Sitting of 21 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.
PUBLIC REVENUE [INTERCEPTION].
Return ordered "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from taxes levied by Parliament, and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1907–8, 1908–9, and 1909–10 (estimated), with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 309, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. Stewart Bowles.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Eastern Bengal (Police Methods).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Garlick, magistrate of Dinagepore, in Eastern Bengal, in a recent dacoity case in which he refers to the fact that the wives of the accused persons were sent for by the police, and adds that it is a common practice of the police when they wish to recover stolen property to send for the wives of the persons accused and try to get them to reveal where it is; and to the further remark by the magistrate in the same judgment that the police frequently quickened the witnesses' answers with a cut from their riding canes, and that without such methods of examination he did not suppose that the police would get any information at all; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to make any inquiry into these allegations?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Under-Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances of a trial at Tezpur, in Assam, in which two men stood charged with murder in connection with the attempted loot of treasure which was being conveyed to the Bindakuri tea estate; to the fact that a third man originally sent up for trial committed suicide in gaol, after recording on the prison wall that although he was innocent of the crime he had been coerced and frightened by the police; to the fact that a fourth man turned approver, and that
  208
  on his evidence the first two accused were, at an earlier trial, found guilty and sentenced to death; to the fact that the High Court ordered a retrial on the ground of improper police evidence, and that at this retrial they were acquitted; and to the further fact that the Criminal Investigation Department officer connected with this case was Inspector Shevagat Ali Chowdhry, whose conduct had previously been condemned by the High Court in the Commilla shooting case of 1907 and the recent Nattore mail robbery case; and if the Secretary of State will inquire whether the services of this police officer, whose grave faults have so often been brought to notice, are still retained by the Government?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to answer his two questions together. The Secretary of State has seen newspaper reports of the cases referred to, and these, no doubt, engage the attention of the Lieutenant-Governor. The authorities, as I have repeatedly stated, are trying to effect improvements in a police force that is drawn almost entirely from the Indian people. Isolated cases of misconduct in so large a force are inevitable, but the local governments, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, must be trusted to deal with such cases as they arise.
  Sir H. COTTON: Will not the Secretary of State make some inquiries with regard to these illegal practices, which are described by the magistrate as quite common?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State, as I have already said, is of opinion that these cases should be dealt with by the Lieutenant-Governor or the local governments.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Have the Indian Government communicated with Mr. Garlick and asked him if he made the statements alleged to have been made and reproduced in the printed report of the judgment as to practices which ought not to be allowed in any civilised service?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has only seen the newspaper reports of the cases referred to. He is of opinion that they should be left to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor.
  Sir H. COTTON: Does not the Secretary of State think the gravity of this matter sufficient to call for inquiry?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have given the Secretary of State's answer and I cannot add to it.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Will the Secretary of State direct the attention of the Indian Government to this matter?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No doubt the questions and the replies thereto will in due course reach the Government of India. They will see them in the newspapers. I am unable to add to the reply I have given.
  Sir H. COTTON: Will the Under-Secretary represent to the Secretary of State the very strong feeling in the House of Commons on this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. Members will put down further questions.
  Mr. MacNEILL: May I point out that the hon. Gentleman has answered two questions together, and the supplementary questions have all been in reference to one. I proposed to put some in regard to the second?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There have already been six supplementary questions. That is quite enough.
  Mr. MacNEILL: All on one question.

  Indian Public Works (Assistant Engineers).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether any appointments of assistant engineers in the Indian Public Works Department have recently been made; and, if so, how many are Europeans and Indians respectively?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Thirty-nine assistant engineers have recently been appointed to the Indian Public Works Department. Thirty-six are Europeans and three Indians.

  Indian Technical Engineering Schools.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked how many technical schools are provided by the Government of India for training students in engineering, together with their accommodation, length of course, average number of students in attendance during the last five years, and distribution throughout India?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I think the hon. Member will find the information he requires at pages 168–175 of Parliamentary Paper Cd. 4635.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: How many technical schools are there?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I think five or six. The matter is fully dealt with in the Papers.

  Jamnagar Judicial Procedure.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL (for Mr. O'Grady)asked the Under-Secretary for India whether the notice of the Government of India has been drawn, by Petition or otherwise, to the fact that a Hindoo merchant in Bombay, named Mr. Premchand Kesavji, who is a native of Jamnagar, has been sentenced to a term of ten years' hard labour and confiscation of property, by His Highness the Jam, on certain criminal charges without any regular trial by the judicial courts of the State; and whether any information as to the nature of the charges, the mode of trial, and the punishment inflicted is in the possession of the Government; and, if not, would he obtain, as soon as possible, the particulars of this act of the Jam?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no information relating to this case. It is the established policy of the Government of India not to interfere in the internal affairs of a Native State, except in the case of gross mal-administration. In the absence, therefore, of any authentic statement of the whole facts, the Secretary of State is not prepared to move in the matter.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman will get the necessary information and will ascertain if the facts are as stated in the question?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I do not think it is necessary. If the facts are as stated they will be reported in due course to us by the Resident in that particular State. I do not think it is necessary to add anything to the reply of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Does the hon. Gentleman give answers without having the facts before him?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have stated we have no information. If the facts are as stated, they will in due course be reported to us by the Political Resident.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State the grave disapproval with which the withholding of information with regard to Indian matters from Members of this House is viewed?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir.

  Indian Subjects in Zanzibar.
  Sir H. COTTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a mass meeting of Indians was held last Sunday in Zanzibar to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with recent legislation limiting their liberties and injuriously affecting their commercial interests; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view of remedying the grievances of the Indian population in Zanzibar?
  Dr. RUTHERFORDalso asked whether attention has been called to the fact that a mass meeting of Indians was held on the 12th instant at Zanzibar to protest against certain laws passed since 1908, limiting their liberty and injuriously affecting their commercial interests; and what steps the Secretary of State is taking to protect the rights of His Majesty's Indian subjects in Zanzibar?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I will reply to this question and to that of the hon. Member for Brentford together. I have received a telegram from the chairman of the meeting, stating that a memorial has been addressed to me. Until that memorial reaches me I shall not be in a position to consider the matter, as I am unaware of the nature of the grievances alleged; but I shall, of course, give it due consideration when the facts are before me.

  British Shipping Claims against Russia.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the claims by British subjects against the Russian Government for compensation in the cases of the "St. Kilda" (cotton and rice), "Hip Sang," "Oldhamia," "Knight Commander," and "Calchas," respectively; have the Russian prize courts finally dealt with these cases, and, if so, to what effect; has the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg decided that cotton is absolute contraband; have the Russian Government declined the proposal of the British Government to refer disputed cases to the arbitration of the Hague tribunal; and does he propose to make further diplomatic representations in any of these cases?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the cargo of cotton and rice on the "St. Kilda," the Supreme Prize Court has dismissed the claims. I would also refer the hon. Mem-
  212
  ber to my reply to the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of 8th July last. In the case of the "Hipsang" I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 22nd February last. Since that date the Russian Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg (in May last) that the evidence of an important witness on their behalf at Vladivostock was still outstanding, but that the case was otherwise completed for hearing by the Supreme Prize Court. His Majesty's Government have repeatedly pressed that the hearing should be accelerated. With regard to the "Oldhamia," the judgment of the Supreme Prize Court has been received. Its effect is as stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 22nd February last. I understand, however, that the owners are awaiting a further report from the advocate in charge of the case. In the case of the "Knight Commander," the position as regards the owners of the vessel is unaltered since my reply to the hon. Member of 22nd February last. The assessment of the claims of owners of innocent cargo is, however, to come before the Libau Prize Court; but I understand that the case may not be heard at the next sitting of the court, which is fixed for this month or next, as it was heard in the first instance by the Vladivostock Court, and so is new to the Libau Court. There has been no development of the case of the "Calchas" since my reply to the hon. Member of 22nd February. In two cases the Supreme Prize Court has decided that the cotton on board was absolute contraband, and as regards the question of these cases being submitted to arbitration, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of 8th July last. In the cases of the "Malacca," "St. Kilda," "Ikhona," and "Foxton Hall," the claim to some compensation has been conceded.
  Mr. M'ARTHUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last clause of my question?
  Sir E. GREY: The cases are not yet all concluded. We are doing what we can to accelerate the hearing of them, but I cannot answer that particular question of the hon. Member until the decisions in all the cases are actually known.

  Bengal Regulations (1818).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked whether the Government will grant a Return showing

  213
  the names of the persons in India who are now in confinement under the provisions of Bengal Regulation III. of 1818 and kindred Regulations, and the places in which they are confined?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

  Alleged Police Torture (Punjab).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the policemen affected by the allegations of torture, outrage, and manipulation of evidence made by the judges of the Punjab Chief Court eight months ago in the Gulan Bano case have been, and are still, retained in the service of the Punjab Government; and, if so, whether he can say upon whose advice, and after what inquiry, the views of Mr. Justice Robertson and Mr. Justice Rattigan as to the conduct of the police have been set aside by the Executive?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Chief Court did not find that the allegations of torture by the police made in this case were proved. They were of opinion that on the evidence before them there was a strong case for a departmental inquiry. This inquiry has been held and the report has been submitted to the Government of India who have asked the local government for further information on certain points. Until a final report has been received the Secretary of State is unable to make any statement on the subject.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Has the Government of India issued orders forbidding all kinds of torture in the prisons?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I do not agree with the hon. Member that torture has taken place.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Is it not the fact that the judges of the High Court in all parts of India have found and complained of torture?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it the practice of the Government of India, when grave reflections have been cast upon the conduct of policemen by the High Court of Justice, to retain those policemen in their service, and does the Secretary of State approve of that practice?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: That does not arise out of this question of the hon. Member. I have stated that the Governor of India and the Secretary of State were awaiting a final report on this case. Until that final report is received, it is not possible for me to answer the hon. Member's question fully. If the hon. Member will put down his question at a later date, when we have received the information, I will endeavour to reply to it.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: With great respect, this is the third time to my knowledge in this House—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a statement of that kind—especially a controversial one.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put it down?
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the judgment delivered on 12th June at Rawal Pindi by Mr. Dundas, the sessions judge, in the case of six men charged with murder upon a confession alleged to have been extorted from one Ghulam Mohammad by torture, the torture being described by the learned judge as racking, and the marks having been seen by him on the accused's legs and arms; whether the judge held that the investigation by the police was open to the charge of bribery as well as of torture, that their conduct called for inquiry, and: that the accused ought to be acquitted; and whether he can state what steps the Government of the Punjab has taken to bring home to the policemen concerned, their responsibility for what took place?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no information on this subject. He has no doubt that the local government will deal sternly with any members of the police force against whom, offences of this nature may be proved. He will inquire as to the facts.

  Transvaal Mines (Labour).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the Transvaal Government have appointed a small commission to visit Westphalia, Germany, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the men employed in the collieries there are suitable for the Transvaal mines; that

  215
  there are at the present moment hundreds of good miners unemployed in the Transvaal; and, if so, whether he can see his way clear to approach the Transvaal Government in regard to the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Secretary of State has no information as to the appointment of any Commission for the purpose stated, but inquiry will be made.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Do I understand that I shall have an answer when the information is received?
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him all the information we can obtain.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it a case in which the Transvaal Government could make inquiries?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know anything about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any information which he can give me I shall be very glad if he will do so.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: What is the meaning of the word "approach" in this question? What power does this Government claim to interfere with the Transvaal Government on such a question as this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question to the hon. Member below him who used the word.

  Local Government Board Employés.
  Mr. RENTONasked the President of the Local Government Board how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were in the service of the Local Government Board on 31st March, 1906, and on 30th June, 1909, respectively?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The numbers are as follows: On 31st March, 1906, 697; on 30th June, 1909, 798.

  Post Office Savings Bank Claim (C. R. Edwardson).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the claim of the Post Office on a small sum of money deposited in the name of Christopher Robert Edwardson, lately deceased; and whether, in view of the fact that Miss Edwardson had brought the deceased up from infancy and had provided him with board and lodging
  216
  for 40 years, and had also transferred to his credit a sum of money which stood in her name, he will order the payment of the money standing in the deceased's name to be paid to Miss Edwardson, and to which she is legally entitled for expenses out of pocket?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Buxton): I am aware of the claim to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have no power to act in the matter. Any application for the money must be addressed to the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer at Edinburgh, and Miss Edwardson has been so informed.

  United States Tariff (Steam Yachts).
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the terms of the changes made by the new tariff of the United States as affecting steam yachts built in countries other than the United States?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr H. J. Tennant): Steam yachts are free of import duty under both the former and the new Customs Tariff of the United States. Section 37 of the new United States Tariff Act, however, provides for the levy of an annual tax at the rate of seven dollars per gross ton upon the use of every foreign built yacht, pleasure boat, or vessel not used or intended to be used for trade, owned or chartered for more than six months by citizens of the United States. This annual tax may be commuted by the payment of a single sum at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Is it the fact, or what the hon. Gentleman believes to be the fact, that in the case of some of the more expensive yachts this annual subsidy to the Government would mean about. £2,500 sterling, or commuted would be about £30,000?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; of course it all depends upon the amount of the original cost, or the value of the yacht. As I have said, it is seven dollars per gross ton, or 35 per cent. ad valorem
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Is there any reason to believe that the figures I have quoted are correct?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is all a question of calculation.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Yes, but my question is one of fact.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the numbers and tonnage of steam yachts built on the Clyde and the Forth for citizens of the United States from the year 1890 until the present time?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that from the year 1890 to the present time 20 steam yachts, with an aggregate tonnage of 18,723 tons (Thames measurement) have been built on the Clyde, and 10 steam yachts, with an aggregate tonnage of 8,755 tons, on the Forth, for citizens of the United States.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade, concerning the refusal of the local authority at Dudley to approve the establishment of a Labour Exchange, what action his Department proposes to take in such cases; and whether the regulations will provide for exchanges being efficiently worked in cases where local authorities may decline to assist them?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Labour Exchanges Bill empowers the Board of Trade to establish and maintain exchanges "in such places as they think fit," and, although the Board may co-operate with other authorities such co-operation is not essential to the establishment of any Labour Exchange. I hope that in all cases Labour Exchanges established by the Board of Trade will be efficiently worked.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to publish particulars relating to the appointments it will be necessary to make for the organisation of a system of Labour Exchanges; and, if so, whether he will allow a reasonable interval of time to elapse, after publishing the said particulars, before the applications are dealt with, in order to give reasonable opportunity for persons possessing the necessary qualifications to apply?
  Mr. TENNANT: The appointments referred to by the hon. Gentleman are as follows:—

  1. Superintendents of Class "A" Exchanges, with a salary of £250 to £350.

  2. Superintendents of Class "B" Exchanges, with a salary of £200 to £250.

  3. Superintendents of Class "C" Exchanges, with a salary of £150 to £200.

  4. Superintendents of sub-offices, with a salary of £100 to £150.

  218

  5. Registration clerks at somewhat lower salaries.

  The Committee of Selection is expected to commence work towards the end of next month.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is it not possible to get perfectly competent men at salaries of £2 a week?
  Mr. TENNANT: No; I think £250 a year is not an excessive salary for persons who will have considerable demands made upon them, and persons who require to be of high character.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that a mining manager gets only £2 to £4 a week for most responsible work?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Will these appointments be filled by patronage or by competitive examination.
  Mr. TENNANT: No; they will not be filled by competitive examination. They will be filled by the selection of a Committee, of which notice has already been given to the House.

  Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland).
  Mr. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland), which pays 4½ per cent. on its ordinary shares, makes no provision for warming third-class carriages in cold weather on most of its trains, even for long runs like that from Dublin to Waterford, and prohibits the servants of the company, without, obtaining special permission, from providing third-class passengers with foot-warmers; and will he have representations made by has Department to this company with a view of changing the present system, which inflicts hardship on third-class passengers who may not care or may not be able to pay the fares charged by this company for first and second-class tickets?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Board of Trade are in communication with the railway company in this matter, and I shall be glad to inform the hon. Gentleman of the result?

  Prison Commission (Late Chairman).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate if he can state in what year the late chairman of the Prisons Commissions reached

  219
  the age of compulsory retirement; how often was his appointment extended beyond that age, and for how long were these extensions; and whether applications for the position of chairman of that Board were during these extension periods being received by the Scotch Secretary from all parts of Scotland?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): The chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland reached the age of retirement in 1907. There have been two extensions, covering a total period of two years and four months, during which various applications for the post were received.

  Stipendiary Magistrates (Glasgow).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate when he will be in a position to fill the post of stipendiary magistrate for Glasgow; and will he say what has been the cause of the delay?
  Mr. A. DEWAR: The conditions proposed by the Corporation of Glasgow for the appointment have been recently submitted to the Scottish Office and are now under consideration. No unnecessary delay will occur in filling the appointment after the conditions are adjusted.

  Manchester Unemployed (Case of John Meyrick).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Meyrick, an unemployed labourer, sentenced in Manchester on 10th September to two months' imprisonment for failing to provide food for his children; whether the man repeatedly announced his ability and desire to work if he could secure it, but refused to enter the workhouse as requested by the guardians; and whether, had he agreed to enter the workhouse, any sentence would have been imposed.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have made inquiry in this case. There would have been no prosecution if the man had taken the means afforded him by the law for obtaining food for his children. He refused to do this though repeatedly warned of the consequences if he allowed his children to starve. The provision enacted by Parliament last year in the Children's Act leaves no doubt as to his
  220
  obligation to obtain poor law relief if he could not otherwise provide for his family; and I much regret that, in view of all the circumstances, I hardly think the case is one in which I could recommend any interference.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of the trial the man himself explained that his entry into prison would mean the breaking up of his little home, and consequently a greater difficulty after emerging from prison to get his home and family together again?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The real facts of the case are that the refusal of the man to take advantage of the law resulted in semi-starvation to a number of children, and at present, while he is in prison, his children will be provided for. I think the hon. Member may be assured that they will be well looked after.

  Hayfield Print Works (Fatal Accident).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report of an experienced workman being killed on 13th September at the print works, Hayfield, Derbyshire; whether the machinery was considered to be properly guarded; and whether he can take some action concerning the opinion of the jury that there should be a different method of doing the work?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The accident was duly reported and investigated. It arose from the workman stepping over a guardrail and putting china clay on a revolving disc on the inrunning instead of the outrunning side. I am informed that no one had been seen to do this before, nor can any reason be assigned for this unusual and erroneous action. The guardrail was sufficient protection if the work had been done in the usual way, but in view of the accident, the boxing over of the inrunning side has been suggested to the firm by the inspector.

  Imported Wines.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the quantities of wines at 27 to 30 degrees of strength imported into this country during the months of June, July, and August of 1908 and 1909 respectively?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I regret that the Departmental records do not enable

  221
  me to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend. I would refer him, if he is not already acquainted with it, to Parliamentary Paper No. 76 of 1909, which will give him some information on the subject.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCOME TAX (COMPULSORY RETURNS).
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether, after the passing of the Finance Bill, all Income Tax-payers will have to make a return of their income; and, if the existing provisions of the Finance Bill do not necessitate these returns, will he introduce an Amendment to make them compulsory?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend regrets that he does not see his way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    CHARITIES AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (INCOME).
    Mr. MARKHAMasked what is the approximate total income derived by charities and public institutions during the year 1907 or 1908, and what proportion this income bears to the total receipts of the Income Tax derived from property; and whether returns of income received by these institutions will have to be made for the present financial year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no information as to the approximate total income of charities and public institutions, but the approximate gross annual value and rents of hereditaments, etc., exempted from Schedule A is 8½ millions. The proportion which this amount bears to the total gross value of all property under Schedule A is as 1 is to 30. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no information as to the income received for charitable institutions, would he consider the importance of requiring such institutions to make a return of their income in order that we might know how much of the charity goes to the public and how much to officials of the institution?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know that the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman would bring about the result which he aims at.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider it desirable in the public interest that there should be a return made to Parliament of the income received by these institutions and the sources from which they are derived? Is he aware that continual statements are made which are purely hypothetical?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member is now asking a question arising out of the last question on the Paper.

    INCOME TAX (LANDOWNERS AND TRADERS).
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what proportion of the profits of joint stock companies upon which Income Tax has been paid is divided amongst the shareholders by way of dividend; whether he is aware that in the coal and iron trades this proportion of profits divided does not generally exceed 60 per cent. of the taxed profits, owing to no depreciation being allowed for leases or exhaustion of minerals from the gross trading profits; and will he see that no more favourable terms are granted to landowners in respect to Schedule A of the Income Tax than is granted to traders?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has no information on the points raised by my hon. Friend in the first two parts of the question. As regards the third part of the question, I may refer him to my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday in Committee, which indicates the nature of the proposed changes under Schedule A of the Income Tax.

    CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (MINERAL DUTIES).
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from minerals alone for the year 1908 was £463,438, he will say if he has any information of the income derived by charities from minerals under the control of the Charity Commissioners, and what sum these charities will have to pay for Mineral Duties; and whether, before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill dealing with minerals is reached, he will ask the Charity Commissioners to furnish him with the figures showing the total income in 1908 received by charities under their control?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is not able to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend, and he finds on inquiry that it would be quite impossible

    223
    to obtain the particulars mentioned in the last part of the question before the new Clauses dealing with the Mineral Duties come up for discussion.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I put a question on the Paper a fortnight ago. Was that not time enough?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; this information would take at least a year and a half to collect.

    MINERAL RIGHTS CLAUSE.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister is now in a position to tell us the decision the Government have arrived at with regard to the day on which the Resolution in relation to the Mineral Rights Duty will be taken in Committee of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow.

  Stock Certificates to Bearer.
  Mr. WATTasked whether anything has yet been done to make Consols more accessible to the small investor by their issue in smaller denominations, say, of £50?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There has been no issue of Consols since 1902, and existing Consols are transferable in the books of the Bank of England in amounts of one penny and any multiple of a penny. I assume, therefore, that my hon. Friend refers to the issue of Stock certificates to bearer. Such certificates may, under the provisions of the National Debt Act of 1870, be issued for amounts of £50, and, though at present they are not in fact issued for smaller amounts than £100, my right hon. Friend does not think there would be any difficulty in issuing £50 certificates, if there were any public demand for them.

  Electricity in Mines.
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the reasons which caused him to refuse the request of the Mines Royal Commission for a grant to make experiments on the use of electricity in mines; and whether, in view of further recent explosions believed to be due to electricity, causing the loss of large numbers of men, he will reconsider his decision in this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has not received any such request from the Royal Commission.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Report of the Royal Commission it was definitely stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to make this grant?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My attention has not been drawn to that statement. I am prepared to look at it. My information is as I have given it to the hon. Gentleman.

  Old Age Pension Withdrawn (Tullyvallon, Armagh).
  Mr. MacNEILL (for Mr. Mooney)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that Mrs. Mary McElduff, of Tullyvallon, Cullyhanna, Crossmaglin, county Armagh, was deprived of her old age pension in June last by the pension officer on the ground that her age could not be traced in the parish register; if he is aware that Mrs. McElduff forwarded to the Local Government Board her marriage certificate, showing that she was married on 15th February, 1863, and a written certificate from one of the witnesses of her marriage to the effect that, at the time of the marriage, the claimant was over 25 years of age; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have never acknowledged the receipt of these documents, and, as the claimant is in poor circumstances, will he have immediate inquiries made; and whether it is to be taken to be the practice of the Treasury in Ireland to refuse pensions solely on the ground that the applicant's age is not on record, and that corroborative evidence admitted in England is not to be admitted in Ireland?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The Local Government Board allowed the appeal of the pension officer on the ground that Mrs. McElduff was shown in the Census Return of 1851 as only seven years of age, and that her name could not be traced in the Census of 1841. A marriage certificate was forwarded to the Board, as indicated in the question, accompanied by a statement from one of the witnesses to the effect that he believed the pensioner to have been 25 years of age at the date of her marriage. The Board were unable to accept this statement as sufficient to prove that the Census Return was incorrect. They inform me that it is not possible, owing to the enormous number of documents received in connection with appeals, to acknowledge each one, but they deal with them as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Census Returns are notoriously inaccurate, and has he seen the last part of the question as to why corroborative evidence which is accepted in England is not accepted in Ireland?
  Mr. CHERRY: Although the Census Returns may be inaccurate, the recollections of persons 40 years ago is still more liable to error.

