it would be well if in the arrangement of the time at which the work should be executed some relief could be afforded to unemployment. He had expressly set out that the approval of the work must be independent to the question of unemployment.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 18, and to insert the following new clause:
'18. In arranging the time for the execution of any work which has already been approved under this Act, and which involves the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had as far as is reasonably practicable to the general state and prospects of employment in the district.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am glad there is no intention of leaving out Clause 18 after the most emphatic assurance which I gave on the Second Reading and which I now repeat. But I am not certain whether the noble Marquess is not defeating his own object by the words "in the district." That is taking rather too limited a view. The Government cannot accept the Amendment in those words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY saw no objection to leaving out the words "in the district," and amended his Amendment accordingly.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH had given notice to move the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 18—
".—(1) Before making a recommendation for an advance under this Act which may involve a charge upon any local rate, the Development Commissioners shall send notice to the rating authorities of the area concerned, and if those authorities or any of them lodge an objection with the Commissioners in accordance with the form prescribed by the Commissioners to an advance being made for the purpose of the proposed undertaking on the ground that a charge would be thereby imposed upon a local rate in the raising of which the authority objecting are concerned or interested, the Commissioners shall refuse to make a recommendation for such advance.
(2) The expression 'local rate' means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined.
He said that at that late hour he would not persist with his Amendment, but would withdraw it and move it at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 19:
19.—(1) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under Part I or Part II of this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in space, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights and to the public:
Provided that—

(a) This provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of forestry if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise, or recreation unless the land has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament; and

(b) This provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district; and

(c) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of land on either side of a new road to be constructed by the Road Board where the land forms part of a common, open space, or allotment.

(2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries
306
shall give public notice of the proposed exchanges and shall afford opportunities to all persons interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject.
(3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange in the persons in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.
(4) For the purposes of this Act the expression "common" shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green; the expression "open space" means any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation and any disused burial ground; and the expression "allotment" means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment or a field garden allotment under an Inclosure Act.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved an Amendment the object of which was to ensure that where the Development Commissioners wanted a part of common land in urban areas they must obtain the consent of Parliament. It would, he said, be a pity that a great area like Epping Forest should be at the mercy of the Board of Agriculture, who might make an experiment such as was tried in the New Forest with deplorable results. It was to prevent a repetition of that experiment that the Amendment was directed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 13, to leave out from 'Parliament' to 'provided' in line 18,"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: Will not this Amendment cause more delay than the noble Lord would desire? It might mean a delay of several months and entail great expense. I think the preservation of the land is sufficiently provided for by the clause.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said he must press the Amendment as the noble Earl's answer was not adequate. He objected to great areas like Epping Forest, which were the playgrounds of the population, being placed at the mercy of a Government Department for developing forestry or any other purpose they might have in mind at the time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH said that when the Bill was before the House on the Second Reading he drew attention to the fact that although Clause 19 professed to protect open spaces from being compulsorily taken by the Development Commissioners, rural commons were not so protected. They could be taken for the purposes of forestry or the making of roads without the consent of Parliament, or without anything being given in exchange. It seemed very wrong for that to be done, because in the present state of public opinion no railway company would venture to apply to Parliament for such powers. It was some time since commons had been cut up into ribbons by a railway, and that was simply because public opinion was so decidedly against it. He hoped the Government would not attempt to do what they would not permit a railway company to do.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, lines 19 to 31, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert the following new paragraph:
'(a) No order of the Development Commissioners under Part I or Part II of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament; and in lines 32 to 35, to leave out paragraph (b)."—(The Earl of Meath.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Earl's suggestion seems to be that common land should not be used for forestry unless an equivalent area of enclosed land is converted into common land. With the idea I am in sympathy; but does not the Amendment go too far? Take the forest of Brecknock, which has an area of many square miles and is well suited to forestry. Are the public to be shut off from that portion where trees are growing up? The interference would be quite unimportant; because different parts are planted at different times. There would be no intention of preserving it for game, or to interfere in any way with the pleasure of the public, and it would certainly be better and much pleasanter for the public when it is planted. Is it reasonable to say that no common land is to be taken on any terms? The addition of a few feet to a road would not hurt a common.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH pressed his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to delete paragraph (c), because it related solely to the provisions now out of the Bill, with respect to 220 yards on each side of the road.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, lines 36 to 39, to leave out paragraph (c)."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY proposed an Amendment to provide that where roads in future were constructed through a common they should not be fenced in and thus cut the common off from access to the public.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 39, after 'allotment,' to insert the following new paragraph—
'(d) Where any part of a common or open space is acquired for the purpose of a road or for the widening of an existing road it shall not be lawful for the Development Commissioners or the road authority to fence the road so as to prevent free access of the public to the common or open space.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid the Amendment goes too far, because I am informed that the word "common" means arable land; and some of these places have the right of Lammas grazing.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY said he would withdraw the Amendment and introduce it later in an altered form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:
(1) An order by the Development Commissioners empowering a Government Department, body, or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I of this Act, or the Road Board, or a highway authority (in this schedule referred to as "the undertakers") to acquire land compulsorily shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and those Acts