  Lord Erne's Estate, East Donegal.
  Mr. CHARLES MacVEIGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on Lord Erne's estate, near Lifford, East Donegal, signed agreements to purchase their holdings in October, 1905, and no inspector has yet come down to inspect their holdings; and whether he can state what is the cause of this delay or when the sale of this estate will be completed?
  Mr. CHERRY: Owing to its place on the priority list this estate has not yet been dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Estates Commissioners hope to have it inspected shortly.

  Marsham Estate, Leitrim (Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked what are the terms offered to the evicted tenants at Lisgillock Glebe, on the Marsham estate, county Leitrim, with a view to their reinstatement; whether the annuities in future to be paid by the tenants are so high that the tenants are unable to accept such terms; and whether the amount of the promised grants have been reduced from what was agreed on at first?
  Mr. CHERRY: With the consent of the owner the Estates Commissioners had a preliminary inspection made of the lands in question, but the majority of the former tenants have refused to purchase at the prices fixed by the Commissioners. The Commissioners have decided to make no grants to any of the former tenants save one. They are all in occupation of other holdings in the neighbourhood.

  Sectarian Strife (Drumcannon, Leitrim).
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that John James MacNeill, of Drumcannon, Carrigallen, county Leitrim, who was formerly a member of the London Police Force, and is, since his retirement a few years ago, in receipt of a pension, going about the dis-
  226
  trict giving offence to his Roman Catholic neighbours and making use of uncalled-for remarks with a view to raising sectarian strife and embitter feelings between people who have always lived on friendly terms with each other; whether he is aware that a statement has been signed, in the presence of the police of the district, by a man named John Dobson, of Druminshin Glebe, Carrigallen, who up to recently was on friendly terms with MacNeill, that MacNeill asked him to write threatening and boycotting notices and to post the same in the district, with a view to blackening the district and in order that the authorities might send additional police into the locality to protect MacNeill and his brother, with whom he lives and who is in occupation of an evicted farm; and whether, as MacNeill has been fined several times at Carrigallen Petty Sessions for drunkenness, and that, when he would be drunk, he has to get police protection on account of his offensive remarks about Catholics and calling himself an Orangeman, steps will be taken to prevent MacNeill from acting in such a manner in the future?
  Mr. CHERRY: It appears from the reports which I have received from the constabulary authorities that Dobson and McNeill are not on good terms. McNeill accused Dobson of poaching, and Dobson retaliated by making the allegations contained in the question, but did not sign a statement in the presence of the police. McNeill was twice fined for drunkenness in 1908, and is under police protection owing to his association with a brother who has taken an evicted farm. The police are not aware that he is in the habit of making offensive remarks about his neighbours.
  Mr. SMYTH: Will steps be taken in the future to prevent this man from repeating such conduct as is going on at present?
  Mr. CHERRY: If he violates the law in any way and the offence is brought to the knowledge of the police, I can promise that measures will be taken.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: Is there any means of informing the inhabitants of these localities that Queen Elizabeth is dead and even that King William III. has passed away?
  Mr. CHERRY: I think they are mostly aware of the two facts.

  Old Age Pension (Killameen, Leitrim).
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked why Hugh Maguire, of Killameen, Corrawallen, Carrigallen, county Leitrim, is not receiving the full amount of the old age pension, his allowance being only 4s. per week; and, as the rest of his small farm is only £2 5s. yearly, will his case be reconsidered, with a view to granting him the full pension of 5s. per week?
  Mr. CHERRY: The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The Local Government Board allowed the appeal of the pension officer against the decision of the sub-committee granting Hugh Maguire a pension of 5s. a week on the ground that, in their opinion, the income from claimant's farm of 12 acres exceeded £21 a year. The Board have no power to reconsider the decision given, even assuming that there were any grounds for so doing.

  Beirne's Farm, Leitrim (Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked when the Estates Commissioners will send down an inspector for the purpose of valuing and taking over the farm of land situate at Gortletteragh, county Leitrim, and known as Beirne's farm, on the estate of Mr. H. J. B. Clements, Lough Rynn, county Leitrim, and which Mr. Clements has agreed to sell to the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating some evicted tenants on his property; and, as those people are in a very destitute state, if the inspector could be sent down soon, with a view to those tenants being reinstated before the winter season?
  Mr. CHERRY: As my right hon. Friend has already stated, in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 13th May last, proceedings for the sale of this estate were only instituted in April last, and the Commissioners cannot therefore deal with it for some time to come.

  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland)— Irish Language.
  Mr. BOLAND (for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can explain the very low marks awarded to Irish and the high marks awarded to German in the recent intermediate examinations in Ireland; and whether, as a large number of students who took Irish were debarred from getting exhibitions owing to this system of marking, the Board intended this to discourage students from taking Irish in future?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that the marks awarded in Irish and in German are in accordance with the judgment of the examiners in those subjects. The Board do not interfere with the discretion of the examiners with regard to their awards beyond prescribing the standard percentages for passing and for honours, and the distribution of marks as between the sub-divisions of the subjects. The standards are the same for all languages, and were prescribed for the recent examination in the rules and programme which were presented to Parliament in 1908. The total number of exhibitions allocated to the modern literary course, first division (Irish and French or German), was 44, while the number allocated to the second division (French and German) was 49.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that this year for the first time this extraordinary discrepancy has taken place, and whether, as a matter of fact, this difficulty was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary when the new rule was introduced last year, and that what was expected has taken place?
  Mr. CHERRY: The only explanation I can give is that it must be that the examiners in Irish were more severe this year than formerly or that the candidates were nor so well qualified.
  Mr. BOLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the examiners in German may have been more easy?
  Mr. CHERRY: That may be so. I know nothing of these gentlemen.
  Mr. JOYCE: Perhaps they fear a German invasion in the near future.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the request of all the public schools in Ireland, he will ask the Commissioners to have a re-examination in the matter of Irish, as it is most important?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is not at all likely that they will consent to have a re-examination. I do not think it is possible, because it would involve the expenditure of a large sum of money and cause a great deal of trouble. Candidates would have to be brought up from all parts of Ireland.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Papers are in the hands of the examiners, and that the re-examination of

  229
  them would not involve the attendance of the candidates? The principle on which the marks were given would seem to have been unprecedented.
  Mr. CHERRY: Does the hon. Member mean the re-examination merely of the papers by the examiners? I do not think there would be any difficulty about that.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Yes. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to do so?
  Mr. CHERRY: I will.

  Wells Estate (Queen's County).
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether a large portion of the farm from which the late Michael Branagan was evicted in 1882, situated on the Wells estate, Raheenduff, Attanagh, Queen's County, has been given to a Mrs. Wall, of Grennan; if he is aware that Mrs. Wall holds over 200 statute acres elsewhere and has no children, and that the son of the evicted tenant, who came home from New York, only got 33 out of the 84 Irish acres of which his father's farm was comprised; can he say who recommended Mrs. Wall for a portion of this farm; and whether the Estates Commissioners will reconsider their decision in allotting a portion of the farm to a well-to-do outsider to the exclusion of the son of the evicted tenant?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, have allotted 38 acres of the farm in question to the children of John Holohan, who was evicted from a farm of 73 acres in the same county, which is now in the occupation of another tenant. As they are minors the purchase agreement has been signed on their behalf by their aunt, Mrs. Wall, as trustee. The Commissioners have allotted 54 acres to Michael Brannigan as representative of his father, who was evicted from the farm in 1882. They are not prepared to reconsider their decision.

  Mobilisation Exercises (Supply of Ball Cartridges).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether any and, if so, what alterations have been made in the regulations under which regular troops armed with ball cartridges were recently sent from York to take part in the defence of the bridges across the Tyne at and near Newcastle-on-Tyne, which bridges were defended by Territorials armed with blank cartridges, with the result that neither
  230
  party were allowed to fire their rifles, the usefulness of the operations being thereby impaired?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): As I have already explained to the hon. Member in reply to a previous question on this subject, the object of the manœuvres was to test the mobilisation arrangements and accordingly the troops were armed with ball cartridge. The manœuvres were carried out as intended and the usefulness of the operation was not in any way impaired as the hon. Member supposes. There is no intention of making any alterations in the regulations as suggested.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any inquiry has been made as to the connection or otherwise between this regulation and the fatalities that have recently taken place by the issuing to soldiers of ball cartridges?
  Mr. HALDANE: It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it. There was no firing, and therefore no fatality. It is a test of mobilisation, and not of firing.
  Mr. RENWICK: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The shooting took place afterwards by the soldiers, who had in their possession ball cartridges.
  Mr. HALDANE: The Regular soldiers had ball cartridges because it is necessary that they should have the standard weight carried with them in the mobilisation test, but they did not fire them. They were returned to stock immediately after the mobilisation exercises were over.

  Recruits Rejected (Medically Unfit).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary of State for War if, he can state the number of recruits for His Majesty's forces during the past 12 months who presented themselves for enrolment but were rejected as physically unfit to serve, and giving the numbers for each town over 100,000 population?
  Mr. HALDANE: The figures are too long to read out to the House, and I will have them printed with the Votes and Proceedings. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: May I ask what proportions were rejected in the different parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HALDANE: I cannot give them offhand. When the hon. Member gets the figures he will see for himself.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give, in addition to the statistics, the reasons why the rejections took place?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, I do not think it is possible. When the hon. Member gets the figures he will be able to see the numbers for himself.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the number of rejections this year appears to be greater than in the past year?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, I do not think so. That is another question as to which I have at present no information. If the hon. Member wishes further information he should put a question on the Paper.

  Consumption in the Army.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of soldiers who have been dismissed from the Army suffering from consumption during the past 12 months; and whether any provision, and for what number, was made by his Department in order to enable them to cope with the disease?
  Mr. HALDANE: The number of cases of discharges for tubercle of lung in 1908 was 272. Statistics for later periods are not available at the War Office, as the Returns are only made up annually, and a special Return would be necessary to secure the information. As regards the last part of the question, no special provision is made by the War Office, but the authorities of military hospitals endeavour to arrange locally for these men to be taken into homes on discharge.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: In view of the great danger arising from infection through the discharge of these soldiers, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think it is fit and proper that a Government Department should make arrangements for the reception of these men?
  Mr. HALDANE: This matter has been fully discussed before. Whatever you do in this case you must also do in the case of the Navy and other public Departments. We cannot deal specially with one Department apart from the others.

  Poor Law Commission (Reports).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to act on the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board and relegate the majority and minority Reports of the Royal Commission on Poor Laws to the President of the Local Government Board, with power to do what he thinks fit with the recommendations contained in the Reports by regulation and order?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend referred to in the question was thrown out in a jocular mood in the course of a recent speech; and it has not been considered by His Majesty's Government.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[31st Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.
  PART IV.—INCOME TAX.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Exemptions and Abatements in Case of Persons not Resident in the United Kingdom.)
    (1) No exemption, abatement, or relief under the Income Tax Acts which depends wholly or partially on the total income of an individual from all sources shall be given to any person, unless the person claiming the exemption, abatement, or relief is resident in the United Kingdom:
    Provided that where the Commissioners are satisfied in the case of any person employed in the service of the Crown abroad, that he would, if not so employed, be resident in the United Kingdom, that person shall be entitled to any relief, exemption, or abatement to which he would be entitled if he were resident in the United Kingdom, and if his total income from all sources were calculated as including any income in respect of which Income Tax may not be chargeable as well as income in respect of which Income Tax is chargeable.
    (2) Income Tax shall not be payable in respect of the interest or dividends of any securities of a foreign State or a British possession which are payable in the United Kingdom, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the person owning the securities and entitled to the interest or dividends is not resident in the United Kingdom; but, save as pro-

    233
    vided by this or any other Act, no allowance shall be given or repayment made in respect of the Income Tax on the interest or dividends on the securities of any foreign State or any British possession which are payable in the United Kingdom.
    Relief from Income Tax under this Subsection may be given by the Commissioners either by way of allowance or repayment on a claim being made to them for the purpose within six months of the end of the year for which the Income Tax is charged.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I move the Amendment partly because there is some uncertainty as to the meaning of the Sub-section and partly because, if I understand it rightly, it is proposed that no exemption, abatement, or relief is to be given, unless the person is resident in the United Kingdom. Take the case of a Britisher who lives in India or in the Colonies. If I understand the Subsection rightly, he will not be entitled, although his income is receivable in England, and falls below £700 a year, to exemption or abatement. I do not quite see why that should be so. Take the case of a man who resides and works in India, who as not perhaps a Civil servant, and who does not fall within the protection of the proviso, but who has a wife and family living in England, and whose income is very small, and falls below the point at which exemption on abatement ought to be allowed, why should not he have the benefit of the exemption section of the Income Tax Acts or be entitled to a reduction of the Income Tax? Take next the case of a Britisher or an Irishman who lives abroad owing to ill-health or want of means, whose income accrues here and is below the exemption limit. Why should he be denied the benefit of the exemption? I do not see any reason. A third case is that of a foreigner whose income is received here and remitted to him abroad. In that case I see no reason from the point of view of the individual why he should be relieved from the Income Tax. But, on the other hand, there is the public consideration that we do not tax foreigner's incomes, and if you deprive the foreigner of all relief the effect may be that incomes of foreign investments will not be remitted to this country, as is sometimes done now, but will be paid direct to the foreigner abroad. That, I agree, is quite a different consideration, but it does affect business men, and the effect may be to drive away
    234
    from this country business which now comes here. There is one other point. I do not quite understand the meaning of the word "relief" in this Sub-section. I am rather anxious to make sure that it will not have an effect which may be undesirable. For instance, take the case which I have been putting, of the income or dividends of a foreign company which are remitted to this country and paid here to a foreigner. Is the effect of this word to make that taxable income? I am rather afraid that it is a little bit ambiguous when you compare this word with the language of Sub-section (2). I am not quite sure, putting the two together, that the effect might not be to subject for the first time to tax income that is not now subject to tax. I would be glad to hear the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these points.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As far as I can understand the first part of the Clause, it is very clear, and applies only to foreigners who, having invested £3,000 or £4,000, claim that because the income from it is less than seven hundred a year they are entitled to abatement, notwithstanding that their income may be greater.
    Mr. CAVE: That is not confined to foreigners.
    Sir F. BANBURY: One of your questions is whether English people who, owing to want of means or illness, have to live abroad should be deprived of a certain advantage which is given to people who are living in England. The next question is how that is going to affect foreigners who invest their money, or some of their money, in England? I understood that my hon. and learned Friend laid great stress on the last question on the ground that it might divert money which otherwise would be invested in English securities or in England. I was dealing with this last question. I have considerable experience of foreigners who have invested money in England. Many of them may have invested £5,000 or £6,000, or even £10,000 to £15,000, the interest on which would still leave them within the exemption being under seven hundred pounds. It is very extraordinary how tenacious they are of the right to obtain exemption on Income Tax. Over and over again they have come to me and asked me to obtain this abatement for them. I pointed out that it does not affect them very much. On more than one occasion I have been compelled to refuse to obtain this particular abatement because the difficulties of

    235
    obtaining it have been so great, and I have referred them to people who make it their business to obtain abatements of Income Tax. In every case they have gone to these people and obtained the abatements which amounted to very small sums. I believe that this proposal will have a very marked effect upon the investments by foreigners of small sums of money in England.
    In this matter I am speaking without any regard to party considerations, but we must not forget that at the present moment there is not that glamour about English investments which there used to be, and consequently anything, however slight—and I admit that this is slight—which tends to divert foreign investments from this country is a bad thing. I believe that the loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from avoiding this result would be very small, while the loss to the country, if he does not do so would be, comparatively speaking, great. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the meaning of the last words in Sub-section (2): "but, save as provided by this or any other Act, no allowance shall be given or repayment made in respect of the Income Tax on the interest or dividends on the securities of any foreign State or British possession which are payable in the United Kingdom."
    As far as I remember where foreigners hold securities in England which are not English securities, for instance, Japanese or Russian bonds, which they may buy here and leave here, there is some encouragement to English enterprise, and it gives employment to financial people in the City. Up to the present time whatever the income was arising from those bonds here in England, if you could prove that those owners were resident abroad and were foreigners, they would not pay any Income Tax. I am not quite sure whether under that Clause this is going to be altered, because apparently now, where dividends are payable in England, if they are held by a foreigner, that foreigner would be liable to Income Tax. Take the case of Japanese Stock, drawing dividends payable either in London or in Paris or in various cities of the world, or in Japan. As far as I can gather, the result of this provision will be that if the foreigner bought Japanese securities in England, and held them in England, he would be liable to Income Tax.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Why not? Is not that taxing the foreigner?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No. The Japanese securities are produced abroad and bought in England. The only result will be that the foreigner, instead of buying Japanese securities in London, will buy them in. Amsterdam, or in some other place, and the money which would have come over here and been circulated here in commissions and charges, and which would have accrued to Englishmen doing the business, would go to the foreigner. That is a fact. I am pointing out what I understand, and I do not think that the hon. Member would deprive Englishmen of this means of earning an honest livelihood in order to give the business to somebody else abroad. When the business is done here the money is circulated, and there is employment for workmen, but if the business be done abroad there will be less money circulated in England, and, therefore, there will be less spent in wages. Is that the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If it is, it will not give him any more revenue, and it is absolutely certain that the business will be done abroad and not in England. Whilst the Government might not lose anything, they would not gain anything, but business would be driven out of the City of London into some foreign city. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to do that. I am not a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman, but I really do not think he wants to do that. I am stating facts. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to take my word for them. I am telling them to the House from my experience of over 30 years in the City, and I believe every word I have said is absolutely true in every respect. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to take some other opinion than mine, say that of Sir Felix Schuster, who is a good Liberal, and who contested the City of London at the last election. I am quite certain he will endorse every word I have said. If he does that, then I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Report stage to amend the Clause in the direction I have suggested.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Perhaps this is a convenient moment in which to raise the question of servants of the Crown and British subjects who live abroad or in the Colonies. I have an Amendment later on in regard to this matter, but I think that it is perhaps convenient first of all to ascertain what is the policy of the Government with regard to these persons. Take

    237
    first those Colonial subjects who are in the service of the Crown. I need only mention a very distinguished Canadian, Sir Percy Girouard, who fought throughout the South African war, who has since done important service both in the Transvaal and in Nigeria, and who is now nominated to an important governorship in East Africa. I can hardly suppose, if my reading of the Section is right, that it is possible the Government intend to treat such a person as one not entitled to all the privileges and abatements which are extended to any one of His Majesty's subjects. It is extremely probable that a colonist in the service of the Crown, when he has finished his period of service, will return to the country of his original domicile. I am dealing with colonists who have been in the service of the Crown, whose term of service has expired, and who return to the country of their original domicile—Australians, or Canadians in the service of the Crown, who, after long and honourable service, return to finish their days in Canada or Australia, as the case may be. His Majesty's Government have certainly of late, I think, ever since the Colonial Conference of 1907, been well aware of the strong Colonial demand in favour, if possible, of an interchange of civil and permanent servants of the Crown, who know the opinions which exist with regard to naval defence, and the taking of service by colonists in the British Army and Navy. The right hon. Gentleman also knows the strength of the demand there is for interchange and reciprocity between the great professions of the country, such as the Bar, which the Attorney-General discussed with the Colonial representatives in 1907, the profession of surveyors and other professions. There has been a great and a keen desire on the part, not merely of the Colonies, but of those who represent the Government there, to extend the feeling of a common and wider citizenship of the British Empire. If the Government do not go so far in that respect as we desire, at any rate they have gone some distance. I cannot believe it is other than by inadvertence that British subjects—men who have been in the service of the British Crown, men who have been in the Army or Navy, and who have returned to the country of their original domicile—should be placed in a prejudicial position with regard to this tax—a position which stamps them for one important purpose as not enjoying the privileges of British subjects. I can hardly believe that it is the
    238
    policy of the Government to throw, I was going to say a stigma, on British subjects who are not living in this country, and I await with confidence some declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this point. There is one other point I desire to mention. I have spoken of colonists—citizens of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—but there are others in the same category. I have had communications of a very earnest character indeed from gentlemen in the Channel Islands—some from Jersey. I think also that the Isle of Man is affected, though I have not received any communication from that island. If I read the Section correctly, however, the Isle of Man would fall under the same disability. What is the reason for their exclusion? Why is a man who has gone to live in one of those islands for the purposes of health, or to bring up a large family in the most economical way, to be deprived of privileges which every British subject enjoys and ought to enjoy? It seems to me to be intolerable to say that a man with a small income in Guernsey should have no abatement. I cannot, I confess, understand what the policy of the Government is in this matter. If it is alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be any difficulty in machinery, I say with great confidence that those difficulties, even if they were very much greater than they are, ought to be surmounted, and that it would pay the British Government well to treat British subjects in those islands handsomely and generously, and not leave it open to them to say, as they do with perfect justice, that because a piece of sea interposes between them and this country they are to be placed in a position of disability as to the privileges which ought to attach to British subjects.
    Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I should like to emphasise what has been said by giving a concrete case which will illustrate the point I wish to bring before him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I know, been petitioned by companies from India working with British capital but with registered headquarters in London. I mention one situated in my own Constituency, the Bombay Tramways Company. That company has its headquarters in London, and the dividends are paid from the head office in London to the native Indian shareholders. In Bombay they have something like 67,000 small native shareholders, and the average holding of those particular shareholders is something like nine £1 shares. Up to the

    239
    present they have been allowed either exemption or abatement of the Income Tax charged in this country where they complied with the conditions, and in India they have had only the native Income Tax to pay. Under the present provision not only would they have to pay the native Income Tax, but also the Income Tax which is now proposed to be levied here. [An HON. MEMBER: "So they ought."] So they ought, says an hon. Member. I am endeavouring and asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could see his way to help those small native shareholders in India to relieve them from double taxation in this way. What would be the result? The hon. Baronet does not take the trouble to think. He thanks it is good enough to keep his party sin power by any means. We are anxious, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wall appreciate my point, not to drive away work from this country. What would be the result of this particular provision? They wall have probably to transfer their office to India, with the result that the Government wall be no better off than if they made this concession. If they do not they will be doing the gravest injustice to those small native shareholders in India and other districts, as I only give the Indian case as that which is before me. They will also be adding a stimulus to those who advise investors against British investments. I believe, if the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the petition, that he will see that there is a fair case to be met, and I hope he will go so far as to make the exemption to those who are British subjects and who do not happen to be residents in this country.
    Sir SEYMOUR KING: We have heard something as regards the privileges supposed to be enjoyed by persons employed in the service of the Crown abroad. Speaking as a layman and not understanding the full legal meaning of the word, I am not quite certain as to the extent of those privileges which servants of the Crown are supposed to enjoy. According to Sub-section (1), the persons to be exempted are those whose "total income from all sources were calculated as including any income in respect of which Income Tax may not be chargeable as well as income in respect of which Income Tax is chargeable." Do those words include the income that the servant of the Crown is drawing, say in India, where he is at the
    240
    time carrying on his profession? If it does, then it practically negatives any advantage which this Clause gives to the servant of the Crown abroad, because, practically in almost every instance, if you add the income of the servant of the Crown abroad to the income he has here, it would take him out of the exemption to those with £700 per year. Hitherto, in all the Income Tax Acts, it has been the income of the servant of the Crown within the United Kingdom that has been subject to taxation in the United Kingdom. The wording of this Clause is so strange that it leads one to think that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving with one hand he is taking away with the other. On behalf of a very large number of persons interested, I would like to have some direct explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I should like to refer to a class of people who have not been mentioned, namely the colonists in our self-governing Colonies, who are not servants of the Crown, but are merely shareholders of companies registered in this country. Hitherto those shareholders, as in the case quoted as to India, have been able to get exactly the same abatements and privileges as shareholders in this country. Under this Clause it appears to me it is proposed to penalise those small shareholders inasmuch as it puts them on a different footing from their English fellow shareholders. I see that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) shakes his head, and that assures me there is no intention of treating them on a different footing, because I am sure experience has shown that it would not be wise or justifiable in any way to put the Colonial shareholder at a disadvantage as compared with the British shareholder. There is a case in which this becomes especially hard, and I think it is best illustrated by a concrete case, particulars of which I have had given to me. It is a case where colonists are shareholders in a company registered in England and working the business in their own Colony, and carrying on a very important industry in New Zealand. There are over two thousand New Zealanders, many of them very small people, who have got shares in that industry. At the present time the secretary of the company assures me that they are exactly on the same footing as any shareholders in this country. They pay the same Income Tax and claim the same abatements when their incomes are small.

    241
    So far as I can see, this Clause prevents them any longer from claiming those abatements which shareholders in this country are able to claim. If I am right, and if Sub-section (1) has that effect, it is quite evident in the case of that particular company that they have obviously their remedy by transferring the domicile to New Zealand. That, I am sure, would not be to the advantage of the people of this country. Not only should we lose the business connected with it and the Income Tax which is now derived from these shareholders, but we should be starting a machine by which the English shareholders in the same company could evade the Income Tax altogether by keeping their dividends and reinvesting them in New Zealand. I cannot see that I am mistaken in the view I take of this provision, and the two Amendments which I have put on the Paper are designed to prevent what seems to me to be an unwise and unjustifiable state of things.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The whole point is not whether you will give the same treatment to the Colonial as to the British subject, but whether you are to continue a preference to the Colonial and the foreigner over British subjects. Exemptions and abatements are given to British subjects only if they can prove that their incomes are under a certain figure. The principle of the Income Tax is that up to £160 it is not fair to charge Income Tax at all. The recipient of such an income cannot afford a contribution in the way of Income Tax to the Imperial Exchequer. With incomes up to £700 it is not considered that the recipients are in a position to make a full contribution to the taxation of the country. If you apply a similar principle to the foreigner or to the Colonial, you must consider whether he is in a position to pay the full shilling or 1s. 2d. for Income Tax. But that is not the position at all under the law at the present moment. The Colonial or foreigner may be a millionaire, but he still gets the exemption as if he had less than £160 a year, simply because he has not £160 a year in this country. The exemption is supposed to be on the ground that a man cannot afford the contribution to the revenue of the country where the income is created. Therefore, the present system undoubtedly gives a preference to the foreigner or to a person residing abroad, either in a British Colony or in a foreign country, over a British subject. The object of this provision is to
    242
    withdraw that preference altogether. It may be said that the Government have rushed to the other extreme, and that we are withholding from the Colonial or the British subject abroad or the foreigner privileges and exemptions which are now given to British subjects. As far as the first part is concerned, there is general agreement, I think, that the Colonial or foreigner ought not to get a preference. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is the only one who takes the view that a preference ought to be given to the foreigner. I believe he belongs to the section who want to tax the foreigner, but he would exempt the foreigner altogether. Here a preference is given by the law as it stands at present to the foreigner and to the Colonial over the British subject. I agree that this provision goes to the other extreme by withholding abatements and exemptions altogether. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) frankly admits that there is some case for placing the foreigner at any rate in the same position as the British subject. His point was that we ought at any rate to extend the same privileges under the Income Tax laws to British subjects residing abroad as to foreigners. The difficulty is an administrative one, and in the case of a foreigner it is absolutely insuperable. You cannot ask a foreigner to give an account of the whole of his income, and if he gave you such an account you could not test it. It is therefore no use saying to the foreigner, "You can get these exemptions and abatements in the same way as the British subject, by proving that your income in the aggregate does not exceed £160, or whatever it may be." You have to adopt one of two courses. You must either exempt the foreigner altogether or say, "We cannot go to the trouble of proving your income abroad, we will deduct the tax at the source, and you cannot claim any exemption." The latter, I think, is the only course you can adopt. It is the course adopted by the Colonies themselves. The cases have been put to me of servants of the Crown who are Colonials, and who probably would not come within the words of the proviso. I think the right hon. Gentleman has established his case on that point, and I shall be glad to move the omission of the words or to accept an Amendment with the same object. It will not have very considerable application, but it would be very undesirable to hit Colonials who have served the Empire well, and it might look a little

    243
    shabby. It is the last thing we should like to do to any of those distinguished servants of the Crown, and therefore I shall be glad to accept an Amendment to deal with the point. We can settle the exact words later on; the great thing is to make the matter perfectly clear. We are agreed that it is not desirable that Colonials in the service of the Crown who, if they ceased to be in the service of the Crown, might reside outside the United Kingdom, should not be entitled to exactly the same privileges as British subjects in the service of the Crown. The Attorney-General will settle the form of words. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "Colonial"? Would he call a born Australian a Colonial?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I used the term in the sense in which we all understand it. A question was put as to what the concluding words of the proviso mean. Supposing a British subject serving in India had an income there of £1,000. He clearly ought not to be entitled to an exemption, because he would not be so entitled if he lived in this country. A British subject earning £1,000 in India ought not to get a privilege which he would not get in the United Kingdom. We do want to deal with these cases, because they are serving the Crown abroad, but we do not wish to give them privileges which are not enjoyed by those who are serving the Crown at home.
    There are one or two eases which I agree are rather hard. Take the case of a British subject who is forced from considerations of health to reside abroad. That, I agree, is a very difficult case, and if it were possible to devise a form of words to exclude British subjects in such circumstances I should be very glad to consider such an Amendment. Then there is the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. There again I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case, and I shall be prepared to consider it. These people ought not, in my judgment, to be given exemptions unless they can prove that they are entitled to them. As long as it is confined to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, I believe I can see my way to meet that case. The cases in regard to which I shall be prepared to consider a modification of this Clause are, first, the case of the Colonial who has been in the service of the Crown; secondly, that of the
    244
    British subject who is forced from reasons of health to reside abroad; and, thirdly, that of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
    Then I think that all the real cases of hardship are dealt with when these cases are exempted from the operation of the Section, because it is absolutely impossible—and the hon. Baronet admits it is quite impossible—for us to examine and scrutinise the declarations made by foreigners as to their incomes. Therefore there is only one thing to do, and that is to exempt foreigners altogether from the operation of that part of the Income Tax law, otherwise they would be receiving better treatment than British subjects.
    Sir F. BAN BURY: It must not be forgotten that in the majority of foreign States an Englishman who has securities abroad is free from the taxes which are imposed in those foreign States. Therefore this is only reciprocal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a totally different thing where it is made.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I shall not deal with Sub-section (2) at this stage, but shall confine myself entirely to Subsection (1). I have heard with considerable satisfaction the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to certain concessions which he is prepared to make, and with all the more satisfaction because the earlier portions of his speech appeared to be of a most uncompromising kind, and pointed directly to an obstinate adherence to the Bill exactly as drafted. At a very early stage, as the Chancellor will remember, I took exception to the whole of this Clause as one of those things which, whatever its theoretic equity in certain points of view, or whatever might be urged for it on the ground that you could not give the foreigner an exemption which you did not afford to the British citizen, was going to inflict a hardship out of proportion to the benefit derivable by the Exchequer. I must frankly admit that by the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made he has met some specific cases which I instanced at that time, and on which I founded my observations. He has not met all that I mentioned. Let me deal in the first place with the British subject only. I am quite prepared to admit that in dealing with such a matter as Income Tax you may land yourselves in very grave difficulties if you attempt to differentiate between the foreigner and the British subject, and that you may

    245
    thereby cause retaliatory legislation, which would inflict very considerable hardship upon our own citizens abroad or holding securities abroad. Therefore, I am not now including that point of view. But I want for a moment to deal with the matter as it affects the British subject only. If it be urged that whatever treatment you afford to the British subject you must accord the same to the foreigner, I do not necessarily dispute that fact, because I think it is on the whole true. The question is whether the advantage of bringing in the foreigner, who in such cases now gets the advantage of the British subject at home, does not need some law like that under which the British subject is abroad, to counterbalance the disadvantage of inflicting these hardships on British subjects who are resident abroad? I do not think it does. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done? He has promised three concessions In the first place he will extend to the Colonial-born citizen of our oversea dependencies, who has been in the service of the Crown and returns to his own native land after his service under the Crown has finished, the exemption which is here given to ex-Civil servants; or a case of a servant of the Crown if he comes to live in the United Kingdom. That is good as far as it goes. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether he could not widen the concession a little. It is a very small point. But there are a certain number of cases where a man going to our oversea dominions, or elsewhere in the service of the Crown, makes his home there and spends the major portion of his life there; sets up his children around him, establishes them in business, and when the time comes for his retirement is unwilling to leave them, to leave all who are closest and nearest to him, and, therefore, though his service no longer requires him to remain in that place—having made his home there, having his whole family planted there—continues to reside there from motives that are quite reasonable and good, or because he has developed an affection for the place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer undertakes to continue the exemptions and abatements to people who are obliged to live out of this country by reason of health. They will have to produce, I suppose, a proper medical certificate that their health prevents them from wintering or living in this country, and that will be accepted by the Treasury officials unless they have good reason to question its bona fides. Then another
    246
    concession which I was very glad to hear was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to continue the exemption of relief to our fellow-citizens in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The latter, I fancy, is the oldest of our oversea pos-cessions, and it is very intimately associated with us, and I am glad to note the Chancellor's action, for I should certainly have been very sorry to see this differentiation. I do not know what is exactly the financial effect of these various proposals on the total revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to obtain from his proposals, nor, indeed, what the original estimate of the total revenue was or how it was arrived at. But I cannot help thinking that just over the borderland of the cases he has dealt with there are others equally hard, and if he meets them—as I hope he will—little by little, he is whittling away any revenue he might derive from this proposal, until it is hardly worth the irritation and difficulty which will arise. Let me take the case, in the first place, of British subjects resident in foreign countries: If they are exiled on account of health, the Chancellor will now afford them relief; if they are exiled on account of poverty, is he going to refuse relief?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know—it is within the knowledge of all of us—that, especially among families of ex-servants of the Crown, officers of the Army and Navy particularly, where the breadwinner has died early say, or where he has had to retire on a very small pittance indeed; that in order to educate their children in the manner in which they were brought up themselves, and, consequently, in order to fit those children to enter the services in which they themselves have borne an honourable part, these people go to some place abroad where they can get a good education for their children more cheaply than in this country. You go to Dresden, to Brussels, and to other towns which could be named, and you will find a little colony of English people there, perhaps largely widows, or actually those retired officers of the services who have gone to live there, not from any choice, not because they disliked England, or would not rather have lived in it, but because they can live abroad at less expense and with greater advantages than they could in their native country. They are as much forced by their circumstances to live abroad as the people who go abroad for reasons of health. I do think it is very hard that whilst you accord relief to

    247
    exiles from causes of health, you should refuse it to exiles on account of poverty! But I do not rest my case wholly on that. Let me say, too—I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had so much to do that I am doubtful how much of his correspondence lately he has been able to read—but I have had some very piteous letters, obviously perfectly genuine, very pathetic, from people so situated abroad as to the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. These people are leading a struggling life on a very small pittance, and on them the £1 or £2 additional which the Chancellor is now going to take is really a serious embarrassment in their domestic economy. Take another set of oases, that of English governesses residing abroad in order to earn their living. They have been left very likely a little money by a relative, by their father or mother. It is invested in this country, but the interest is not sufficient for them to live upon. They are abroad to add to that income by teaching the English language. Are they really to be refused such abatement as they have hitherto been accustomed to? It does seem hard, mean, petty, and unworthy of a great nation like ours that we should worry these poor people, who, heaven knows! have a hard and pathetic life under any circumstances, and whose, life has sometimes—as we have known in recent years—been made very hard in their foreign surroundings from the fact that they are British subjects. They do some work which is creditable and useful for their country, and it does seem mean and petty that we should make their lives harder in this effort to get a few extra shillings or pounds of taxation from them. Pass from that to the man who goes abroad in connection with a business. I am dealing with people now who, if they were resident at home, would be entitled to the exemptions and abatements specified. There are a considerable number of these men. I think it would be a very good thing if there were more Englishmen resident abroad as agents of English houses or in connection with commercial affairs. I am afraid there are a great many more foreign clerks and agents in our commercial houses in England than there are British clerks and agents in commercial houses abroad, where they are doing something for British trade. Naturally they have sympathy with the country of their birth, and they have a certain influence. I do not say in many cases that it is very powerful or
    248
    extends very far, but for what it is worth it is all in the right direction. Why penalise them because they are obliged to live abroad—to exile themselves? In all these cases I think it is bad policy to do what the Government are doing, and not merely bad policy, but a great, evident hardship. I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a good deal of sympathy with these cases. Really I am not at all certain that it he and I were to change places he would not make—in more eloquent language, with more passion, with more pathos—exactly the kind of appeal on behalf of exactly the same kind of persons as those I am appealing for now. I do myself an injustice when I say if the positions were reversed, because the Chancellor may take it from me that I would not have been responsible for this tax. I admit it was never suggested to me by my advisers at the Treasury, and I do not know whether this emanated from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself or whether his advisers suggested it to him, but I say with confidence—of course the confidence of giving an answer to a question which one was never asked—if it were put to me I would not look at it, or, at any rate, I would not have adopted it. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that he has a great deal of sympathy for the people for whom I am appealing, and also with the kind of argument I am now adducing. He says, I cannot give these people relief, though I should like to, without letting in other people to whom I do not want to give relief, and who have not claimed it. I am quite convinced that he could get from the classes of people affected certificates by Consular officials or by one or other of the authorities recognised for that purpose as competent and responsible attesting-witnesses to papers of that kind just as they are for pension papers, for instance, to-day. I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting such declarations as would prevent—I will not say any possibility of fraud—but as would prevent any extensive fraud. I am quite certain wherever there is a British colony resident in a foreign country that they would be ready through their organisation and British Vice-Consul to give such assistance to the Revenue authorities as they could in order to prevent fraud, so that this concession shall be fairly used by the people for whom it is intended.
    I think you must in these matters give equal terms to the foreigner or the Englishman, or you may involve yourself in very

    249
    disagreeable fiscal controversy with foreign nations and in very complicated financial retaliation. I do not quite see why you should not say that anyone who can prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that they would be entitled to exemption if they were resident in Great Britain should be deprived of it by the mere fact that they were resident out of Great Britain. It would be for them to prove it. The right would be unable to prove it, the millionaire whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always in his mind will be unable to prove it; perhaps in some cases a few poor people would be unable to prove it, but in any case the onus and the difficulty of proof would rest with them, and not with the Inland Revenue authorities, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the authorities who advise him exaggerate the difficulty of the task they will have to pursue.
    But even if I felt with the Chancellor that these difficulties were insuperable, and that you must either leave the law as it is or make the alterations he proposes, then my view is for leaving the law as it is, and in that connection I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I have no tenderness for the foreign taxpayer, whether he be millionaire or not, but I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the millionaire so constantly in his mind. So great is his anxiety to take something off the millionaire that he takes the shirt off the back of the working man. He is like the gentleman in Bon Gaultier, who missed the bluebottle and hit the mogul. He is always launching out and landing his blows in somebody else's eye. It is not worth while for the sake of foreign millionaires to inflict all this hardship on British subjects. I was rather surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for the City how much importance is attached to these small abatements. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the work of the Income Tax agencies."] Of course there are agencies in existence, and if people think it is well to employ the agencies well and good, but I have always heard that these agents charge very high rates. The people referred to by the hon. Member for the City are not those who are tempted by the touts of the agents to make claims. It is people who go to their agents upon the London Stock Exchange, and who ask him to try to get them back their money to which they attach very great importance.
    250
    Whatever views the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have about my hon. Friend's knowledge upon some points he will at least acknowledge that he has very large experience, and speaks with authority, on a matter of this kind. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division is not in his place, because I have heard from other sources what my hon. Friend has said, and I would have appealed to the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division, who also has had great experience, to give the House the benefit of that experience. As my hon. Friend has said, it is not a question of justice. No doubt these people have no claim in equity or justice, but it is purely a question of policy, and the question is, are you going to deter these people in some cases from investing their money here? Are you going to induce companies to change their domicile? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when anything of that kind is suggested, thinks that no company is going to change its domicile, because, if it did, it would find that the taxes which are pressing unduly upon them here would press still more heavily in whatever other place they might choose. The right hon. Gentleman is often mistaken about the amount of the taxes in other places. It is not at all necessary to go to New Zealand. If the taxes are very high here all they have to do is to get out of the United Kingdom to another place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the Island of Guernsey.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where is the company to carry on their business?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did the right hon. Gentleman never hear of a company being registered there or having an office there? I am not defending those companies; many of them go there in order to evade the law, because they want to do something to escape the tax which you have put upon the British investors. I am not defending the proceedings of such companies. What I say is, you have got to be careful to see you are able to do that which you are trying to do, and as regards the rich foreigners I do not myself believe you will be able to get more, and I do not believe you will be able to get much out of this tax. But for the sake of taxing these foreigners you are going to inflict a great deal of hardship. I am glad of the concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, and I am glad of the extension which he has stated to me across the Table

    251
    he will give, but, though I recognise that as an important concession upon the Subsection of the Clause as it originally stood, still I maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be much better advised if he dropped the whole Clause, which is not worth all this trouble and difficulty.
    Mr. W. BRIDGEMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us some of the concessions he intends to make, but I did not understand that amongst them were included any concession to those Englishmen who are working in British Protectorates or in a country which is either solely or jointly in British occupation. Such a man is serving abroad, though not directly drawing his salary from the Crown. They are serving the Crown as much as men who are directly paid out of the funds of this country. In Egypt there are an enormous number of Englishmen who are doing the work of the country, in a country which we occupy, by giving their advice and services for irrigation, and in many other ways. They would be excluded from any benefit under this Section, and so would people in a similar position in the Soudan. I should like, if the Chancellor would tell us, whether he can see any distinction between the position of those men and the servants of the Crown whom he has promised to exempt by an Amendment which is either to be moved by himself or accepted later on in this Debate? If he could hold out any hope of giving exemption in these cases it would not be necessary for me to move the Amendment I have on the Paper lower down, and for the sake of facilitating the course of the Debate perhaps it would save time if we knew now whether he will accept the proposal which I have made.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that by the words of this Sub-section he is injuring a very large number of people whom I think he never intended to injure for the purpose of carrying out his object in taxing the foreigner. Let me give one or two instances. I think it arises from the use of the word "resident" in the Section. No one has told us what construction is to be put upon that word, but one thing is certain, that it does not mean "domicile." I wish to deal with the case of a domiciled Englishman working abroad, who at the present moment is entitled to exemption, but who by this Sub-section is deprived of any. In the one case the man has in-
    252
    vested in Consols and goes abroad. For instance, a clergyman goes abroad either as a missionary or as a member of a Colonial church or a foreign church, as the case may be. Immediately this Section takes away the exemption which he would have had in connection with the interest on his Consols. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intend that that should be done? Take another instance. An English lawyer goes over to practice at the Gold Coast. He is a domiciled Englishman, and he intends to return the moment he can. Under this Sub-section, having left his money invested in Consols, he immediately loses the exemption on the present-day basis, which I submit he ought to possess; he loses that exemption on his interest from Consols.
    I could multiply those instances, and what I have said applies equally to a doctor who practices in that way, to a lawyer, to an engineer, or to those people who go out as secretaries to companies in the Colonies or elsewhere. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intend this to apply to such cases, or is it merely a slip in the drafting? Does he really mean to take away the exemption from professional men of the character I have described? I should take it as a great courtesy if the Government would tell me whether they really intend to hit people who are domiciled Englishmen who have gone abroad in the service of the Church, the law, medicine, or engineering, or in any commercial enterprise? If it is inconvenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me now, perhaps he will do so later on.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think there can be any doubt about this matter at all, because they are subject to this Section.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Then that is a very great injustice.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member could not have been listening to the exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), whose speech was directed to criticising that point.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If that is so, then it is a great injustice. Look at the folly of it from a financial point of view. What are the men I have alluded to to do? They are resident abroad. As long as they leave their money in Consols they will lose the exemption which they now get, but if

    253
    they transfer their investments in England into foreign bonds and keep them in England they will not lose the exemption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked a great deal about taxing the foreigner. This Section is drawn in such a ridiculous way that the only method of getting this exemption is to transfer investments from Consols into foreign bonds. I submit to the Committee that it is an absolutely ridiculous farce to bring in such a financial clause as this. It will not bring in money, but it is sure to cause annoyance to Englishmen working abroad, and it will prevent them investing their money in Consols or other English securities, and it will tend to make them invest all their money in foreign bonds. Although those foreign bonds will be payable in London like Consols, yet they will continue to have the exemption. Can anybody defend that proposition? I submit that the whole of this scheme is thoroughly bad finance. Whether it is a good idea to attempt to hit foreign millionaires in the way which is supposed to be done under this Section, I have grave doubts. It will, however, hit Englishmen abroad, and it will certainly provoke a great deal of injustice amongst them. In my opinion the
    whole finance of this Clause is absolutely ridiculous.
    Mr. N. W. HELME: There is one point I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing a man with an income under £700 a year in the past goes away from England and is engaged for a temporary term of two or three years abroad, leaving his family behind and returning to England in the meantime. Will the Government refuse to continue to him the exemption which he has been accustomed to?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly that is not the case.
    Mr. REMNANT: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cannot see his way in the future to make some concession to the British subject resident abroad whose income entitles him to total exemption so long as he remains in British territory as a British subject?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 691.]

    AYES.

    [4.55 p.m.

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Crosfield, A. H.

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

    Alden, Percy

    Crossley, William J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Davies. Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

    Atherley-Jones, L.

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Barker, Sir John

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Elibank, Master of

    Joyce, Michael

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Keating, M.

    Bell, Richard

    Erskine, David C.

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Essex, R. W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lambert, George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lamont, Norman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Brigg, John

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Bright, J. A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Gibson, J. P.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ginnell, L.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lundon, T.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Glover, Thomas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Gulland, John W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hancock, J. G.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    M'Micking, Major G

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Maddison, Frederick

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Markham, Arthur Basil

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Marnham, F. J.

    Massie, J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Tomkinson, James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Pobinson, S.

    Toulmin, George

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mooney, J. J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Verney, F. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Walsh, Stephen

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Rowlands, J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Myer, Horatio

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wardle, George J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Waring, Walter

    Nicholls, George

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Seddon, J.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Snowden, P.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Partington, Oswald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Winfrey, R.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Summerbell, T.

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

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    NOES.

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

    Gordon, J.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George B

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Bull, Sir Wiliam James

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clive, Percy Arche

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Evelyn Cecil

    Foster, P. S.