309
shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and as respects Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts;

(b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Act, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily;

(c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory, and the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the proposed work or road for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the undertakers;

(d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

(2) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if a portion only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the undertakers, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other person interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the undertakers the portions only of the buildings so required if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case the undertakers shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them, and make compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
(3) In construing, for the purposes of this schedule or any order made thereunder, any enactment incorporated with the order, this Act together with the order shall be deemed to be the special Act and the undertakers shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and the expression "land" shall include easements in or relating to land.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new paragraph at the commencement of the Schedule; to omit from the first subsection in the Schedule the words "An order by the Development Commissioners empowering a Government Department, body, or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I of this Act, or the Road Board, or a highway authority (in this schedule referred to as 'the undertakers') to acquire land compulsorily shall"; and to insert the proposed new words at the end of his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, after line 25, to insert the following new paragraph—
'(1) Where a Government department, body or persons to whom an advance is made under Part I of this Act, or the Road Board or a highway authority (in this Schedule referred to as "the undertakers") propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act, the undertakers may submit to the Development Commissioners an order putting in force, as respects the lands specified in the order, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement;' in line 26, to leave out from the beginning of the paragraph to 'shall' in line 30, and to insert—
'(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved the following drafting Amendments—
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 32, subsection (1), after the words 'Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' to insert 'or in Scotland sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN hoped the Government would agree to the next Amendment, which appeared to almost speak for itself. As the Bill stood it was possible for a new road to be constructed through a man's garden, and yet the arbitrator would not be allowed to consider whether that man had been injured.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 17, paragraph (c), after 'benefited,' to insert 'or injured.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the Amendment is unnecessary, because the case would be met by Section 63 of the Land Clauses Act.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN pressed the Amendment in order to secure the insertion of the words "or injured" in the Schedule.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new paragraph after paragraph (d).
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, after line 21, to insert the following new paragraph—
'The order shall be published by the undertaker in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall I be given both in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired and to the owners lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN formally moved to insert the following new paragraph:
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, after line 33, to insert the following new paragraph—
'(5) Where the land is glebe land or other land belonging to an Ecclesiastical benefice, the Order shall provide that sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase of the land or to be paid by way of compensation for the damage to be sustained by the owner by reason of severance or other injury affecting the land, shall not be paid as directed by the Lands Clauses Acts, but shall be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied by them as money paid to them upon a sale under the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts of land belonging to a benefice.
'The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved the insertion of another new paragraph at the end of the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
"After line 39, to insert the following new paragraph—
'In this Schedule the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by the Development Commissioners.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203).

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Marchamley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
1. From and after the passing of this Act the council of any urban or rural district, or the commissioners of any town not being an urban district may advertise the advantages and amenities of the district, or any part of it, or of the town, as a health resort or watering-place, by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers, or by placards or otherwise, as they may see fit, and may expend money for the purpose, provided that the sums so expended shall not in any one financial year exceed the amount that could be raised by a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable value of the district or town.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend the clause by inserting, after the word "newspapers," the words "not published within the area of charge." He understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept this Amendment.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: Yes, I accept it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that in that case he would not detain their Lordships, but would merely thank the noble Lord and his friends for the very kind way in which they had met the objection covered by the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line, 10 after 'newspapers,' to insert 'not published within the area of charge.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendment to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to amend subsection (4) of Clause 1—
(4) The Department may, and at the request of the county council shall, revoke or alter an order made under this section,
by omitting the words "or alter." It was not considered desirable that the
314
Department should have to alter an order at the request of the county council.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Hear, hear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words 'or alter.'"—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock a.m., to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.