    Oddy, John James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or relief" ["No exemption, abatement, or relief "].
    I formally move this Amendment to make sure that the words do not carry the Section beyond the abatements and exemptions named.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): If we were to omit the words, it would make no difference at all. The words used are "exemption, abatement, or relief," and they sum up the phraseology of statutes dealing with two well-known forms of abatement or exemption. One, under the Act of 1898, Section 8, deals with the graduation of the Income
    256
    Tax up to £700. It gives an abatement or exemption to the taxpayer whose income is less than £700. In that Section the word "relief" is used. The Act of 1907, Section 19, deals with the exemption or abatement on earned incomes of under £2,000. The word "relief" alone is used in the first Sub-section, but in the second Subsection it is used in conjunction with the words "abatement" and "exemption."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE Mr. E. H. CARLILE moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "person" ["the total income of an individual from all sources shall be given to any

    257
    person"], and to insert instead thereof the word "alien."
    I do not know whether the Debate will make it clear how far this Amendment may avoid some of the difficulties which have already been shown to obtain under Subsection (1) of this Clause. It is quite clear it is the desire of the Committee that if this provision is to be made to apply to any class, it should be made to apply to foreigners, and to foreigners only. It should not pass the wit of man to be able to draft the Section in such a way that all those persons who are British subjects in any part of the world should be able to obtain the abatement to which they have been accustomed in the past. It does seem very doubtful justice indeed if the alien, who may perhaps be a man of very considerable means in his own country, should be enabled under the present law to obtain an abatement which is not available for British subjects resident here or abroad, and whose means are still comparatively slender. It cannot be the wish of this country to give a preference to well-to-do foreigners over comparatively poor citizens and subjects of our own Empire. It is, therefore, suggested that we should substitute the word "alien" for "person" throughout this Sub-section. I am quite certain it is not the desire of the Committee to in any way discourage foreigners from investing in British securities. One is quite alive to the fact that the removal of this abatement, as at present granted, might discourage some, but I do not think it would be likely to discourage any serious investor abroad who had a fancy for the securities of this country, which, unfortunately, at the present time seems to be out of fashion with ourselves, owing to circumstances to which I need not refer.
    Many of these abatements, although granted by the Treasury, reach the foreign investor in a very attenuated form. I am inclined to consider there is a considerable leakage between the Treasury and the foreigner. Abatements are, as it were, farmed out by agents in this country who are, I have no doubt, most desirable persons in every way, but who naturally, like everybody else, have their eye upon the main chance and carry out that first law of nature, self-preservation, by retaining as much of the abatement for themselves as they can and passing on only a small fraction of what they obtain from the Treasury in connection with the claim. If the substitution of the word "alien" for "per-
    258
    son" would in any way facilitate protection from abuse, then, I think, the Amendment would not have been moved in vain; but, at the same time, we do not want to take steps which would discourage the serious foreign investor from taking an interest in our securities, because, as the result of that, we have, of course, more money in this country, and that is always a good thing. The cheaper money is, the better it is for the country, if only that confidence obtains which is necessary to make it go into useful channels. We do not, therefore, want to discourage that, but, at the same time, I think this anomaly ought to be done away with, and perhaps this Amendment will in some way assist that object.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I would call the attention of the Committee to a case of great hardship which shows the injustice done to British subjects living abroad, and especially to British subjects living in our self-governing Colonies. The trustee of a lady in Natal, who was a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman at the last General Election, but whether he is now or not I have got my doubts, has written a letter, in which he says:—
    "I am the trustee under the will of an old friend of mine, who left his daughter an annuity of £200 a year. The lady is now a widow and she resides in Natal, and the £200 a year is all she has to depend on for her own living. She has partly to maintain two daughters, and she has very poor health. For a number of years she has been allowed an abatement of £160, which, at the recent rate, meant a remission of £8 a year. The proposed change will mean a difference to the lady of £9 13s. 4d. a year, which will indeed be a serious matter to her."
    I cannot imagine why the Government should propose that in a case like this a lady of very moderate means should be penalised because she lives in a self-governing Colony. If she had lived in England she would have been allowed the abatement, which she has been allowed up to the present time. Why should British subjects residing in one of our Colonies not be allowed the abatement they would be allowed if they resided in the United Kingdom? We want to bind our Colonies in closer ties to the Mother Country. We do not want to try and make them think there is any distinction, especially a property distinction, between them and persons residing in this country. I cannot understand the object of the Government. It cannot be a matter of very much money to them, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, at all events, see that British subjects residing abroad, and especially in our self-governing Colonies, are still allowed the abatement.
    Mr. A. WILKIE: I want to ask a question. Take the case of a widow with an income from this country under £150. That here would not be taxed at all. Is it the intention of the Government that, because she resides abroad in one of our dependencies—in India, for instance—that that income should be taxed under this Clause?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, as he promised, did not take up much time in view of the fact that the general subject had already been pretty exhaustively discussed, and that it was unnecessary to split up the question into subordinate Amendments. I really have nothing to add to what I have already stated on this matter. The hon. Member deprecated altogether the theory adopted by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that a foreigner is entitled to special consideration in this matter. After all, only a small part of the abatement really reaches the Income Tax payer. It percolates through agents who write out suggesting that, if the matter is placed in their hands, they will be able to get certain abatements in consideration of a commission. This has become quite a trade, and it is not altogether to the benefit of the party mainly concerned. It is merely keeping up a certain profession in the City of London. The right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire was very pathetic over the poverty of certain people residing abroad. It may be they do not care to live under the same conditions in this country as they would abroad. It is not unnatural that they should shrink from living in the same stinted conditions in this country. They could not do so perhaps without some sense of shame or some sensitiveness, and that is the real reason for going abroad, and not the fact that they are able to obtain the necessaries of life cheaper elsewhere. But there are those abroad drawing incomes from this country who do not contribute to its revenue. If they lived here they would be contributing by way of Income Tax. But if they live abroad this affords the only means of securing a contribution towards the revenue of the country from which they derive this particular property. I do not think it is unfair to call upon them to make these contributions, especially as, if you once make exceptions, the whole of your tax goes. I have already agreed to one or two propositions, but if I am to go on extending these concessions a legitimate source of
    260
    revenue will be taken away from the balance-sheet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I will be very brief, but I wish to understand rather more precisely than I do at present the position in which we stand. I have no desire to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do wish to express to the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer my gratitude for concessions he has made in the individual cases I brought forward. These cases were those of men who were in the service of the Crown and had served the King abroad, but had retired and returned to the country of their origin. In respect of these persons the right hon. Gentleman has promised to make exceptions in their favour and to give them the abatements which would otherwise be denied to them by this Clause. He also said that for every person who had been in the service of the Crown and had then retired to a Colony there would be an abatement.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said I was prepared to take the matter into consideration.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: And then further the right hon. Gentleman promised that in the case of any person compelled by illness, or in search of health, to go abroad, if he could satisfy the Commissioners that that was the reason of his living abroad, there also an exemption would be made. I am grateful for those concessions, and I am only waiting to see the words by means of which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to enforce them. I wish, once more, to press upon the Government cases which I have already mentioned, and which I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with. One case was that of an Englishman who had gone abroad in temporary employment. I deprecate altogether what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it is desirable not to encourage people to leave these shores. I think it would be deplorable if the authority of this House were invoked in support of such a proposal as that it is undesirable for Britons to go into the Colonies to build railways and to engage in works of a kindred nature.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That was not the proposition which I laid down. I was dealing with the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire—the case of Britishers who have gone abroad merely to reside but not to work. A man who leaves his family

    261
    here and himself goes abroad for two or three years for the purpose of undertaking work should certainly receive consideration.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I should have said, without question, that the young man who goes out as a resident engineer to the Gold Coast for a period of years, and resides there during that time, is one who deserves consideration. I am glad now to be able to claim the Chancellor of the Exchequer as assenting to my statement, it would be deplorable to discourage men going abroad to take part in the promotion of public works. After all, that is really legitimate enterprise on the part of professional men, and it also has a very large influence in finding employment for British labour abroad. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that he does not wish to discourage this, I put it to him strongly that a man who takes employment of that kind in the Colonies should be encouraged and should not be penalised. If he will insert a provision that it shall be necessary for people in that position to satisfy the Commissioners that they are entitled to abatement, the administrative difficulty which he has pointed out, and which he seems to fear in the case of foreign countries, would really not exist. The burden of proof would be put on the British subject who went abroad. He would have to satisfy the Commissioners, and, if his proof were not satisfactory, the administrative difficulty would disappear. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has put the case of the young engineer going abroad for five years. I agree there is a great deal to be said for it, but, after all, it is a purely administrative difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman suggests it may be overcome. If I can see my way to overcome it I shall be glad to do it. I promise I will consider the point and consult the proper officials as to whether there is any possibility administratively of securing satisfactory proof. If they are satisfied on that point I shall be very glad to meet the difficulty. I cannot see my way to do it at the moment without letting in other cases which are not equally meritorious.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I feel it would be absurd to waste the time of the Committee by moving in detail the Amendment of which I have given notice. I will just
    262
    mention it now to the right hon. Gentleman. I have to ask his attention to a case which has also been brought under the notice of one of his own followers, who has requested me, in his absence, to bring it forward. It is the case put forward by various missionary societies belonging to more than one Church.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say at once that I am considering how to cover the case of missionaries. I think it may be possible to do so. I agree it is a case which should be covered, and I am anxiously considering the words. I think they must be so framed as to meet the case of "those engaged in missionary enterprise," but that is really a matter for my legal advisers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am quite satisfied.
    Mr. ALEXANDER WILKIE: I wish to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to a lady who is a missionary in India. She is not under Government at all, nor receiving an income which would entitle her to ask for a deduction.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is this the case of a missionary?
    Mr. WILKIE: Are you willing to meet such a case?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. I wanted to make it perfectly clear I would do so. I understand the hon. Member is putting a case in India, and I am willing to consider the case of the missionary in India or elsewhere.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: In response to my hon. Friend behind me, the right hon. Gentleman included "chaplain" in the term "missionary," but subsequently he seemed to withdraw the word "chaplain." The gentlemen I am concerned about are foreign chaplains—chaplains in a British church in foreign towns, such as Liege and places like that.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That surely would not be a case that would come in here at all, and I should not think that it would come within the meaning of this Clause at all.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The right hon. Gentleman conceded to my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton) that he would consider the claims of certain gentlemen. Will he include those who are actually in

    263
    the position of resident engineers, or go out temporarily to the Colonies in that capacity? Surely if he has power to do what he has promised he will have power to consider the point of the men who are doing exactly the same thing in a country occupied by us or protected by us. They are just as much in the service of the Crown as the others who have been mentioned.
    The CHAIRMAN: Really this arises on a subsequent Amendment, and this is not the place for it.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was only mentioning it now in order to save time. I rather understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was favourable to this view, and if he was prepared to say he will consider this case which I am bringing before him as well as those cases mentioned by my right hon. Friend, I will not move my Amendment when it comes on.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I think these are the cases which I can consider. I may be able to deal with them, but I do not know. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the kind of case he has in his mind. I will see if it is possible to overcome the administrative difficulty. There is no objection, except a purely administrative one, and if that is overcome I shall be prepared to consider the matter.
    Mr. CAVE: We have obtained a promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider quite half a dozen special cases of British residents abroad and who have a small income. Would it not be better to deal with the matter broadly? I was struck with an observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that whoever wishes to obtain exemption must bring in his whole income, whether it is income obtained here or abroad, and he must satisfy the Commissioners that his total income from all sources is within the limit. Provided you make that perfectly clear, would it not be well to extend the exemption on small incomes to all British subjects resident abroad? That is to say, take the Clause as it stands in the first part and make the proviso read, "provided that a British subject resident abroad shall be entitled to any relief, exemption, and abatement which he would be entitled to," and so on. Then you would cover all the cases.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; I do not think I can agree with that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order, Sir. There is an Amendment to that effect standing in my name on the Paper, and I want to know whether that will be out of Order if this discussion proceeds?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the point of Order, Sir. I think there is a general desire that this discussion should be taken on this Amendment. It is felt, I think, that it would be better that these points should be taken together and the Government should consider the matter as a whole. I am willing to meet all these cass of special hardship, but words of that kind would include in the operation of the Clause cases which had no merits at all. I do not mean that the people have no merits, but only that they have none, so far as this Clause is concerned, and that they have no claim for consideration from the British Government. They are not compelled to go abroad for the service of the Crown or the country, but they go voluntarily and of their own free will. I am prepared to consider cases which demand the special indulgence of the State, such as those which have been put to me by several hon. Members in the course of this discussion. These special cases deserve special consideration, and I will do my best within the limits of administrative efficiency to see if I cannot propose something which will meet these cases.
    Mr. H. BOTTOMLEY: I must apologise for any one on this side of the House daring to rise in the course of this discussion, but I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I correctly understood him—it is rather difficult down here to hear that which goes on in a conversational discussion—if I understood him to say, during a part of this discussion, that he hopes to be able to deal with this question of missionary enterprise, because I should protest against any general indulgence in regard to missionary enterprise as distinguished from legitimate commercial enterprise.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I am a strong supporter of the missionaries, although at the same time I am equally a strong supporter of commercial enterprise, but I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go as far as he possibly can in the way of exemption. My own Amendment says, "or is a British subject residing abroad."
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is in the first five lines, is it not?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not in order, because it would take away the relief provided for aliens. It is therefore outside the resolution.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I understand, has agreed to give certain exemptions to clergymen and the young men who go abroad for the purpose of taking up situations in various commercial houses. I want that exemption to be extended to all men who are commercial residents abroad. I submit that it is just as beneficial to the country and to the nation, that a man should serve commercially abroad as that he should serve under what is called the Crown abroad. I do submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is desirable to grant this exemption to everybody who is engaged in extending the commerce of Great Britain either in our Colonies or in Egypt or in India, or in any part of the world. This exemption should be given to any person who is residing abroad.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The words which I propose to move will make the Clause run, "Provided that any person who is, or has been, employed in the service of the Crown abroad, or any person resident in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, or any person resident abroad who satisfies the Commissioners that he is so resident for the sake of his health shall be entitled," and so on. This is in reference to the cases which I have promised to consider, I have not included missionaries, but I do not know whether the Committee would prefer that those words should pass as they stand at the present moment, or that the Government should put down a more comprehensive Amendment later on. I should rather like the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) upon it. If he prefers it, I will move these words now at the present moment and move other words later on.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: We should like the words of the substantive proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be moved now, and the subsequent Amendment to be made later.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words, "Where the Commissioners are satisfied in the case of any person employed in the service of the Crown abroad that he would, if not so employed,
    266
    be resident in the United Kingdom, that person," and to insert, instead thereof, the words, "any person who is or has been employed in the service of the Crown abroad or any person resident in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands or any person resident abroad who satisfies the Commissioners that he is so resident for the sake of his health."
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I only just want to ask a question, and not to keep up the Debate, but I have put down an Amendment dealing with the clergy, which I am not going to say a word about; but there is also the case of charitable purposes. It is a small but rather a hard case. Take the case of a man who is stationed at Gibraltar, in charge of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home there. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider such a case at the same time as the others.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is why I did not see my way at the present moment to accept any words on this particular point, because I saw that the Noble Lord had certain cases in his mind which might not be quite covered, and that it would be best to consider the point.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I think this is the right point to raise the question of those British subjects who are engaged in native States in India and also in Egypt in the service of the Khedive. As regards the native States in India, native rulers have British subjects under them, and I am not quite clear, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, whether such persons could be said to be in the service of the British Crown abroad.
    The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member's proposal is moved as an Amendment to this Amendment it does not arise here, but it can be moved after these words. It would be better for us to get these words in, and then it is quite possible for the hon. Member to move his Amendment afterwards.
    Amendment proposed: After the words last inserted, to insert the words "or any person in the service of any of the native States of East India or in Egypt in the service of the Khedive."—[Mr. Evelyn Cecil.]
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I will consider that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE moved to omit Sub-section (2).
    By this Sub-section we are going to permit to any millionaire or rich man who chooses to invest his money in certain securities, the dividends of which are payable in the United Kingdom, exemption from all taxation whatever provided he goes and lives in Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg, or Rome, and spends the interest of his money there. I cannot conceive for what purpose this Sub-section was drafted. If we are to give any preference at all to any class of securities, why should you select the securities of foreign States? Why should not we exempt our own Consols? It is difficult enough to keep up the price of Consols already, but if you are absolutely going to encourage people with big holdings to sell out their Consols in order to invest in foreign Government securities which are payable in London, and offer them, as an inducement to do so, a bonus of the Income Tax, you are going to add to the steady stream of the sale of Consols an entirely fresh stream, and one, which as soon as people appreciate it, will not be at all a small one. There is another consideration also mixed up with this. It used to be the practice of foreign potentates to have a kind of sheet anchor in holding our securities. Nearly every ruler of a European State had investments of some size or another in Consols, and that has been on occasion very useful to us in our foreign diplomacy. Supposing the Czar, for instance, has a million or so in English Consols, if we passed this Sub-section we are going to say to him, "If you would only sell out your holding in British Consols and transfer your interest to some foreign securities the dividends on which are payable in London we will give you a bonus of 1s. 2d. in the pound." I cannot conceive that it is in the interest of the country that we should do anything so foolish as that. We want to popularise our own securities and not to popularise foreign securities. I am utterly at a loss to know why this Sub-section was drafted. It seems to offer a bonus to the rich man, which you have taken away from the poor man, to invest in foreign securities rather than home securities.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): My hon. Friend is under
    268
    some misapprehension in regard to the Clause. This is really no additional concession to the foreign holder of foreign stocks, but it is an administrative matter which since 1856 has been carried out, and it is really only to make statutory what has been done in the last 50 years without the frightful results following which my hon. Friend anticipates, and it also to a certain extent limits any further extension of this concession. The original reason for the concession, as I understand, was that these are stocks the source of which was abroad, and which are really only in transitu as far as this country was concerned, and it was not thought then, and it is thought now, that to take away this concession which has been existing all these years would do exactly what the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) anticipated and feared on the former clause, namely, to prevent these stocks coming here and being dealt with here as they are at present. That is really largely the reason, apart from the fact that these stocks are not under the ordinary operations of the Income Tax looked upon as income which has to be taxed. They are not held in England, and are only dealt with in transitu. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that this is any extension of the existing state of things. It is only to regularise what has existed for 50 years.
    Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I cannot help thinking that this Sub-section throws a very interesting light on the whole question of the position of this tax and on the whole Clause, and it illustrates what an extraordinarily light hold the Government of this country has on any investment which they propose to tax. What is the meaning of the Clause? You have two domiciles to consider. You have to consider the domicile of the individual and the domicile of the dividend, and in this case it is obvious that you have the individual abroad, whether he is a British subject or not. For the moment his dividend is domiciled in this country, but it originates abroad, and no Government can possibly prevent him from altering the domicile of his dividend and saying, "That dividend shall no more pass to a banking house in London. It arises in Canada, and I desire to spend it in Paris, where I am living," and the dividends will be paid direct in Paris, and the British Government will have no cognisance of it, nor will it pass through the City of London, and so add to the amount of money which

    269
    is constantly passing that great financial centre. It was obviously the impossibility of securing this tax which has led to the cessation of any administrative attempt to collect it, and this is merely legalising that. Surely the subject has a most obvious remedy. All he has to do is to say, "My dividends will not come to London at all." I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to this, but to make his objection good he has to show to the Government of this country some way in which they can force the owner of that dividend to have it paid in London. What way can he suggest? Surely this consideration may be carried a little further, and what is possible in the case contemplated here may be very considerably extended. The Government in this Clause are putting an additional burden upon an English resident abroad so long as he keeps his dividends and investments in this country. It is just as easy for him to transfer them abroad as it has been for the Englishman resident abroad to have them dealt with in this particular case. It seems to me that the actual financial benefit which the Government are going to obtain from this Clause is infinitesimal compared with the injury that they are going to do indirectly and directly to the revenue in another direction. They are very likely to lose a shilling for every sixpence they will gain, and their object might have been perfectly simply attained by a simple clause. The case they wish to deal with is the rich foreigner who has a small investment in this country and who is thereby escaping any payment of tax because the investment in this country happens to produce a dividend below the limit which entitles him to exemption. It is obvious that in that case it would have been quite simple to say he must prove, and obtain, if necessary, the British Consul's certificate that in his belief his total income was below the exemption limit. If you had done that you would have met the case, and you would not have gone into by-ways which would have created such difficulty. This Sub-section is a very strong illustration of how easy it is for the owner of this class of property to escape the taxation, and however much we may sympathise with the hon. Member's desire to get the Sub-section taken out, unless we can show that it is possible to prevent a British subject resident abroad from saying this money does not pass through the British money market at all, I do not see
    270
    how it is possible for us to object to this Sub-section.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: It is really a rather serious matter to do anything in the way of legislation which will have the effect of causing dividends not to be paid in this country which can equally well be paid in other countries. The result of this would be not only that a large number of banking accounts and a large amount of brokerage business and business of that kind, which is now carried on in this country by foreigners who are living in other countries, which can equally well be carried on in other European capitals, will naturally be transferred from this country to other countries, but there is a point beyond that. It seems to me that you must consider the question of foreign and Colonial companies which are now carrying on business abroad but are registered in this country. We have as an example of that all the large groups of foreign railways, such as the Argentine railways, the Brazilian railways, and so forth, which are British companies domiciled here but which carry on very extensive operations in other countries. If you penalise the dividends of companies payable to foreigners who are resident abroad by making them subject to Income Tax in this country, it is quite evident that to that extent you handicap that particular class of investments for the purpose of those foreigners, and by doing so you remove from the sphere of possible holders a class of people who are at present to a large extent holders of them. If you do that, you tend to increase the difficulties of those companies when they come to issue fresh securities and to require further capital. It may be said that it is no concern of the State that they should have difficulty in getting more capital. But I would point out that it is wholly a question of domicile, and it is perfectly possible for a great number of those companies, without any great disadvantage to themselves, to be domiciled abroad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this afternoon that they cannot remove their domicile without jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. That is not the case. There are many centres of commerce and industry where a company could be equally well domiciled, and where they would be subject to less Income Tax or other taxes. We know very well that a change of domicile to these companies is not by any means an impossible thing, and if on

    271
    account of the burden which you inflict on certain large groups of shareholders, you make them change the domicile of a company in order to avoid the taxation which you impose, it is quite evident that a large amount of industry, banking, and other commercial work which is now carried on in the City of London would be transferred to other places, and, if once transferred, it would not return to this country.
    Mr. BUXTON: I have followed the point made by the hon. Member opposite. I understood him to say that in the case of some of these companies Income Tax would be charged on the whole of the dividends, and that the foreigner residing abroad would not get the benefit of the concession under the other parts of the Sub-section (2). I think the hon. Member is wrong, because these companies are assessed under Schedule D, and no Income Tax is payable on any such dividends unless the person entitled to them is resident in the United Kingdom. Therefore they are really on the same basis as other stocks and shares.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely a company which is carrying on business in the Argentine and has its headquarters in London is assessed under Schedule E?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. RIDSDALE: As I understand the Postmaster-General, the present state of things has been in existence for 53 years. What I cannot understand is how it could be in existence for so long a period, because so far as my memory goes it would be difficult to find a Colonial loan dating back to so early a time as that. I do not think the arguments which have been advanced really touch the case of the British possessions at all. Take the case of British Columbia Inscribed Stock. If we agree to this Clause every British subject resident abroad who has invested money in British Columbia 3 per cent. Stock will be free from Income Tax on the dividend. There is no question of any difficulty as to the cashing the dividends in Melbourne, Vancouver, or Victoria. The investor could not get the dividends cashed in any place but the City of London by the bank whose duty it is to cash them. If you pass this Sub-section, you will deliberately say to every person resident abroad that he shall be free from that Income Tax, but that if he invests in British Consols he shall not be able to
    272
    recover the amount. I think that is not defensible on any ground. It is entirely opposed to public policy and calculated to discredit our public securities. As to the point touched upon by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), the reason why the Government have legalised these foreign stocks is because anyone living abroad has only to have the dividends cashed in Berlin or Paris instead of London, thereby preventing the London banker from obtaining his profit. My answer to that is that if the investor gets the coupons cashed in these places they are subject to any foreign taxes in operation in the countries where they are cashed. But if you put in the Clause that if he gets them cashed in London he will get the tax refunded it is obvious that he will prefer to have them cashed in London. By doing so you are actually encouraging foreign investors to invest in this class of securities and giving him a bonus for so doing. I should be very glad to be shown that I am wrong if that is not so, but I have not had an answer to my argument. We have only heard the historical argument that it has been the law in the past, and I think it is high time that the law was undone and stopped.
    Sir SEYMOUR KING: I think the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) is quite right in this matter. I cannot help thinking that the Postmaster General has been misinformed. I have never heard of the practice which the right hon. Gentleman says has been prevailing. I think the Clause has been erroneously drafted, and that the words "payable in the United Kingdom" have been put in by mistake. I think the words should be "not payable in the United Kingdom." When dividends on securities are payable in the currency of the country that issues them, they are exempt from taxation in this country because they are not payable here. The hon. Member for Brighton has rightly said that in the case of securities payable in this country the Income Tax has to be deducted by the banker who pays the dividends, and that being so everybody wherever resident becomes subject to the British Income Tax. What you are going to do now is to let people who are not living in the country get the Income Tax returned to them. We are told that the poor woman with £200 a year living in Natal must contribute to the support of this Imperial country out of her poverty, because it is the only contributions she makes. Why should not the people who own these foreign securities also makes some contribution? I really do

    273
    not think the Postmaster-General is correctly informed, and I must impress on the Government that they are making a mistake in allowing this Section to go forward in its present form.
    Mr. HART-DAVIES: I think the reason which the Government have for putting on a tax is that the people who are taxed pay for something, say, protection. If money is earned in a foreign country, and is paid to you by way of income in a foreign country, you have nothing to pay, but if you have British Consols and live abroad what you pay in the shape of Income Tax is for the protection which is given to your capital. If you hold a foreign stock it is quite fair that you should not pay the tax at all. I think that is the rationale of the question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Hull (Sir Seymour King) is incorrect. I think the practice that obtains at present is that where a foreigner resident abroad holds securities in England he is entitled to claim exemption from Income Tax, provided that these securities are foreign securities. If they are British securities he would not obtain exemption. That, I believe, is the existing state of the law. I have dealt with these matters in my business, and I have had to obtain the abatement for foreigners. I think it is right that that should be so. But this Clause goes very much further. It says that "Income Tax shall not be payable in respect of the interest or dividends of any securities of a foreign State or a British possession which are payable in the United Kingdom, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the person owning the securities and entitled to the interest or dividends is not resident in the United Kingdom." That would allow an Englishman resident abroad to claim exemption. He has never been able to do so up to the present time, and, therefore, the Government are extending this exemption to people resident abroad, whether they are foreigners or Englishmen. The reason why I think the exemption ought to be continued to foreigners is this. By continuing that exemption you induce foreigners to transact their business in London. If you do not give the exemption you will make them transact their business elsewhere, and I think that would be a mistake. It would affect the City and other parts of the country, and the revenue would gain nothing by it. This is not a question of Protection or Tariff Reform.
    274
    The vast majority of foreign countries do the same thing. They allow foreigners to hold securities in their own country, and they do not charge them. In this matter we are treating foreigners as they treat us. In fact, we treat foreigners rather harder, because if they hold British securities they have to pay Income Tax. All we say is that if they hold foreign securities they should get the abatement. If I buy French rentes I get an advantage which a Frenchman does not get here if he buys Consols. The Frenchman would have to pay Income Tax on the security he holds, but I would not have to pay a farthing in respect of the rentes. I hope the Government will not alter the practice which has hitherto obtained for many years.
    Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I was greatly surprised to hear any Gentleman on this side of the House attacking this Subsection, and I have been equally surprised at the very excellent doctrine which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite. On the broad ground of policy it is a good thing to encourage the business of finance in this country. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was extremely careful to point out that there was no element of favour or affection in this matter, but that there is no trading or fiscal concession here. This movement in finance is paralleled by what is called the entrepôt trade in goods in this country. Such trade in this country is made possible by the entire absence of anything like difficulty or restriction similar to what would be imposed if we charged an Income Tax under this financial proposal. I am therefore justified in my surprise that there is any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House who would not see how very desirable it is that financial business should be allowed to go through in this country just as goods do in and out, free from every possible hindrance, whether of Income Tax or of any other.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, because, according to the words of the Clause, in the case of any foreign bank having foreign shareholders whose dividends are paid in this country, those shareholders are to have no deduction from their dividends at all.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: It only affects foreign securities, but not commercial.
    Mr. FELL: Foreign securities are always to bearer. They are bearer bonds. I do not think there are foreign securities which would be included in this which are registered in this country at all. They are all bearer bonds with coupons attached. They can be put into a safe in London or sent over to Paris next day, and put into a French bank there. There is one country only which has, I believe, put a tax upon its bonds, and that is the Italian Government. That has always had a most deterrent effect on investors. They could not buy Italian bonds because there was a 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. duty, and the Income Tax might be raised or lowered, and, therefore, there was no security in buying as to what amount of cash you would put on your coupons. But the other foreign stocks which are here in London are all bearer bonds, and have no Income Tax charged on them in their own countries. The Government, realising that they may be transferred from one place to another, some time ago came to the conclusion that it would be better that they should not be taxed, and that foreigners abroad should be encouraged to invest them in London, for the reasons that we have heard—that brokerage business may be done in London and Income Tax may be payable on the broker's business, and that a certain profit would come to London from the money lying uninvested here and in other ways. With regard to the securities of British possessions, I believe that there has been an arrangement with the Colonies that their securities should be placed in this kind of beneficial position. It may be hard on our holders of Consols, but they get the issues here, and we want to encourage them to get the issues, and we want to be their financial agents in paying the dividends. For that reason I believe it has been thought advisable by the Bank, who, of course, control in this matter to some extent the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these securities should not bear any Income Tax. Those are the two grounds on which I believe those two securities, foreign and British possessions, have been exempted. There is no doubt that this Clause proposes to continue that, and the Government consider there will be less disturbance to business if they leave this arrangement as it is rather than make a change. On those grounds I support this Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The words in the Clause are, "persons not residing in the
    276
    United Kingdom." That is not a legal definition of a foreigner.
    Mr. BUXTON: As the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has pointed out, the words "persons not resident in the United Kingdom" have been applied to either foreign or Colonial persons.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We have just been discussing for the last three hours Subsection (1), in which the same definition of persons resident abroad is held to apply to all Englishmen to be taxed. Here we have the identical expression for the purpose of remitting the tax, and we cannot be told that in Sub-section (1) these words do not cover an Englishman, whereas they do in Sub-section (2).
    Mr. BUXTON: It only covers the same class of person. The same definition which applied to the last Clause applies to this Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We have heard from the Postmaster-General that it has been administratively granted, but not legally, for the last 50 years. We have since been told on high authority that the concession has only been administratively granted to foreigners and not to Englishmen resident abroad.
    Mr. BUXTON: It applies to Colonials.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Has it been applied not only to foreigners and Colonials, but to all Englishmen resident abroad? We want to know whether it is an extension or a legalisation of an existing practice.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: It is necessary to clear this up. It is most undesirable that an Englishman, just because he lives abroad, should be able to evade payment. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) wishes to know whether there is a new principle in this. I am quite certain it is a new principle, because I happen to have made inquiries recently in Amsterdam as to how they would recover Income Tax on British securities in favour of Dutch subjects, and there is very great difficulty in getting these payments of Income Tax back. They do not admit all banks. It is a special privilege to certain banks whose bona fides cannot be suspected, and they only accept these certificates when, not only the coupons have been presented, but also the bonds, so as to make it quite certain that the coupons have not been cut off and sent over to be negotiated in Amsterdam. There is no possibility of anyone whatever getting off at present.

    277
    I think there will be a great deal of evasion and a great deal of injustice if this definition is allowed to stand, and that British subjects choose to live abroad and are able to avail of it.
    Mr. BUXTON: This must be read with the former Sub-section. It is in conformity with the general system that has been administered by the Inland Revnue. There is a slight extension, but not one that you would talk about from a financial point of view.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think that this brings this Amendment into a matter of very great importance. I understood the Postmaster-General to say that this was merely the legalisation of an existing practice, and that was the ground on which I made my previous observation. But I now understand that this is an actual extension to what the Postmaster-General calls bring it into conformity with the previous Sub-section. It appears to me to be doing exactly the opposite. The first Sub-section says that if an Englishman spends abroad money invested in England he has to pay taxes upon it, but the second Sub-section says, provided he does not invest any money in England, he shall not pay any tax upon it at all. I certainly think this Amendment ought to be very strongly pressed upon the Government, because so far from bringing it into conformity with the previous Sub-section, it only aggravates every observation made on this side, and indeed on both sides of the House in condemnation of the previous Subjection. How by a series of arguments it is possible to bring these two Sub-sections into conformity and to commend them to the Committee passes my comprehension altogether. I really think we are entitled to much more light and leading and more cogent reasons for this Sub-section in its present form before it can be passed, and I hope that the Postmaster-General, or perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury, can tell us on what principle this difference is made; and why, if under Sub-section (1) a British subject resident abroad is to be taxed in any holding he has in any individual security in this country, he is at the same time to be freed from any obligation to pay taxes upon investments in any foreign Government security and payable in London? That is the clear issue. We have been told by the Postmaster-General that Subsection (2) has been brought into conformity with Sub-section (1). They appear to me to be diametrically opposite. A
    278
    large majority of the Committee has not been present to hear this Debate, and I suppose at the last moment they will, as the hon. Member for Louth once said, come pouring in at the neck of the bottle. But I do not believe there is a single Member who has heard the Debate who would not desire to support this Amendment in the direction suggested. The Clause ought to be omitted unless we can get some Amendment of it.
    Mr. HORATIO MYER: The practice in the past as far as I know has been that if an Englishman has property in this country he has to make a declaration with regard to his income, and after making that declaration he has to say whether he has any foreign possessions abroad, and what is his income derived from those foreign possessions.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: There seems to be some confusion here, and, perhaps, I may be allowed, in order to illustrate a difficulty, to mention a concrete case, that of one of my colleagues who sits near me from time to time. My friend is an Irishman. He emigrated to Australia, where he holds Commonwealth securities. He is mulcted for Income Tax in Australia, and he is again charged Income Tax here. Suppose he were to reside abroad, what would his status be? If he were a Colonial he would be entitled to exempt according to the terms of the Bill we are now considering. But he is an Irishman. He has resumed his domicile at home, and he must, therefore, be regarded for the purpose of this Bill when it becomes law as an Englishman. He still holds the securities in the Australian Commonwealth, and if it had been his good fortune to have been born in one of the Colonies he would be exempt under the Bill. But because he has had the misfortune to be born in Ireland he would not be exempt. That is a case which I think shows there is some necessity for clearing up the point that has been evolved in the course of this discussion. A hare has been started which I think can be run for some time with the aid of the fertile imagination and ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General will be able to give some explanation of the position that has arisen. I observe that he consulted experts below the Gallery, and I think it would be to the advantage of the Committee if he gave us some explanation, or, at all

    279
    events, it would be an advantage to the Committee if one or other of the Law Officers of the Crown were in his place to make clear any points of doubt that may arise, and so assist the Committee to understand the intricacies of what is undoubtedly a very involved measure.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I presume, after the discussion that has taken place, that the object of this Clause is only to carry out the wish that English money should be invested abroad. Personally, I disagree with it, and I think the only solution is to omit the Clause altogether.
    Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: The Member for the City of London seems to have turned round very quickly. He approved the Clause just now, but now he apparently finds fault with it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What I said was that I approved of the practice which is carried out in this Section of exempting the foreigner, but supposing this Clause were carried the foreigner would go on just the same as he has been going on for many years. All that will happen will be that the Englishman will not have that privilege, and he will be tempted to invest in foreign securities instead of English securities. This provision only applies to foreign securities.
    Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: The hon. Baronet does not approve of the extension of the practice. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have found fault with the whole Clause simply on the words "not resident in the United Kingdom." In regard to the point raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, probably the Treasury would be willing to consider whether words could not be introduced which would not cover the Englishman—I do not say the Colonial, but the Englishman—resident abroad, and I think that would meet all the difficulties, and perhaps get over the objections to the Clause. This Clause legalises what has been going on, but the extension of the Clause to Englishmen resident abroad might be considered further with a view to seeing whether some words could be found to prevent that extension taking place.
    Mr. RIDSDALE: The question is this: Supposing a foreigner invested his money either in Colonial Government securities payable in London or in British Consols, why should he be exempt from the British income Tax? Why should I be able to
    280
    invest money in New Zealand Threes and recover my Income Tax, whereas if I invest in Consols I cannot recover the Income Tax? I want to know the reason.
    Mr. HART-DAVIES: In this Clause there is no mention of the Englishman at all. It is only a "person" not resident in the United Kingdom or resident abroad. There is no difference in this Clause between the foreigner and the Englishman. It applies to the foreigner or the Englishman. It is a "person," whether he is an Englishman or a foreigner. I do not quite understand what the difficulty is or where it comes in.
    Mr. BUXTON: I have listened to what has been said with regard to this point as to whether there is an extension to Englishmen living abroad. There seems to be a somewhat exaggerated idea that the Clause might be a greater inducement to Englishmen to invest in foreign Government stock rather than in British Government stock. I doubt whether that would be so. When I made my first statement I was under the impression that the words did not extend the practice to this degree, but from some information I have received I think it would be well if the Committee would allow me to have an opportunity of considering the particular point as to whether it should be extended. I will consider the matter before the Report stage as to whether these words extending the Clause to British subjects ought to be included. I will undertake to look into the matter to see how it stands.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE (for Mr. Fletcher)Mr. CAVE (for Mr. Fletcher) moved, in Section (2), to leave out after the word "Kingdom" ["not resident in the United Kingdom "] all the words to the end of the Section, "but, save as provided by this or any other Act, no allowance shall be given or repayment made in respect of the Income Tax on the interest or dividends on the securities of any foreign State or any British Possession which are payable in the United Kingdom."
    I move this Amendment in order to ascertain from the Government what the effect of the words is. Take the case of an Englishman living here who has a small income derived entirely from Colonial stock, and who would be entitled to exemption or abatement. Would not the effect of these words be to deprive him of that benefit so that he would get no exemption if his income is under £160,

    281
    and no abatement if it is over that amount? If so, it is a very serious and most penalising provision. I should like some explanation.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The explanation of these words is very simple. The practice in the past, I am happy to say the distant past now, has been to allow certain exemptions. Under the words which follow the words "United Kingdom" the object is to prevent the Treasury indulging in any practice of that sort in the future. If these words were left out, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, very considerable latitude would be left to the Government Department, and we do not think it is desirable to give that latitude. I think if the Amendment were adopted, it would also lead to the omission of the next paragraph of the Sub-section. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is desirable we should retain these words.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The object of the words is not quite clear.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The words, "Save as provided by this or any other Act," are a clear instruction to the Government Department. Extra statutory exemptions were made, but by this that wall not be possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand pant of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: The effect of this Clause, as I understand it, is absolutely contradictory. The first Sub-section provides that where an Englishman lives abroad he is not to have the privilege of abatement which has been hitherto granted in the case of incomes under £700. I think that is a very hard provision, and I cannot see why it is introduced. Apparently it is introduced in order that a certain number of foreigners, who also share that exemption, should not have it any longer, because they happen to be rich men. The Clause wall hit a number of men who have done no wrong, and who ought not to suffer. At the same time I believe that the foreigner will not be touched or roped in, and that all that will ensue is that the foreigner will take his money and invest it in other securities. We come to the second Sub-section, which goes exactly in the contrary direction. Instead of taking away from an Englishman abroad privileges he has hitherto had, this Sub-section gives Englishmen residing abroad privileges which they have never
    282
    held before. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) says that he will look into the matter. The Committee have had put before them a Clause which contains two contradictory statements. The first Sub-section deals with small men, but the second Sub-section deals with the rich man, the bête noir of the Radical party, who has got £10,000 per year, and who, if he chooses to live abroad and put his £10,000 in foreign securities is freed of Income Tax at all. I think a more absurd Clause has never been put before the Committee. I do not blame the Postmaster-General in the least. We all understand that he made his first statement in error. I must say it is really very hard on him to put him in charge of a very intricate and complicated Clause, which is contradictory in itself. I really do think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been here, and possibly he might have explained this to the Committee, and then we should not have had all this discussion. All this arises from the fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen do not know the meaning of their own Bill. When we are kept here for many hours at a stretch it is not our fault that hon. Members do not understand their own Bill. I certainly hope we will not add this Clause to the Bill. Its omission would leave everything as it was before, and no harm would result. I do not believe the Revenue is going to gain by the first Sub-section, and I am quite certain it is going to lose by the second Sub-section. Therefore, from the point of view of the Revenue, we had better omit the Clause. Perhaps it would be a little hard on the right hon. Gentleman, but no great man is afraid of making a mistake. Therefore I appeal to the only representative of the Cabinet here to acknowledge the mistake and agree to the omission of the Clause and let us get on.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I only wish to enter a renewed protest against the whole principle of this Clause. It does seem to me at a moment like this, when communications are daily becoming easier, and when the one hope for this country is to weld the Empire more closely together, and to treat the Colonies as if they were part of the United Kingdom in regard to individual enterprise, that this is a time when the young man who is born in England should feel that he is as much a member and still remains a citizen of the Empire, whether he is in Canada or in Australia, just as if he were at home. It does seem an extraordinary moment to impose a disability of

    283
    this kind upon him, and a disability which cannot be justified, as if it involved a large amount of revenue, but which, on the contrary, gives a comparatively small result but a large sense of injustice. I think you are doing an injury wholly out of proportion to the advantage you are going to secure. No argument has been brought forward in support of the principle of the Clause. I desire to enter my protest against it, while at the same time I would have voted for a simple Clause which would have safeguarded the country
    and the revenue against freeing from Income Tax very rich foreigners who have small investments in this country. That object is a good one, and could have been perfectly well met. I think the Clause is extremely ill-advised considering the small amount of revenue involved. It imposes a maximum of injury with a minimum of advantage to the Exchequer.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 95.

    Division No. 692.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Agnew, George William

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Alden, Percy

    Erskine, David C.

    Lambert, George

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Falconer, J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barker, Sir John

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Barnard, E. B.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lundon, T.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gibson, J. P.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Ginnell, L.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Gledinning, R. G.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Gulland, John W.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hancock, J. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Branch, James

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Massie, J.

    Brigg, John

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Middlebrook, William

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harwood, George

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Byles, William Pollard

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mond, A.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mooney, J. J.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Muldoon, John

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hedges, A. Paget

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

    Clough, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Myer, Horatio

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Nicholls, George

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Cox, Harold

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crossley, William J.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Partington, Oswald

    Cullinan, J.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinurgh, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

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

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Duffy, William J.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Waring, Walter

    Reddy, M.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    Robinson, S.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Summerbell, T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rowlands, J.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Winfrey, R.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Verney, F. W.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Seddon, J.

    Vivian, Henry

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Walters, John Tudor

    Snowden, P.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, J.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Pretyman, E. G.

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

    Haddock, George B.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Renton, Leslie

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Renwick, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, William

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

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Starkey, John R.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    MacCaw, William J. Mac Geagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Oddy, John James

    Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    CLAUSE 51.—(Special Provisions as to Assessment of Super-tax.)
    (1) The Super-tax shall be assessed and charged by the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Acts relating to Income Tax (in this Act referred to as the Special Commissioners).
    (2) Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by regulations under this Section by the Special Commissioners requiring him to make a return of his total income from all sources shall, whether he is or is not chargeable with the Super-tax, make such a return in the form and within the time required by the notice.
    (3) It shall be the duty of every person chargeable with the Super-tax to give notice that he is chargeable to the Special Commissioners before the thirtieth day of September in the year for which the Super-tax is chargeable.
    (4) If any person fails to make any return or to give any notice required by this Section, he shall be liable to a penalty of fifty pounds, and after judgment has been given for that penalty to a further penalty of fifty pounds for every day during which the failure continues.
    Any penalty under this provision shall be recoverable in the High Court, or in Scotland in the Court of Session.
    (5) If any person fails to deliver a return under this Section, or to give any notice required by this Section, or if the Special Commissioners are not satisfied with any return made under this Section, the Special Commissioners may make an assessment of the Super-tax according to the best of their judgment.
    (6) All the general powers and procedure with reference to assessments made by Special Commissioners, and to appeals against those assessments, and to the collection and recovery of duty, and to cases to be stated for the opinion of the High Court shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to assessments by the Special Commissioners under this Section.
    (7) The Special Commissioners may amend any assessment made by them under this Section, or make an additional assessment, during any time within the year of assessment, or within three years after the expiration thereof.
    (8) The Commissioners may make regulations for the purpose of carrying this Section into effect.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE Mr. GEORGE CAVE moved, to add at the end of Sub-section (1), "Provided that in any case in which an appeal is allowed to be made to the Special Commissioners against any assessment of Super-tax, or against any objection of the inspector or surveyor to such assessment, or against any surcharge of the said tax, it shall be lawful for the person assessed or charged, if he shall think fit, instead of appealing to the Special Commissioners to appeal to the Commissioners for General Purposes of the district upon giving notice thereof in writing to the inspector or surveyor within the time limited for notices of appeal to the Special Commissioners, and thereupon every such appeal shall be heard and determined by two or more of the Commissioners for General Purposes who hear appeals in the district in which such appellant shall be chargeable."
    The object of the Amendment is to give every taxpayer charged with Super-tax the option of being assessed either by the Special Commissioners, as the Bill provides, or by the General Commissioners; in other words, to extend to the Super-tax the option which exists already in relation to Schedule D taxes. This is a matter of some importance. As the Committee know, under the present system a man is assessed for Income Tax by the General Commissioners—a body established more than 100 years ago to assess
    288
    for Income Tax, consisting of independent persons, magistrates and others, who act for the district as General Commissioners for Income Tax. That system continued until 1842, when Sir Robert Peel revived the Income Tax. He was then asked to abolish the General Commissioners and to remit all assessments to the Special Commissioners. He declined to do that, because, he said, you must have an independent body to assess for Income Tax; but he gave the taxpayer the right to be assessed either by the General Commissioners or by the Special Commissioners, who are paid Treasury officials. I want to give the same option to the person assessed for Super-tax. The Bill provides that he shall be assessed by the Special Commissioners—that, is, that the taxpayer shall be assessed by the Crown. I submit to the Committee that that is not a right system. In this case, as in others, the person to be assessed ought to have the right to go to some independent body to have the amount of his assessment fixed. That the General Commissioners are appreciated as the assessing body can be easily proved. For 67 years the taxpayers had the option of going either to the General or to the Special Commissioners. I believe it is the fact that in less than 1 per cent. of the assessments has the taxpayer elected to go to the Special Commissioners. You could not have stronger evidence than that that the confidence of the taxpayer in the General Commissioners is very great indeed. He is satisfied with the way they treat him. They are a body wholly independent of Government control; they stand between the taxpayer and the Crown, and they assess a man fairly. I am told that the appeals against the General Commissioners on points of law are less than 1 per cent. of the total assessments made, and from a Return presented to Parliament some years ago it appeared that out of 175 appeals then tabulated 169 failed. I think that that shows that the General Commissioners have discharged their duties very fairly and very efficiently indeed. Further than that, there has been no kind of friction in the exercise of their powers by the General Commissioners. They are very carefully advised by their clerks, and in a Report published in 1905 the Income Tax Commissioners stated:—
    "We desire to place on record our opinion that the tax appears on the whole to be levied with the minimum of friction and the maximum of result."
    I do not think you could have stronger testimony to the efficiency of the General Commissioners for Income Tax. An experiment was made some years ago to test the relative cost of assessments by the Special Commissioners and assessments by the General Commissioners. The result was rather remarkable. According to a Return made to Parliament on the Motion of the late Mr. Hanbury, as to the comparative cost of the two systems, it appeared that the cost of collection by Inland Revenue officials was £1,010, while the cost of collection by collectors under the General Commissioners was £223, or less than one-fourth of the cost of the other system. I think I have said enough to show that at all events the power to go to the General Commissioners is valued by the taxpayer.
    I want to insist also upon the fact that only in that way can you have an independent assessment. We have had to say more than once in these Debates that it is not right when the question is what amount an individual is to be taxed, or on what assessment he is to be taxed, that the decision should rest with any officials of the taxing authority. There ought to be a right to go to a wholly independent tribunal for the purposes of assessment. The General Commissioners are an independent tribunal. The Special Commissioners are not. The latter, with the exception of the chairman, are all Inland Revenue officials; they are all paid, very properly; and no doubt they are an efficient body. But my point is that they are not, and cannot be, an independent body. There is only one answer that I have heard to this suggestion. A question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the point, to which he replied:—
    "The right of appeal to District Commissioners against Income Tax assessments is necessary and valuable in view of their local knowledge, but this is not required in the case of assessments for Super-tax, which will consist of grouping and marshalling assessments which have already been made, the total income of an individual for the purposes of Super-tax being the total income of the individual from all sources for the previous year estimated in the same manner as for the purposes of exemption or abatements under the Income Tax Acts. Persons liable to Super-tax will, in the great majority of cases, be persons possessed of interests in several localities, and, in such cases, an appeal to the District Commissioners could only be an appeal to the appropriate Commissioners in respect of each local item of income, thus involving great inconvenience and delay both to the public and the Administration."
    With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is no answer to the case made. Take assessments now in the City of London. Surely nobody will dispute that in that case the income assessed is
    290
    the income from all sources. I am not talking of Schedule A. Already the General Commissioners assess incomes from all sources. They must do so. With regard to Super-tax, you must assess a man somewhere in some district for the purposes of collection. I do not see at all why the General Commissioners, who already deal with similar cases by the thousand, should not be perfectly able to deal with the assessments for Super-tax purposes. I am afraid to give the figure which I have heard of the thousands of cases with which these Commissioners deal without any objection as far as I know. Super-tax assessments will not be a mere question of arithmetic, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. There must be many questions arising of great importance to the persons to be taxed, such as what is a man's income, what income is to be included, and at what amount it is to be assessed. I suggest as to all those questions it is far better to give the taxpayer a right of recourse to an independent body accustomed to deal with the matter, which has dealt with similar matters without any objection and at small cost. I press this matter because it is not the first time the point has arisen. Ever since 1842 proposals have been made in the House of Commons to supersede the General Commissioners and to remit assessments to the Special Commissioners.
    All of them hitherto have failed or have been withdrawn. I strongly press upon Members who are familiar with this subject that they should not consent to give up the really valuable right of independent assessment and hand the duty over to a tribunal appointed by the Government of the day. I do not care about the form in which the question is met, but the form in which I am now moving the Amendment is practically similar, and is framed upon Section 130 of the Income Tax Act of 1842, which gives the option to the taxpayer to have either one or the other of the bodies.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not at all a question of form, but a question of substance. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. I do not in the slightest degree impugn the efficiency or the general impartiality, and certainly not the good faith of the District Commissioners. But they are obviously unsuited as a tribunal to settle this question of a Super-tax. The first reason as to why not was indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself by reference to an answer which I gave on the very subject. These gentlemen, as a rule, derive their income from more than

    291
    one locality. It would be quite impossible for the General Commissioners to judge of all questions which would arise in the constitution of the income of the person against whom a claim for Super-tax was made by the Inland Revenue. These Commissioners can decide questions of ordinary Income Tax. But when you come to aggregate all these incomes with a view, first of all, of telling whether a man is within the limit or not, and to what extent he should be charged, a purely local tribunal is unfitted for questions of that kind. But my objection really goes far more to the root of the matter than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the Special Commissioners as if they were not quite an independent or impartial tribunal, and certainly not an independent tribunal in comparison with the District Commissioners. Why not? The District Commissioners may be, and undoubtedly are, a very fair and impartial tribunal so far as the general administration of the Income Tax Acts is concerned, but when you come to consider a question like that of a Super-tax, I think it is really putting a too great a strain upon their judicial capacity to call open them to decide a matter of the kind. In the first place they would be very largely judging in their own cause. In a good many towns there are men who will be liable to the Super-tax who may be on the Commission themselves. At any rate, their associates and intimate friends will probably be Commissioners. But when you come to the Special Commissioners why, I ask, should they not be impartial? They are officially appointed for the special purpose of considering these claims. I think, speaking of the officials in the main, that they discharge their functions with great fairness, great consideration, and with a desire to do justice to the subject. And after all, if they abuse their position in any way, they are liable to be called to account by their Department, and while I do not suggest for a moment that they carry out their duties in fear of their Departments, the knowledge that they may be called to account for any excess or abuse that they may be guilty of has its influence.
    Sir E. CARSON: Who defends them?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Minister who is in charge of that particular Department is the one who presents their case to the House of Commons. Any hon. Member may bring facts before the House, and the officials can be called to account
    292
    for anything in the nature of a departure from the most strict and judicial discharge of their functions. Well, now, that is much more true with regard to the Special Commissioners than with regard to the District Commissioners. I do not think it would be possible or fair to leave the District Commissioners to sit in judgment on their friends. That is really what it means in a great many cases. Anyone who lives in a country district may run over in his own mind the people in that town or district who are likely to pay Super-tax. You know them. What does it mean if you leave this matter to the District Commissioners? They are men of great social influence and of great power in a district, and I do not think it would conduce altogether to an absolute judicial scrutiny of incomes if you left them to adjudicate upon the men in their own district—perhaps not altogether their associates, but men of the same class as themselves. I do not think it is fair to put the District Commissioners in that position. I do not think it would work well. You have only got to look at the assessments of these very large houses in order to see how it works at the present time. I do not want to dwell upon that, but I am perfectly certain that, taking the country throughout, they are not assessed at anything approximating their full value. If you look at the difference between the small house of £50 or £60, assessed undoubtedly up to its full value, and compare it with the assessment of these places of enormous value, you will see the distinction. As to the question of appeal, if there is to be an appeal it ought to be considered by the Commissioners who have not already been sitting in judgment upon that particular case. But that matter will come on later. In the meantime I must resist this Amendment, because I think it will destroy the whole valuation.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am not in the least astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has resisted this Amendment, because it is entirely in keeping with everything the Government has tried to do in preserving under their officers—the taxation of the people without appeal. They have made that clear over and over again in the course of this Bill, and this is simply another instance. There was one observation that the right hon. Gentleman made towards the close of his speech. He supported the claims of the Special Commissioners because the General Commissioners put too low a value on assessments.

    293
    That I think is a very startling statement. In the first place, say what you will, it is an imputation upon the Commissioners; and, in the second place, it is an indication that he means to have these Special Commissioners for the purpose of screwing up the assessments. And that is a matter which I think will be looked upon as a very serious one by those who are going to be concerned in the Super-tax. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman—if that is his view of the General Commissioners—that the General Commissioners have valued too low, and that these Commissioners will value higher, how is he going to run the two sets of Commissioners together in relalation to the ordinary Income Tax and the Super-tax? Let me ask him this question: The General Commissioners will assess a man's income as to whether it is £5,000, £6,000, £7,000, or £8,000, or whatever it may be. Then you go before the Special Commissioners to have your Super-tax made. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman will they have power to increase the £6,000 which have been assessed for ordinary Income Tax? If they have, we shall have a very chaotic kind of procedure, in which your income will be one income for the purposes of the Income Tax and another income for the purpose of the Super-tax. But if that is not to be so, what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the General Commissioners value too low, and the Special Commissioners are likely to value higher? How is that going to work out? Surely it is impossible to work it out. We were told all during the discussions of yesterday on other Clauses of the Bill that you must assess for Super-tax exactly the same as you assess for Income Tax. That was the answer given over and over again to the propositions that we put forward, and now, when we come to say that you ought to examine this Income Tax and Super-tax in exactly the same way as ordinary Income Tax, we are told: "No, we must get a tribunal which is really to give higher income to the Treasury than is returned by the ordinary Commissioners." I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman is going to make his system hang together, and I think he will cause a great deal of disappointment among those who are going to be subjected to it. May I bear my testimony—and I had a good deal to do with the body for over five years with the administration of Income Tax law—to the great work and the satisfactory work which was done for the general purposes of Income Tax. I remember having
    294
    from time to time, naturally in cases where there appeared to be hardship, having many conversations with the managers of businesses as to the effect of Income Tax upon their various enterprises. We had to discuss these matters, and I do not remember ever hearing from the beginning to the end of the many cases with which I dealt a complaint by anybody, nor, indeed, by the Department with which I was brought into contact, as regards the General Commissioners, who do all this valuable work.
    Why on earth it should be suggested now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you cannot entrust this matter to them because they may have to deal with their friends, although, as he said, the friends are few and far between who have large incomes, I fail entirely to understand. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no justification whatsoever for such a sweeping statement as he made against the Commissioners of Income Tax. What are the Commissioners of Income Tax doing now? Are they adjudicating daily as regards their friends and the various persons with whom they are brought into immediate contact? If the case of the Chancellor has any foundation an fact, which I do not believe it has, for his statement, his argument might go the length of showing that you ought to abolish these General Commissioners altogether, because they are now assessing values for Income Tax daily throughout the length and breadth of the land. There is no shadow of foundation for the statement that because they are coming into contact daily with the people whom they are assessing that they are likely to assess them any lower. I do not think these matters of friendship enter into these judicial relations, and I think it is a matter we may be very proud of in this country. I do not believe if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to assess my income for Income Tax he would assess it a bit more heavily on me because I happen to be a Member of the Opposition. I should trust him, though I might bate his rules. I do not believe in any of these matters, whether as regards assessment of Income Tax or any other of the quasi-judicial position, I do not believe that any question of corruption arises.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no.
    Sir E. CARSON: Not one of corruption, but of partisanship of any kind. I do not believe it ever enters into the consideration of the men in these Departments.

    295
    What then remains of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments? I say nothing at all remains. If you entrust—I do not know how many millions of Income Tax comes in in the year—but if you entrust the whole assessment of that to the General Commissioners I say you have no right to come here and say I am going to give this particular new tax to Special Commissioners, because I believe they will give a higher rate of assessment to the revenue than the ordinary General Commissioners do. I think we want some better answer than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us before we can see what is the real reason for appointing these Special Commissioners to administer this tax. The right hon. Gentleman said: Do you say the Special Commissioners are unfair? I know nothing about them; I am not going to say they are unfair; I make no charge whatever against them, but every official of this kind gets the official mind. It is their whole duty, and they look upon it as a duty. I often had to consider the powers of the Lunacy Commissioners, and I have long since come to the conclusion that the Lunacy Commissioners are of opinion that it would be greatly to the satisfaction of many people in this country to be declared lunatics. I hope the Committee will pause before they make this great change, and endeavour to draw a distinction in the method in which the assessment should be made in the case of the Super-tax as compared with that of the Income Tax.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I would like to ask one question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made a point to the fact that the General Commissioners were in districts, and that they could not have the proper knowledge of a man's income because they knew it only in one place, whereas it might be spread all over the country or the world. How are the Special Commissioners to act? There are eight or nine Special Commissioners and the Board of Inland Revenue Commissioners. What is the procedure? I rather fancy they act in districts, that is to say, that each one has a district, and he deals with those which come within his jurisdiction. If that is not the case, what is the procedure that goes on? Is there a rota; does Mr. A deal with the case one day, and does Mr. B deal with it another? I think that before the Amendment is dealt with we should know what the procedure is. I should say in business the Income Tax Commissioners
    296
    deal very satisfactorily, and with very great accuracy, in all these matters.
    Mr. RENWICK: I am extremely surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not accept this most reasonable Amendment. The very fact that there is an alternative is always a satisfaction. We have heard it said that practically no one objects to the proceedings of the General Commissioners. But if there was no alternative very much greater feeling against the General Commissioners than there is now would be indicated. I speak from the commercial point of view, and I think I am expressing the views of the commercial classes when I say that they would feel very much more satisfied if there is an alternative such as has been proposed by the Amendment than if matters are left entirely to a bureaucratic body entitled the Special Commissioners. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have remembered what the Commission in regard to Income Tax says upon this very point. I commend it to his attention. It says that the feeling formerly entertained against the Income Tax as inquisitorial and oppressive has, we believe, largely passed away. The impartiality and secrecy of the local Commissioners deserves confidence in a high degree. Therefore I sincerely hope, from the point of view of getting the confidence of the commercial classes with regard to these new taxes, and from the point of view of getting the question quickly settled on a satisfactory basis, the Chancellor will give more sympathetic consideration to this most reasonable proposal.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I appeal also very earnestly to the Chancellor to accept the Amendments. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully realises the excellent work done by the General Commissioners hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that they are apt to value too low. That is not the experience of many. On the contrary, they are by no means inclined to let people off cheap, and I think they do their work extremely well. I do not understand why the Chancellor suggested this unduly low valuation. There is no ground for it. I never heard it suggested in any way, and I cannot understand why it is suggested now If it is true that they have done their work badly, why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer alter their powers in this Bill? He has never thought of doing anything of the kind. There are very good reasons why the General Commissioners command the

    297
    public confidence, and if they command the public confidence, and do their work well, I really do not understand why the Government should not give the alternative to the taxpayer, if they object to being assessed by the Special Commissioners. There is necessarily a feeling among many taxpayers that the Commissioners serve the Government as their master rather than look after the interest of the taxpayer. I daresay it may be true. It may be that they have thought themselves quite impartial, but you cannot altogether get rid of the feeling in some men's minds that they are the servants of the Government, and it is upon that ground that I very strongly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment.
    I am not committing any irregularity in stating to the House that the Special Commissioners consist of five persons apart from the Board of Inland Revenue. There is the chairman of that body; then there is another Special Commissioner who is Surveyor of Taxes, and, therefore, in the service of the Government. There is also the Secretary to the Inland Revenue, who is very obviously in the service of the Government, and two more who are inspectors of taxes. In addition to them there are the other Special Commissioners of the Board of Inland Revenue. I do not make any charge of partiality, but I do say the effect of this proposal will be to create nervousness in some minds as to the impartiality of their judgment. If there was any ground for supposing that the General Commissioners had not done their work well or given impartial decisions, I could understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer's objection, but as he does not suggest any such grounds for not accepting this Amendment, I earnestly hope that he will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I do not think any honest taxpayer can do otherwise than agree that these Commissioners are impartial and perfectly fair. From my own long experience in connection with the firm with which I am connected I may say that we have always found the Commissioners perfectly impartial. I understand that one of the main reasons for imposing this new duty upon the Special Commissioners is that it will be a little less inquisitorial to have the inquiries made by a body in London than by the local body. What puzzles me is how these Special Commissioners are to act without in some way taking advantage of the local machinery. How are they to arrive at or
    298
    check the return which may be made by those who are liable to this tax unless the local surveyors of taxes are brought in. That takes away the particular privacy which the right hon. Gentleman suggested would be one of the special advantages of his proposal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The local surveyors of taxes.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Yes. Things leak out in a very uncomfortable way sometimes, and I do not think the secrecy which the right hon. Gentleman thinks would be an appanage to the Special Commissioners would in all cases be found to be as secret as he wishes. I cannot see why anyone who desires to appeal to the General Commissioners rather than to the Special Commissioners should not be allowed to do so. I think these matters in the localities are very carefully looked after indeed, and they take care that everybody is honestly assessed. I wish to know whether the surveyors of taxes are to be imported into this matter or not? If they are I can see less reason than I should have done if some other method had been adopted for refusing the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I confess I was very disappointed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I could not understand why in reference to the General Commissioners he should say their action would be destructive of the whole Super-tax. Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman thought they would act in a spirit of screening those who pay the Super-tax, and not in the more moderate position of arbitrator, a duty which they have hitherto discharged in a very excellent manner. I claim to know something about this particular case, because, as a chartered accountant, I have very often appeared before the General Commissioners, and I have had a great many cases before the Special Commissioners. Consequently, I am able to say that the statement that they are so local in their knowledge that they cannot deal with the larger matters which come under the purview of the Super-tax is quite contrary to the facts. These General Commissioners in Liverpool consist of the leading merchants, shipowners, railway men, and other traders in the various districts where they reside. One of them is the chairman of the Dock Board in Liverpool, and the others include some of the leading men who are conducting commerce, and they cannot be con-

    299
    sidered as possessing only local knowledge. The Special Commissioners are mere tax collectors with a good knowledge of Income Tax law, but no knowledge of the ordinary practical character of trading in foreign countries or at home or of manufacturers.
    I cannot understand why the General Commissioners should be now put on one side. It should be remembered that the General Commissioners do not sit without having with them the clerk to the Surveyor of Income Tax, who keeps them right as regards the law, and I presume he reports to Somerset House what takes place, so that if there is any great error of judgment notice is taken of it. In the same way the Surveyor of Taxes invariably sits at the same time, and puts his statement of the case most fully before the Commissioners, and he often takes a very strong line. I remember on one occasion when the General Commissioners were taking a view opposite to the advice of the Surveyor, he said he would not sit in the room if they were going to act contrary to his view, and he threatened to report the case to Somerset House. To say that these Commissioners are not assisted by the clerk and by the Surveyor of Taxes is contrary to the facts. The General Commissioners have a thoroughly practical knowledge of business. They know how to assess depreciation, which is one of the most difficult things to be dealt with, and this is knowledge which the Special Commissioners do not possess.
    The Special Commissioner is a very excellent man in his way, but when a very large question comes to be considered and it is referred to the Special Commissioner he comes down, and he will deal only with large cases. As regards the ordinary cases, the Special Commissioner does not deal with them, and they are dealt with in a fair way, in regard to which there has been no complaint, by the General Commissioners. Now the General Commissioners are to be entirely overridden, and no option is to be given. You cannot go to the Special Commissioners for the big cases and the General Commissioners for the ordinary cases. The Special Commissioner is a mere legal instrument for enforcing the law in its closest and most oppressive manner, and he is the person upon whom this duty is now to be placed. I cannot think if this tax is to be applied in any way to meet the requirements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he can
    300
    adhere to his Resolution. Yesterday we passed a tax without any undue opposition except as regards details, because we recognised that the money had to be raised; but we do not recognise that it is essential that the power of the General Commissioners who know the wants of the locality should be taken away, and we object to the trader being put under the heel of the Special Commissioner. I am astonished at the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking such a very narrow and close view upon this matter, which affect's commercial interests to so large an extent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman wall reconsider his decision.
    Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: It appears to me that the Special Commissioner is to have the power of overriding the decisions of the General Commissioners with regard to the details. At present the only important thing is whether every item is taxed or not, and the question of the Super-tax does not come in. The point is whether the Special Commissioners are to override the decision of the General Commissioners in regard to details.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that the main fault of this Budget is its great dependence on bureaucracy. The form of the tax in many cases is intricate and will necessitate the interposition of the Treasury in matters which, I think they would prefer should be left to a more independent tribunal, but here you are unnecessarily introducing this fault and you are weakening public confidence, and I cannot see you are getting any equivalent for it. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really suggest there is anything unfair, or has he any Departmental information? If so, I think he ought to lay it before the Committee, and it might very much alter our view, but I really do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any right to make that kind of suggestion as an innuendo against the General Commissioners unless he is prepared to support it. He has said nothing to support it and has given no particular case. Surely, as between those hon. Members who hold opposite opinions on this question, it is not necessary for either party to throw stones at either body of Commissioners. We do not desire to throw stones at the Special Commissioners in any way, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to throw stones at the General Commissioners. Then why not leave them both

    301
    alone and why not leave the option? The right hon. Gentleman's argument would be perfectly valid if we asked that the Special Commissioners were to be imitated, and that the General Commissioners were to be the sole judges of this matter; but what we ask is that the same option which exists to-day in regard to the Income Tax should exist in this case. I do not think you will find a higher authority than Sir Robert Peel. What was his reason for retaining the Commissioners? In 1842 he said:—
    "I propose to retain the Commissioners because the policy of the law with respect to this tax, as it was with respect to the Property Tax, is not to make the tax depend upon the mere word of the Government."
    If Sir Robert Peel had known of the contents of the present Finance Bill, he would have felt it was more necessary to-day that the collection of the tax should not depend upon the mere will of the Government. These Special Commissioners are the servants of the Government. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that more secrecy would be obtained; at all events, the question has been raised in the Debate. It is, however, perfectly obvious that so long as the option exists the person to be assessed, if he does not desire his affairs to be known to the General Commissioners, can go to the Special Commissioners. If the Government finds in the working of this Act that any of these difficulties arise, it will always be open to them in any future Finance Bill to refer these matters to Special Commissioners. The Government are doing a great deal to alienate confidence and security, particularly in the minds of those who have large interests. Here is a method by which in some measure confidence in the intentions of the Government may be retained, and I think the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are making a very serious mistake from the point of view of their own policy. The Chancellor of the
    Exchequer is too apt to look at the immediate petty object and not at what lies behind it, which is really much more weighty. In attempting to gain some small financial advantage, he is losing a great deal more, both morally and financially. This is a case in point, and I hope while there is yet time he will see his way to accept this Amendment and to retain the option.
    Sir H. KIMBER: The question raised by this Amendment is neither more nor less than whether a man should be entitled to be judge in his own cause. A question arises between the taxpayer and the tax collector as to the amount of tax to be charged. It is referred to these Commissioners, whose functions, whether they be Special or General Commissioners, will be the same. An officer appointed by the Treasury and acting under the instructions of the Treasury is the claimant, and he is to be the judge whether the person charged is to pay or not. That is a subversion of the primary principles of justice. The interests of the claimants is to get the tax. If they do not get in enough taxes they will be reprimanded, and, unless there is an impartial tribunal to whom the taxpayer can appeal, the tax collector may screw up the tax to the point of injustice. The General Commissioners have no interests on one side or the other. They are unpaid and have every reason to do what is right and just. The magistrates who compose these Commissioners are generally esteemed for the high and impartial manner in which they perform their duties, and I think, as a matter of simple justice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take every care that the Commissioners have no interests on one side or the other.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 217.

    Division No. 693.]

    AYES.

    [8.10 p.m.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hunt, Rowland

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Doughty, Sir George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Baring, Cart. Hon. (Winchester)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Keswick, William

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fletcher, J. S.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Forster, Henry William

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gordon, J.

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

    Costlereagh, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Renton, Leslie

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Younger, George

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Oddy, John James

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Starkey, John R.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    NOES.

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

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Massle, J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Findlay, Alexander

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Agnew, George William

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Middlebrook, William

    Alden, Percy

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mond, A.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Muldoon, John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nicholls, George

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Barker, Sir John

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Gulland, John W.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Bell, Richard

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    O'Malley, William

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harwood, George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pensonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Branch, James

    Healy, Timothy Michael

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

    Brigg, John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Reddy, M.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Hooper, A. G.

    Fidsdale, E. A.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Robinson, S.

    Clough, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Clynes, J. R.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rowlands, J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jowett, F. W.

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Joyce, Michael

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cox, Harold

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Seddon, J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Crossley, William J.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Snowden, P.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lamont, Norman

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Steadman, W. C.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Dewar Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Summerbell, T.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Elibank, Master of

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Essex, R. W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Vivian, Henry

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Falconer, James

    Marnham, F. J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    304

    305

    Walter, John Tudor

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Wardle, George J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Waring, Walter

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Winfrey, R.

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

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANcalled upon Sir Samuel Evans to move the next Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is not the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Down in order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. If Sub-section (2) were omitted it would involve the omission of machinery and render the Clause unworkable.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I submit that there are other forms of machinery possible to be inserted in this Clause? This Sub-section stands by itself, and I submit, with all respect, that this Sub-section proposes a particular method of collecting machinery which is totally different from the machinery provided in Sub-section (3). There are, in fact, alternative methods proposed—one in Sub-section (2) and the other in Sub-section (3)—and surely it is within the discretion of the Committee to choose which they prefer. I do not conceive how it is possible that this discussion can be out of order.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I point out that if this Sub-section were omitted it would involve an absolute breakdown, because it would create a gap in the Clause. It might be possible to move to substitute other machinery, but, to move the omission of the Sub-section altogether is a totally different matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I submit, on a point of order, that Sub-section (3) by itself would provide sufficient machinery, and that, therefore, it is quite competent to move the omission of Sub-section (2).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN again called upon Sir Samuel Evans.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans) moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "sources" ["income from all sources"], to insert the following words: "or in the case of a notice served upon any person who is chargeable with or liable to be assessed to Income Tax under Section forty-one of the Income Tax Act, 1842, or Section twenty-four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, as representing an incapacitated, non-resi-
    306
    dent, or deceased person, of the total income from all sources of the incapacitated, non-resident, or deceased person."
    This is a formal matter. The Clause provides that "Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by regulations under this Section of the Special Commissioners requiring him to make a return of his total income from all sources shall, whether he is or is not chargeable with the Super-tax, make such a return in the form and within the time required by the notice."
    In this Sub-section the word "person" stands alone, but Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and Section 24 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, define more fully the persons who may be called upon to make these returns. In Section 41 of the Act of 1842 these persons are trustees, guardians, or the committees of any persons, infants, married women, or lunatics; while Section 24 of the Act of 1890 enables an assessment to be made on the estate of a deceased person by assessing the executor or administrator.
    Mr. CAVE: This Amendment with the other Government Amendments on the Paper seem to reframe this Clause altogether. But I should like to know whether the person who, under it, is to be served with a notice calling upon him to ascertain the total income, will, in the event of his being unable to find out that total, be subject to all the penalties sot forth in the latter part of the Clause for not giving information which, after all, may not be at his disposal.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Of course, if it is impossible to find out the person who is chargeable under this particular Clause, it is so much the worse for the Revenue, but if they do find out the person or persons who are liable to make a return they are bound to make the return so far as they have the information.
    Sir SEYMOUR KINGproposed, in Subsection (2), after the word "shall" ["from all sources shall"], to leave out the words "whether he is or is not," and to insert instead thereof the words "if he is."

    307
    Although this apparently is but a slight alteration in the wording of the Clause, it has a very important bearing upon it. The words proposed to be substituted should be read in conjunction with the proposal which stands in my name later on, to add, at the end of the Sub-section, the words, "provided that any person who is not chargeable with a Super-tax shall be at liberty to make a return of nil and shall not be required to state any particulars of his income in such return." We are approaching a time when this new tax will be enforced under highly inquisitorial conditions, and to that tax we who have to pay must submit with all its unpleasantness. I quite recognise that the Super-tax is impossible, except with inquisitorial machinery, but, as Sir Henry Primrose said, it will be necessary to send out probably 100,000 notices in order to get at the 10,000 or 11,000 people who are liable to the Super-tax. Something like 90,000 people will ultimately not be found liable to pay any Super-tax whatever, and it seems to me monstrous that these people should be compelled to make any disclosure of their affairs beyond the disclosure which is called for at the present time on every Income Tax paper, namely, that if they have no tax to pay they can return the answer "nil." I am not proposing any alteration therefore in the present practice. Apparently in this case there is a desire to obtain information with regard to the incomes of the people who have not to pay this special tax, and with whom the Government have no concern whatever. There will be something like 300,000 people with incomes estimated at between £3,000 and £5,000, and I think it is most undesirable, for many reasons, that the Government should adopt these means to obtain this statutory information.
    The appetite grows with eating, and I am afraid if the Government once get before them tabulated the whole of the incomes of the country we shall very soon have a new development of the Super-tax. It is quite obvious, as regards the Bill we are considering, the only thing we have to think of is that the Government should get their Super-tax from every taxpayer who is liable to pay it, and to do that the machinery provided by this Bill is perfectly sufficient. If the Commissioners have reason to think that a man has returned nil when he is chargeable they can assess him, and he renders himself liable to a very heavy penalty if he fails to notify that he is liable to make payment on over
    308
    £5,000, and in every way the Government are guarded from losing any revenue. The object of this Clause, however, seems to me to be purely inquisitorial, to give trouble to the taxpayer, and to make more odious a tax which at no time is very pleasant, because the Government must not forget that the people who are coming into their net, as far as this tax is concerned, are people who have very large transactions, many of which they do not want their neighbours to know anything about. It will be exceedingly disagreeable for them to disclose every transaction as it is, but I admit that they have to do so if they have an income of over £5,000. But I do not see any reason why a man whose income is under £5,000 should return anything but nil. The Government have their own remedies, and the surveyors of Income Tax throughout the country will have a very shrewd idea of those who are liable to pay the tax, and I do not believe there will be much evasion of it. I believe those who have £5,000 a year will come like lambs to the slaughter, and offer their throats to the butcher. At all events, I can speak for myself. We shall all come and pay our quota. I have not the least objection to paying my fair share of taxation. I did not vote against the Super-tax, and I am entirely in favour of the rich man paying his fair share, but at the same time I do appeal to the Government to make it as-little unpleasant to the taxpayer as possible, and that is the object with which I move the Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The matter, which has been very easily and lightly touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, has been fully discussed in the House, and very largely considered by a Committee on which he and I have the honour to sit. If everybody were like the hon. Gentleman I do not think there would be any necessity for these very stringest provisions, but we have to legislate, not only for the good, but for the indifferent—a term which has been used as designating the other category of men in the course of these Debates. Of course, the Committee know perfectly well that by far the largest number of Income Tax-payers have now to make a return, disclosing the whole of their incomes, and we do not think it is unreasonable, in order to make it impossible to avoid the tax, to ask those who have incomes of over £5,000 per annum, and who have an ample opportunity of sending in a return, to send in a return. The hon. Gentleman said this

    309
    was an Amendment small in form but extremely important in substance, and that is quite true. It is like changing the whole meaning of a sentence by the insertion of the small word "not," and it would be to go back to the state of things before people were required to make a return under the Income Tax Act. If the Amendment were accepted it would make everybody a judge in his own cause as to whether or not he is chargeable. We do not think it is unreasonable, having regard to the whole circumstances, to ask these people who are fortunate enough, as the hon. Gentleman is, to be in a position to make the return to do so, so that they may pay what he is willing to do voluntarily upon a proper basis.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I quite agree that those who have £5,000 a year should make a return, but the point of my hon. Friend is this: Why is it necessary to make 90,000 out of 100,000 people make a complete return of their income when nothing will be taxed upon it at all? It is all very well to say that a considerable number of persons make a return now, but they do so with the view of getting something back; but the people we are now dealing with will make a return, not with the view of getting some money back, but with the result that someting will be put upon them. The man, therefore, who makes a return under these provisions is in a very different position from the man who makes a return now, and the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman is no answer at all. My hon. Friend suggested that in 90,000 out of 100,000 cases when the Commissioners apply and ask if a man has £5,000 a year the answer is certain to be that he has not got £5,000, and why a man should not be entitled to put upon his return, "I have not £5,000 a year," I cannot see. Surely it is a very fair proposal, and if you are going to carry through this Super-tax with a minimum of friction it ought to be the object of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue to grant this small concession. It is only carrying out a procedure which exists now under the Income Tax Act. It is true that everybody now gets a form sent to him which he is asked to fill up and make a return upon that portion of his income Upon which Income Tax is chargeable. He does so if he has an income on which the tax can be charged, but if he has an income on which the whole tax has been deducted it is only necessary for him to return nil. The Inland Revenue take that return now.
    310
    Why should they not take it from people with incomes approaching £5,000 a year. They are no more dishonest than people with £500.
    If you can trust people with moderate incomes to make their return nil, surely you can trust people with larger incomes to do the same thing. Then with regard to the remedy for evasion. It is all very well to say that the Inland Revenue must have some check upon these people with £5,000 a year. They have got every check under this Bill as it now is. If a man declines to give a return they can, in the first instance, fine him £50, and go on fining him three times every year, and then they can assess his income. If a man declines to give a complete return the Special Commissioners can say, if they choose, "We believe that your income is £6,000 a year, and unless you prove it is; not you will have to pay Income Tax upon that sum." That is what they do now, and is it necessary that people should make a return not only of their actual income, but of their expenditure also? No doubt the balance-sheet is the thing which these Special Commissioners want to get at. But I think it is a very unnecessary and very injudicous thing to ask so many people to make this return. It is not as if you were passing a clause in this Bill to say that it is desirable for the taxpayer to make a complete return of his income. You are not doing that at all, but you are trying to do it by a sort of side-wind in the case of people with incomes approaching £5,000 a year. I hope the Financial Secretary will give more consideration to the Amendment. It is a very fair Amendment, and if it is carried it will do away with some of the friction and inquisition which will make this tax more unpleasant than it might be otherwise.
    Mr. CAVE: The Solicitor-General referred to two precedents which he said justified this particular provision. One was the Act of 1907, but it is in that case a return of any profits in respect of which he is chargeable or might be chargeable under the Schedule. Here he is required to make a return of profits on which he is not chargeable at all, on the hypothesis, of course, that he has not over £5,000 a year. Our point is that in these oases he should be allowed to make a nil return, and say he has not an income of over £5,000 a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said the majority of the taxpayers now return the whole of their income. That is perfectly true, but they

    311
    do it for the purpose of claiming an abatement, and no one put that more strongly than the present Prime Minister two years ago, when he said:—
    "How are you to get a return from the taxpayer of all his income? Only by giving him an advantage by means of the return. Under a scheme of differentiation you will have no difficulty. It will be to the man's interest to make a declaration. But the moment you tell a man 'you are to declare your income, not for your benefit, but in order that you may be taxed at a higher rate' you find yourself confronted with a good many formidable difficulties."
    I refer to that answer of the Prime Minister as a sufficient reply to the Solicitor-General's argument. We want the taxpayer to be entitled to say that he has no income exceeding £5,000 a year. You will, of course, have to send forms to ten people for every one that you may hope to catch by means of the Super-tax. You put it on all the nine to give details of all their income instead of saying their income is so much or is under £5,000 a year. That will not make them judges in their own cause, because a man makes that return at his own risk and under very severe penalties If the Commissioners doubt it they can call for particulars under the existing statutes, or they could assess the taxpayer at £6,000, let us say, and then it is for the taxpayer to prove that they are wrong. Here, again, the Government are putting upon a number of people whom they are not going to hit by the tax the trouble and the expense of making a return which in the end will be of no use to anyone. They might permit a nil return where the taxpayer is bonâ fide satisfied that he is not liable to be taxed.
    Mr. RENWICK: I should have imagined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introducing a new proposal of a very drastic character such as this, would have endeavoured to smooth away difficulties instead of making them. The course he has adopted is calculated very strongly to make this tax most obnoxious—not only this Super-tax, but the Income Tax generally. This is equivalent to giving power to ask every Income Tax-payer to make out this return. It is an extraordinary thing that in connection with this Finance Bill a question was asked only to-day to the following effect:—
    "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether, after the passing of the Finance Bill, all Income Tax-payers will have to make a return of their income, and if the existing provisions of the Finance Bill do not necessitate these returns, will he introduce an Amendment to make them compulsory."
    The answer was:—
    "No, they will not do so."
    312
    They refused to make it compulsory that all Income Tax-payers should make this return, and the effect of not accepting the Amendment means that every taxpayer shall be called upon to make a return. If anything is calculated to make a tax obnoxious I think that is. At present if I go into my office I find returns sent in to be filled up. If I go to my private house I am also asked to make a return. Here we are to have a still further form of an utterly unnecessary kind. It would have been much better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look upon everyone as honest until he found the contrary, rather to look upon everyone as dishonest, because that is really what he is doing. The result of this return will be to set the brains of clever men at work to see how they can evade the tax, and the result will be that the revenue will suffer instead of benefiting as it might have done if he had met the taxpayers in a more reasonable way.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: There is one fact which has perhaps been overlooked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In calling upon the taxpayer, as it is quite fair that he should do, to state whether his income is below or above £5,000 a year, we called upon him to say so on the face of a form which contains at the foot of it a declaration that the above statement is true. That statement is made under the penalties attaching to perjury. The penalties for making a false declaration on a Government return are the same as on a statutory declaration, or an affidavit on oath. It appears to me that, in the first instance at all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might fairly assume that a man who is supposed to possess more than £5,000 may be believed, at all events, to the same extent as the average of other human beings who have a less income. I think we might fairly take the words subscribed in writing as truth unless there is any well-grounded suspicion for supposing it to be false. In that case the Treasury have two remedies. In the first place if he fails to make a nil return of that kind he can be mulct in a penalty of £50, not for not paying the tax, but for not making the return. That is one penalty he has to meet in the first instance if he makes a return which is wrong. The Commissioners can either surcharge him or proceed in the way described by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). Anyhow, why should we call

    313
    upon taxpayers whom we believe to be liable for the tax to give particulars at enormous expense and trouble if in the result, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits, nine out of 10 are able to prove that they are not liable. The details which a man with an income of £5,000 a year would have to give would be very great, and they would be difficult to get. Most of the tax would have been collected at the source, and he would have to ascertain from all the companies in which he had an interest particulars for the purpose of making a detailed return, subject to a penalty if he made a false return in any particular.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think any further explanation than that given by the Solicitor-General is necessary. I think the whole argument was contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, when he said that at the present moment taxpayers make a return of the whole of their income when they wish to get an abatement.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Prime Minister made a very strong speech last year or the year before in reference to the Super-tax, in which he pointed out the great difference between asking a man to make a return for the purpose of getting something back and making a return for the purpose of being charged additional taxation.
    The answer given by the Solicitor-General was really no answer to the argument of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment.
    Mr. ERNEST GARDNER: The Government ought to give us some reason for putting people to the trouble which this proposal will involve. It is ridiculous to compare this with the demand made for information in regard to income upon those who are to get something back. I think this Amendment is of far greater importance than the number of Ministers present on the Front Bench would appear to indicate. This is a provision that will cause an enormous amount of irritation and a great deal of trouble without any reason whatever. I think the Government ought to explain more fully than they have done their reason for putting on the top of the tax a provision of this kind. They are not treating the people to criticise the proposal with the consideration they ought to receive. It appears to me that they cannot defend the provision at all, and that they are simply sheltering themselves in silence and leaving the House to vote on the Amendment without any defence of their own proposal.
    Question put, "That the words 'whether he is or is not' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 694.]

    AYES.

    [8.55 p.m.

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Agnew, George William

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Alden, Percy

    Clough, William

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Gill, A. H.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Glover, Thomas

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Gnoch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cox, Harold

    Gulland, John W.

    Barker, Sir John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crossley, William J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Cullinan, J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Bell, Richard

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

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

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

    Harwood, George

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Hazleton, Richard

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Duffy, William J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Branch, James

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brigg, John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Bright, J. A.

    Elibank, Master of

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Essex, R. W.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Evans, Sir S. T.

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Findlay, Alexander

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Nicholls, George

    Steadman, W. C.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    Nuttall, Harry

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    O'Donnall, C. J. (Walworth)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lambert, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lamont, Norman

    Partington, Oswald

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Tomkinson, James

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Vivian, Henry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Radford, G. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Lupton, Arnold

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Wardle, George J.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Waring, Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Reddy, M.

    Watt, Henry A.

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Robinson, S.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Massie, J.

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Winfrey, R.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Mond, A.

    Seddon, J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Mooney, J. J.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Muldoon, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

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

    Snowden, P.

    NOES.

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, J.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. (Winchester)

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renwick, George

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cave, George

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Stanier, Beville

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    H. Seymour King and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Ferster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Oddy, John James

    Question, "That the words 'not exceeding' be there inserted,' put, and agreed to.

    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that no notice shall be served under this Sub-section unless it contains a statement in writing under the hand of the said Commissioners detailing the reasons for which they allege that the income of the person on whom such notice is served exceeds five thousand pounds, and giving the facts, if any, upon which they rely in support of such allegation."
    316
    I have put down this Amendment with the object of providing that when the Commissioners demand a return they shall give the facts on which they rely in support of their allegation that the income of the person on whom the notice is served exceeds £5,000. The object is to prevent vexatious demands on the part of Inland Revenue officials. Of course, one has nothing but praise for the way the work is generally carried out by Government officials, but still, they are only human, and

    317
    it is always possible that in the lower ranks of any Department you will find individuals who believe that officiousness is likely to lead to promotion, and I do think, in view of the heavy labour involved in preparing these returns, that there should be a certain obstacle placed in the way of the demanding of these returns from those who cannot in any way be shown to be in possession of an income like that which would render them liable. There is no doubt that very great labour would be involved in these returns. According to the evidence of Sir Henry Primrose before a Select Committee, a return made for a Super-tax would be a very different affair from the return made by traders on Form No. 11. It must be a regular balance-sheet, showing on one side the taxpayer's income of every kind and on the other side deductions for charges that he has to meet, interest, jointures, annuities, etc., which do not form part of his income. These deductions would have to be defined by law, and even with the most minute directions the filling up of a form to many people might be a matter of difficulty, and the disputed points might be numerous. Even now difficulty is experienced by many taxpayers in filling up the comparatively simple form in which people have to state the proportion of their income which is chargeable, and I think it perfectly certain that a return of such complexity as this would not be prepared by a greater number of people without expert assistance. We were told yesterday by hon. Members—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only point in the Amendment which the hon. Member wishes to move is whether the Commissioners shall have to state the reasons. So far as the Bill has gone the obligation has been imposed upon the taxpayer to make this return.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I quite understand your point, but I do think it is relevant to my Amendment to show that these returns would involve a great deal of labour and ought not to be imposed on the taxpayer unless there is considerable—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was just the argument which was used on the last Amendment. I have had very great difficulty with regard to the relevancy of this Amendment, which the hon. Member knows. At the same time I wished to give him an opportunity, if he had anything to say in regard to the specific Amendment, of saying it.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I bow to your ruling, and I do not pursue again the question of cost save to say that I do think that in a great many cases the taxpayer would have to employ an accountant, and would be put to great expense; and in view of this fact I think that these returns ought to be limited to those cases in which the Inland Revenue officials would state in writing their reasons for believing that the people making the return possessed the incomes attributed to them.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): If it were necessary for the Commissioners to give all the facts in any particular case on which they relied for the purpose of getting the Super-tax from the individuals, it would be unnecessary for them to require any returns from the taxpayers at all, because the facts would be established, and there would be no question as to those facts; and it would be quite unnecessary, therefore, to trouble the individual as to his opinion upon whether he is the person to pay the Super-tax. The whole object of serving the return is to enable the Commissioners to be sure that the person is liable to the tax. Really, it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly unnecessary, and, in all probability, would render consultation with the individual taxpayers themselves wholly superfluous. For these reasons it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think it is a rather extraordinary assumption that this return would have to contain all the facts that concern the income of the person on whom the return is served. All we mean is that facts should be stated making out a plausible case why the Income Tax-payer is suspected of having a large income—it may be from the circumstance that he lives in a large house or has got shares on the register at Somerset House, or facts of that kind, which could easily be stated by the Commissioners, and which, if they had to be stated, would ensure that the Commissioners would be rather careful as to those on whom they served these notices. We know that the Commissioners will not be able to check all the notices; that necessarily will be left to subordinates; but I do think that a request of this kind would be most salutary in obviating a large amount of labour and expense on the part of the Income Tax-payer.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman answered in a very superficial manner, his observations being directed rather to the form than the substance of the Amendment. He objected to the word "facts," but I think my hon. Friend would be perfectly satisfied if the last words were left out. As to the substance of the proposal, I do think some answer is necessary on the point that when the Commissioners serve a return of this character they should make some statement of the grounds on which they allege that the income is above £5,000 a year. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the form of the Amendment, I feel quite sure my hon. Friend would be glad to meet his views on that point. It is obvious, as the right hon. Gentleman doubtless is aware, that there are frequently local rumours as to the incomes of persons, and it may be said that they exceed £5,000 a year when in fact the persons of whom this is alleged have no hope in any shape or form of reaching anything approaching such an income. I think it is necessary that there should be some safeguard, and that individual taxpayers should be protected against making irritating and expensive returns, without any grounds whatever being shown why they should do so.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If I may, I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an instance which came within my own experience in my own locality, and it affords a very good reason why it would be undesirable to impose the obligation upon the Commissioners which the Amendment proposes. A person had been assessed for many years as being in possession of an income of something over £1,000 a year. Some reasons led the Commissioners to imagine that this was not the real income. During a series of years they had advanced the income, and it was not until the figure of something like £10,000 a year was reached that the individual objected to the assessment. He did not live under circumstances which led anybody to suppose that he possessed so great an income. The Commissioners could not have stated in the form suggested by the Amendment the circumstances which led them to think that he had a large income. There were no apparent facts which would have led anybody to suppose that he had so great an income as it was alleged he had. If it had been necessary that these facts should be stated, in the way the hon. Member desires, it could not have been done, and, therefore, following upon that, it would have been impossible for the Com-
    320
    missioners to carry out either the substance or the form of the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened with interest to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman and to the instance he has given where a man has been in business or in a profession.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg pardon, that is not so. It was the case of a private individual.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman makes his case out to the Committee. If it was the case of a private individual he is not, under the present law, required to make any return at all, excepting the fact as to whether or not his income is taxed at the source. I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that under this Bill, if it becomes law for the purpose of the Super-tax, a return will have to be made. That makes all the difference in the world. I cannot conceive how the case of a private individual is affected, because his income may have been derived either from investments or from securities. Investments and securities are taxed at the source, and where the investments are in land the individual is obliged to make a return. If he does not, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue make a return for him. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed. If the man was engaged in business, then the instance given by the right hon. Gentleman might be correct. I have myself heard of many instances of a similar kind. A man engaged in business, as the law stands now, is not obliged to make a return from his business. If he does not make a return, the Commissioners tax him on what they think to be the proper figure, and he is obliged to pay upon that. If they tax him at above what he is actually earning, then he comes forward and says, "That is wrong, and I am prepared to prove it is wrong." That is quite a different case from that arising under the Super-tax, where, for the first time in the history of this country, a man has to make a return of his total income from all sources. I venture to say that the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman does not apply in respect of this particular Amendment. By this particular Amendment a man makes a return of what his income is, and if the Commissioners do not accept it, the Amendment proposes, as I understand it, that the Commissioners shall state the reasons why they did not accept it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion is travelling beyond the real point of the Amendment. Indeed this Amendment was really settled by the previous Amendment, and it was only by a little stretch that I called upon the hon. Member. The notice is that "every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by Regulations by the Special Commissioners," etc., so that the question is whether the Commissioners shall be bound to send special notice of the grounds upon which they require the return.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, and serving notice to give reasons on those on whom they serve notice why they think they have over £5,000 per year. I venture to say that the instance given by the right hon. Gentleman is no answer at all to the Amendment, because that was a case where the man ought to make a return of his income, but refused to do so. Sir Henry Primrose, giving evidence on this question of the Super-tax, estimated that the number of persons who had incomes of more than £5,000 per year is not more than 12,000, and he said that in order to arrive at that you must send out notices to 90,000 or 100,000 persons. Unless some ground is given it would be open to the Commissioners to send notices to everybody who has apparently an income of more than £1,000 a year, or, as an hon. and learned Friend says, fishing notices, in the hope that they may rope in somebody who lives in a quiet kind of a way, and who is not supposed to have more than £1,000 per year. Therefore, I contend that this notice is going to be a subject of very great personal inconvenience to a large number of people, and that it is absolutely necessary that the Commissioners in serving these notices should show some ground for supposing that the person upon whom they serve the notice has more than £5,000 per year.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I agree that some means should be taken to prevent the Commissioners from sending out notices which would be unreasonable or a nuisance to a great number of people who evidently are not within the scope of the tax. At the same time I think there are two very serious obections to the proposal of my hon. Friend. The first is that I feel sure that the Commissioners would very soon drop into using some stereotyped forms of words. They would give the same sort of reason as, say, a bankrupt gives for his bankruptcy, by saying that he is living
    322
    beyond his means. I think the principal objection to the Amendment is that there probably is a considerable number of people whose natures are somewhat miserly, and who, although they have considerable incomes, live in a very much more quiet and humble manner than they need do. In such cases there would be great difficulty in ascertaining those people's conditions, and at the same time it will be very difficult to give a reason why the question was put to them. There are people who like to demonstrate to the world how extremely economically they can live, and those are hardly the kind to free from the burden of the tax. I do not see my way to support the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "and giving the facts, if any, upon which they rely in support of such allegations."
    I gather from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is afflicted with a neighbour who is parsimonious and fraudulent. But surely there are a number of cases of the opposite kind, and the class of person who displays a rather foolish ostentation in making people believe he is possessed of greater means than he actually has. There is a class of person who has made some money in the Colonies and who comes and lives for a year or two at home and spends his money in such a way as to lead people to suppose that his income is greater than it is. In cases like that some such proviso as that proposed seems necessary, and it would really save the Commissioners a great deal of trouble. If they saw a man who apparently had a large balance at the bank they would say to him, "Your expenditure leads us to suppose that your income comes up to the Super-tax limit." In that case he would very soon entirely remove that suspicion by showing, as he could show in private, without letting his neighbours know, that he is living on capital and designedly doing so. That will save the Commissioners a good deal of trouble, and they will not have to ask for any elaborate returns.
    I think that the real argument for this Amendment is that the Commissioners, like everybody else, ought not to act without showing a primâ facie case. In every other department of Government activity it is absolutely necessary that a primâ facie case should be shown. I do object to the Commissioners assuming, as it were, a man's guilt and forcing him to prove his innocence, assuming a man's wealth and

    323
    forcing him to prove his poverty. It is for them to put forward a primâ facie case to show that he comes within the limit. Otherwise the procedure seems analogous to that of the French Juge d'Instruction. He is able to summon a man and examine him as to whether he knows anything about any certain matter which comes within the judge's jurisdiction. The judge can use the information which he gets to the person's disadvantage, not only on the immediate merits of the case, but in other respects. That would be the case here if a great number of fishing notes are sent at random. The Commissioners will acquire a great deal of information which they will use, not merely for the purpose of the Super-tax, but for other purposes. I think it is objectionable that the Commissioners should have the power to put on a great number of His Majesty's subjects the obligation and the great labour to prove their poverty under pain of being taxed as if they were wealthy. I move to the Amendment in answer to the objections of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the form of the Amendment.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not think I need put the House to the trouble of a Division on this Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL Mr. W. R. PEEL moved to leave out Sub-section 3.
    This Sub-section contains the very harsh proposal that it shall be the duty of every person chargeable with Super-tax to give notice that he is chargeable to the Special Commissioners before 30th September, and under Sub-section (4) if he does not do this he is liable to the exceedingly heavy penalty of £50. My complaint is that the Commissioners in this case do not decide as they do in ordinary cases of Income Tax on whom they are to serve notice. In such a case the man on whom the notice is served has to make a return, and if he does not do so he is charged by the Commissioners. In this case he has to invite the tax; he is in the position of having to invite the executioner to cut off his own head. I submit that it is extraordinarily hard that a duty, reinforced by a heavy penalty, should be placed upon a man in this way. In the case of a man whose income is just over £160 a year there is no necessity for him to write to the Commis-
    324
    sioners and proclaim the fact that he is chargeable with Income Tax. The Commissioners have to find it out for themselves. There may be some persons with incomes of more than £160 a year who are escaping Income Tax at the present moment; but it has never been suggested that it was their duty to invite he Commissioners to tax them. Why then is it to be done in the case of people with over £5,000? The Government will probably refer to the evidence of Sir Henry Primrose, where he says it might be difficult for the Commissioners to find out who were chargeable with Super-tax, and that they might have to send out a much larger number of notices than the number of persons really liable. But, because there may be a difficulty of that kind, it does not follow that you should adopt this quite unprecedented course. In many cases these people may not know whether they are liable to Super-tax or not, but I suppose the penalty would fall in their case as in the other. My objection is on principle and on precedent. You are introducing a new and unfair precedent. If you are going to tax people, the least you can do is to find out for yourselves who they are, and lay the tax upon them.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not quite true that this is an entirely novel proposition. In theory—I do not press it in any way beyond that—under the Income Tax Act, 1842, Section 52, a person can already be required to make a return of his income. In practice, unquestionably—and there is no attempt to conceal the fact—this proposal is a novelty; but, merely because it is a novelty, it does not necessarily follow that it is either undesirable or wrong.
    Mr. PEEL: I do not think the Section referred to covers the case. It says, "Every person chargeable under this Act shall, when required to do so, by general or particular notice, given in pursuance of this Act…"
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: "When required by general or particular notice." That is to say, if a notice is put up, as most of these notices are, on the church door, that is held to be a notice, although it need not necessarily reach the attention of the individual concerned. But, as I say, I do not press that point. Let us come to the practical part of the operation of this Subsection. Under the last Sub-section the person was required, when he got notice, to make a full declaration of his income. As was objected on the other side—

    325
    although I think not altogether with justice—it is probable, certainly possible, that more persons may have notice served upon them than are actually liable to pay the Super-tax. After those persons, therefore, who have already made the declaration that their income is so-and-so, and that they are therefore, or are not, liable to be taxed, there will still remain a small margin of persons who will have to make a return under this Section apart from any return which they have already made. A person belonging to the latter class will send in has declaration, and, in the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, invite his fate. I confess I have not very much pity or sympathy with that small margin of persons. The man who will be liable to the Super-tax will have an income of over £5,000 a year. I do not think it is very hard that he should be required to make the declaration mentioned in the Sub-section, or if he fails to make it that he should have to submit to the subsequent penalty. He will certainly have laid a portion of his burden of taxation upon his neighbours. He will have shirked taxation which his neighbours will have to pay, and I do not think he can be regarded in any way as an object of pity.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should rather agree with the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman. I think if a man has a very large income and wilfully conceals the fact, and thereby escapes the taxation which is imposed upon him, he certainly deserves to be punished by a fine. Certainly he ought to fulfil the obligation laid upon him. But there is a great deal more than that in the case, and what the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to realise is this, that it is most probable, and must occur, that there are a large number of people who will be brought within the purview of this tax who really honestly do not believe that they get £5,000 a year. Why, we debated yesterday for a very considerable time the most complicated and difficult question of the total income of the husband and the wife. It bears clearly upon this, because under this Sub-section, and under the Sub-section which follows, the man who, when he is liable, fails voluntarily to make a return, accuses himself of being liable to a heavy fine of £50.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: He is only liable after judgment has been given in the case. Judgment will not be given to enforce a penalty where it is a case of ignorance and not of wilful disregard of the law.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the man ought to be put into that position at all. A man is asked to make a return, and there will be numerous cases, I have no doubt, where a dispute will arise in this normal way: Under the Sub-section the Commissioners will send in a claim. The man will send back his return, giving the figure at something less than £5,000. The Commissioners will question that. There must be many such cases where the return having been questioned the Commissioners' view will prevail, and the subject will find that he must pay on the assessment of over £5,000—that he will have to pay the Super-tax. Such a man as that, such a man as I have in my mind, ought not to be put under any penalty whatever, real or prospective, for not sending in a voluntary return. Such a man will be haled before the court—and here everything again is left to the Treasury and to the Commissioners.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself are both agreed, I think, as to the righteousness of getting hold of the man who has got over £5,000 a year, and the only question is in the case where a man innocently makes a mistake as to the extent of his income. That man will have to be brought before the court, but I think, in the first case, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would not take a case to court unless it was a very bad case. Supposing they were so ill-advised as to take a case to court, such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has named, I take it that it is quite certain that there will be certainly no penalty for what was clearly nothing but a mistake on his part.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am bound to say that there is much more harm in the Clause than good. I think it is highly improbable, and very unlikely, that any man with a large income of or about £5,000 a year will not receive notice from the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman agrees. If those cases are, therefore, so few as to have very little importance, what is the object of the Clause?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is only to prevent wilful concealment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then the hon. Gentleman admits that wilful concealment is improbable. Where the income is very near £5,000, it would not be a case of wilful concealment, but of real doubt. Where it is a case of real doubt, then it is obvious that the penalty should not be inflicted. Really, I think it is not necessary to insert this Clause at all. You are

    327
    going to get very little by it, but people do not like to be made liable for a penalty for what is not an offence, and what cannot be really considered to be an offence at all. It is to be at the discretion and mercy of the Commissioners whether a man is a criminal or not. Is that the proper position to put a man in?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of course, he goes before the court.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Commissioners are to hale him before the court, and he is to be treated as a criminal. Surely the powers of the present Act ought to be sufficient in this case! Why not adopt the existing procedure of the Income Tax Act of 1842? The Commissioners will still have the power to proceed without this vexatious Sub-section. If you found a glaring case, as might be done under the present Act, if a man wilfully concealed the amount of his income you could proceed against him. What do you want more than that? You only want to take the glaring cases.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not in the least wish to differ with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I agree it may be desirable to hit the particular class of persons who persistently and wilfully conceal the amount of their incomes, but that is not what this Section says, and the Section shows how very slovenly this Bill is drawn in several parts. This Section says that every person who has an income of over £5,000 a year has to give notice before 30th November. It is an absolute duty cast upon him. He has to give notice to the Commissioners, and that is a duty cast upon him quite irrespective of Subsection (2), so that after a man had notice from the Commissioners, and even literally filled it up, that would not comply with this extremely badly drawn Sub-section, because he would be held to have failed if he had not given notice before 30th September. What is the next step? There is no question of fraud or anything of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman says he wishes to hit people who are wilfully guilty of fraud, but when you come to the next Sub-section there is not a word about that in it. He has got to give notice before 30th September. It is not a question of wilfully fails or fraudulently fails, if he fails in the duty cast upon him by Subsection (3), he is committing an offence, and somebody or other has the right to take proceedings against him in the High Courts. The right hon. Gentleman tells us
    328
    the courts can exercise discretion; but the court has really no discretion. It is proved that a man has failed to give notice before 30th September, and once that is done the man becomes liable to the penalty, and the court has no discretion. The right hon. Gentleman says the penalty would not be enforced; but the court would have no jurisdiction to do otherwise than to give judgment. The Section does not say that a man is liable to a penalty not exceeding £50; it is that he is liable to a penalty of £50. We are told we might trust to the good sense and propriety of the Commissioners not to take proceedings unless it was a proper case to do so. I protest against this method of drawing Acts of Parliament. You draw thorn in such a way as to make a man liable for £50 if brought before the court by the Commissioners, and I protest against Parliament saying you may trust the Commissioners not to take such proceedings unless they are proper. Commissioners are human, like other people; at any rate, in drawing an Act of Parliament you ought not to give a power which is unnecessary, and which clearly it is not the intention of Parliament to give.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a substantial agreement, I think, between both sides as to what is the aim of a Clause like this in the Finance Bill. I think both the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken agree that a man who does wilfully conceal his income, knowing perfectly well that he has got £10,000 or £15,000 a year, ought to be subject to Sections (3) and (4). There are two or three very notorious cases which happened within the last few years. There was one case of a gentleman living in a single room on something like about £2 a week never paying a penny to the Income Tax, and paying very little to the general taxes, for he was a teetotaler, and never smoked, but when he died it was discovered he was worth millions. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU could not enforce the penalty then."] No; but at all events we got something out of the estate. Such a person would always run a risk that one day he would be discovered, and would have to pay £50 in respect of every day of the offence. I think hon. Members will agree with me that that is a case in which you ought to have a Section of this kind. It is not the only case. There have been several cases of the kind. There are many persons who are pretty well known as having over £5,000 or having somewhere about that, and the Committee may depend upon it that in these cases notices will be served.

    329
    Take the owners of real property. Notice will be served upon some of them, because it is known they are landowners, and have over £5,000 a year. Take a man who has rather a large business; he is pretty well known. He may be a large shipowner or trader. The Inland Revenue Commissioners will serve him. There are cases of that kind. Last year the Inland Revenue Commissioners found an estate of two or three millions which was brought to their notice. They had never heard of it before, but the owner must have been in receipt of £50,000 or £100,000 a year. I quite agree that there will be cases where a man is in doubt. Suppose he is under the impression the whole time that he is not subject to the Super-tax and it is discovered by some legal interpretation or other that his wife had more money than he ever thought she possessed. It would be very hard that that man should be taken before the magistrate, even if the case was dismissed. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I notice that some of my Super-tax Friends behind me rather acclaim that sentence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury said you must depend to a certain extent upon the discretion of the court; they would not fine in a case of that kind. Nor would they. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said there is nothing in the Section to give them power to dismiss a case. He said that if a man failed to make his return before 30th September the court have got to fine him. I should be very willing to agree to any words that would safeguard a case of that kind. The words I suggest would come into the next subsection, which is the operative one. We might say "if any person without just excuse," or any words of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without reasonable excuse."] Very well, "if any person without reasonable excuse fails." I think that really meets the case. The case I refer to is that of a man who deliberately withholds from the Inland Revenue officials a very large portion of the necessary information. There is a legitimate desire to safeguard the case of a man who has withheld information because he was under the impression that he was not liable to the tax at all. I should be quite willing to accept the words "without reasonable excuse."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept also the words "not exceeding £50"?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would not object to those words. Sub-section (4) would then read, "If any person without reasonable excuse fails to make any return," and the latter part of the Sub-section would read, "Penalty not exceeding £50 for every day during which the failure continues."
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I would like to know how you are going to put these obligations into operation. The Finance Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to my hon. Friend, spoke about the placing of notices on church doors. May I point out that this Sub-section is to be put in force by the mere passing of this Act, and there is no question whatever of any notice or of bringing the matter in any way to the knowledge of the public. It must be remembered that we have to deal with ordinary people who are not accustomed to reading Acts of Parliament. You can hardly throw an obligation of this kind upon the public, accompanied with a penalty like this, without making sure that the public has had a reasonble chance of knowing precisely what obligations have been thrown upon them. The concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would presumably cover the case where a man had shown on oath that he did not know of these obligations. I wish to point out that the obligations imposed by this Subsection come into operation immediately the Act is passed, without any notice being given.
    Mr. RENWICK: I am pleased to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises by his concession that we have some reason on our side. His speech, however, was confined mainly to the penal Clause. I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the effect of this Clause. You have already got power for the Special Commissioner to assess an individual. When he considers that he is liable to the Super-tax there is power to send to that individual a return which he has got to fill in. Sub-section (3) provides that "It shall be the duty of every person chargeable with the Super-tax to give notice that he is chargeable to the Special Commissioners before the 30th day of September in the year for which the Super-tax is chargeable." I maintain, at any rate for the next two or three years, until this arrangement gets into working order, you are asking people to do something which is absolutely impossible for them to do. The income of

    331
    a man may fluctuate from day to day and from month to month, and he cannot immediately say whether he is liable to the Super-tax or not.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I invite the hon. Member to bear in mind the promise I made to insert certain words just now and read this Sub-section with those words inserted. In a case of the kind the hon. Member mentions, where it was impossible to give the information, it would be "a reasonable excuse."
    Mr. RENWICK: That is an additional reason why we should leave out this Subsection, because it is absolutely unworkable. You have ample power in the previous Sub-sections, and you have your penal Clause, and why not leave out this Sub-section altogether. You are putting the trading classes in a very difficult position. I cannot imagine why the right hon. hon. Gentleman does not try to get the commercial trading clases upon his side. The more you irritate them the less sympathy they will have for you. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to leave out this Sub-section altogether. I quite recognise that there is very little left to fight for now, and I cannot see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects to the leaving out of these words.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman says that the words "without reasonable excuse" would cover the case of a man who is ignorant of the Act. There is a well-known maxim that ignorance of the law is not any excuse at all. It is absurd to expect everybody in the country who is liable to the Super-tax to read this Act of Parliament. In addition to these heavy penalties, are people to be expected to wade through every Act of Parliament that is passed? It is very objectionable to create these offences and not give those concerned due notice. How is the man in the country who does not read these Acts of Parliament to know who he has to notify? He does not know where the General Commissioners or the Special Commissioners are to be found, and how is he to find out? I have been making inquiries upon this point myself. I want to know whether I have to write to Dublin or to London in regard to a house which I happen to have. It is very difficult to find these things out. If a person does not know the address of the Special Commissioners, will that be
    332
    "a reasonable excuse," and will it prevent him from being prosecuted! When we have got to choose between a possible loss to the revenue, and a very great injustice to individuals, I think we ought to see that it is the revenue, and not the individual who suffers.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would meet the main facts of the case, because, after all, it is the penalty which is the point. If you impose an obligation, legal or otherwise, it is valueless without a penalty; but I do think there is a point raised by my hon. and learned Friend as to the drafting of this Sub-section, and I hope between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to it. I do not think we need waste our time on it now, and, if the right hon. Gentleman would insert the words he suggests, I think my hon. Friend would be content.
    Mr. PEEL: As my hon. Friend is anxious I should withdraw, I would be quite willing to do so. I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an alteration with regard to the penalty, but my main objection was on the ground of principle. You ought to tax the man yourself, and not ask a man himself to invite taxation. If we have got something by this protest it is perhaps better to accept that, and drop the other point.
    Mr. RIDSDALE: I have an Amendment upon the Paper, but I quite agree that the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to move will practically remove the ground of my objection. There is one point which has not been named, and that is the penalty for making a false return is less than that for not disclosing the fact that one's income is over £5,000. I think the giving of a false return is an act much more deserving of punishment. The declaration in one case is that the Commissioners may make an assessment of the Super-tax to the best of their ability, whereas the man who has failed to give notice as required is to be liable to be hailed before the Justices and fined £50.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (3) to insert the words: "Provided that for the purpose of this provision the thirty-first day of December shall, as respects the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be substituted for the thirtieth day of September."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Sub-section (4), after the word "person" ["If any person"], to insert the words "without reasonable excuse."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "of" ["penalty of £50"] and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was about to move that myself.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I admit the reasonableness of the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, but would it not be possible to say that none of these proceedings should be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General, so as to safeguard anybody who forgets to make the return being proceeded against? Even a Cabinet Minister might forget to make the return before September 30th.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not care to promise to consider anything unless I can see some reasonable hope that I may be able to do something. I do not think this is a case for the Attorney-General to intervene. The Attorney-General never intervenes in these revenue matters now.
    Question, "That the word 'of' stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "and after judgment has been given for that penalty to a further penalty of fifty pounds for every day during which the failure continues."
    This Amendment deals with penalties which the Act imposes on those who fail to make a return. I hope it will commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are three penalties imposed upon those who fail to make a return or give the proper notice required by this Act. The first penalty is one of £50, the second penalty is £50 for every day during which the failure continues after judgment has been given, and, if Sub-section (4) of the Clause is read in conjunction with Subsections (5) and (6), it will be found that, in the case of a person who fails to deliver a return under this Section, the Commissioners are authorised to make an assessment; and they are by Sub-section (6) given all the general powers and procedure with reference to assessments made by the Special Commissioners. That briefly means
    334
    the Special Commissioners can assess treble the amount of the tax in cases where a person has failed to make a return, or has not made a proper return. The penalty, therefore, is really duplicated. Instead of it only amounting to £50 and £50 for every day during which the failure continues, it is that plus a treble charge for the tax if the Commissioners choose to make that treble charge. This is a case of duplication which, possibly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has overlooked. It is quite likely there may be cases where it will inflict very great hardship upon people who in the course of their ordinary occupation forget to make this return. They might be liable to much greater penalties than the Act ever contemplated. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter and alter the Clause in such a way that there will be no duplication.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Inasmuch as I have intimated my willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) to insert the words "not exceeding" £50, I think that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Under those circumstances I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (in the absence of Mr. Stewart Bowles)Mr. JAMES HOPE (in the absence of Mr. Stewart Bowles) moved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "judgment" ["and after judgment"], to insert the words "or the decision on appeal from such judgment of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, whichever shall be last."
    There may be some legal question involved of which I am not apprised, but it certainly does look as if the penalty would run on from the date when judgment was given in the High Court until the appeal was heard, and if it were unsuccessful the taxpayer would be liable for £50 for every day after that on which the judgment was given. I do not think that can be the real intention of the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see that I can accept this Amendment, as it would be an inducement to appeal. It will be for the court to decide whether the operation of the fine shall be suspended until they have given judgment. I do not think this Amendment at all necessary.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does not the word "judgment" mean "final judgment"?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If that were so we should be introducing an element of considerable uncertainty. But if it does imply "final judgment," then, of course, this Amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: But "final judgment" means judgment in the Court of First Instance unless execution is stayed.
    Mr. RUFUS ISAACS: The court is to fix the penalty, and I gather from the words of the right hon. Gentleman that the penalty is not to exceed £50, although the Court is to decree what further penalty the defendant shall be liable to if he does not comply with the judgment within so many days.
    Mr. HELME: An appeal against an assessment made for the Super-tax by the Special Commissioners will go to the Special Commissioners, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make an arrangement by which Special Commissioners other than those who first dealt with the case should hear the appeal? I think it would be satisfactory to the public that the same man should not hear the appeal and deal in the second instance with the assessment he made in the first.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The judgment is to be for £50 and then for £50 a day. If an appeal was entered, and it took some time, and it was ultimately dismissed, will the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, whichever it is, have power to remit further penalties, because otherwise every day between the day of the judgment of the High Court and that of the appeal tribunal would add to the penalty? That, as far as I can read, is the effect which these words will have. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an undertaking that if this Clause is interpreted in this sense the matter will be set right on Report, I shall be satisfied, but otherwise it becomes a serious matter, because although the appeal may have been dismissed, there may have been reasonable grounds for it, and it is unreasonable that a man shall be liable for a penalty for every day between the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a very strong point. The Statute will impose a penalty from the date the judgment, that is any judgment, is passed, and if the
    336
    appeal is dismissed, then under the Bill the man is liable from the original date of the judgment to the penalty.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think really the question ought to be left to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Although they do not take the view taken by the appellant, still they may think it is a reasonable case for an appeal. I will consider the point, but I had rather not give a final view upon it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: But I take it that if there is reasonable grounds for appeal, and the Court of Appeal so decide, there will not be any addition. I will withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the matter.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE assented.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "fifty pounds" ["a further penalty of fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "a like amount."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Sir H. KIMBER Sir H. KIMBER moved, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words, "Provided that no penalty shall be recoverable hereunder unless fourteen days' notice in writing of intention to take proceedings for such penalty shall first have been given to such person by the Solicitor for Inland Revenue, and no return shall have been made before such proceedings are actually commenced."
    There are hundreds of cases in which a man might have had no notice, and may have failed to receive it by accident from one cause or another, and it seems to me that if a man is to be prosecuted for a penalty under this Clause he ought at all events to have notice of it, and at least 14 days' locus pœnitentiœ to make his return.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As a matter of fact, the Solicitor of Inland Revenue always does give this notice, and the Amendment is unnecessary. The last part of the proviso really nullifies Sub-section (3). I am sure that is not the hon. Baronet's intention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. KIMBER Sir H. KIMBER moved, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert "or in England in the county court of the district in which such person resides, provided that where proceedings are taken in England in the High Court and a sum not exceed-

    337
    ing the sum of one hundred pounds is recovered therein, the Crown shall not be entitled to any more costs than a plaintiff in an ordinary action founded on contract and recovering the same sum would have been entitled to."
    It seems to me manifest justice that the Inland Revenue Commissioners should not be entitled to drag a suitor before the High Court and incur expensive proceedings when the lower court is available. If the sum recoverable is within their jurisdiction, the taxpayer ought not to be mulct on a larger scale than would be incurred as between ordinary suitors.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: This Amendment would be a very reasonable one if we were dealing with the case of persons who were in poor circumstances; but, in this case, we are dealing with persons with over £5,000 a year, and I do not think the safeguard proposed is really necessary.
    Mr. RENWICK: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the evening to state that the Attorney-General no longer took part in Revenue prosecutions. If he could assure us that such is the case, it would get over the objection that we have, but I understand that the Atorney-General in cases of this description is entitled to a brief which carries with it a considerable fee, and the unfortunate person who has already been fined, probably with an extra penalty for every day he is in default, will be saddled with the heavy expenses of the Attorney-General. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could assure us upon that point, it might get over the difficulty which we are in at present. The point I wish to make clear is whether it is a fact that at the present time the Attorney-General does not take any part in prosecutions with regard to revenue.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said in answer to the hon. Member opposite that in order to institute a prosecution it is not necessary to get the sanction of the Law Officers. The Inland Revenue take these prosecutions generally on their own initiative. In a case of great importance I can understand that they might wish to have the opinion of the Law Officer where there was some question of principle involved. I should have thought that it was a safeguard for the taxpayer that he should have his case tried in the High Court rather than the county court. I should have thought that he would have chosen to have the matter dealt with in the highest court of the land rather than by a court in the district in which he happens to reside.
    Mr. RENWICK: Whatever may be the case in Wales, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we in England have the utmost confidence in the county court judges. In this case the penalty would not exceed £100, and, therefore, I think it might well be dealt with by the county court. That would save heavy costs, and also the fee of the Attorney-General as to which the Solicitor-General seems to be in absolute ignorance.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I do not see any reason why a rich man should not have the same avenues of justice open to him as a poor man. Why should he be put to unnecessary expense in the High Court when a lower court, where the expense is less, has been provided for the determination of these very questions? It seems to me that the same courts of justice ought to be available for all.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I would suggest that it should be competent to institute a prosecution in the county court, and that the accused person should have the option of moving that the trial should take place in the High Court.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider that point.
    Mr. RENWICK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "deliver" ["If any person fails to deliver a return"], and to insert instead thereof the word "make."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "or to give any notice required by this Section."
    The effect of the Sub-section as it stands is that if a man fails to make a return, or if he fails to give notice, he may be assessed. I think it is quite right that if he fails to make a return when called upon he should be assessed, but if he merely fails to give notice it appears to me that before an assessment is made the Commissioners should give him notice in order that he may have a chance of making his own return first. Then if he fails to do that the Commissioners should make an assessment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I point out that now these words are really quite unnecessary, because Sub-section (5) does not impose any additional penal-

    339
    ties. It merely gives the Commissioners power to make an assessment of their own, so that these words do not apply at all. This is plain if we follow the procedure. A person fails to give the notice required by Sub-section (3), and therefore renders himself liable to penalties which the Committee have passed. All the Commissioners have got to do is to sent out a notice in the ordinary way, and if he then fails to deliver the return, obviously their duty, under the 5th Sub-section, will be to make the assessment themselves.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It really does not matter. It involves the notice, and therefore I do not think it worth taking up the time of the Committee with it, and I will accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL Mr. EVELYN CECIL moved to add at the end of Sub-section (5) the words: "Provided that every assessment made under this Sub-section, and every notice thereof, shall contain a statement in writing under the hand of the said Commissioners detailing the reasons for which they allege that the income of the person assessed is the sum mentioned in the assessment, and giving the facts, if any, upon which they rely in support of such allegation."
    I think that this is a rational Amendment. It is only fair that if the Commissioners assess an income at a particular figure they should be called upon to show some primâ facie grounds why they fixed on that particular figure. If we do not admit some arrangement of this kind I cannot help thinking that the situation develops really into one of tyranny, because the Commissioners have got absolute power. There is no appeal from them. They may come to any man and say, "your increase is over £5,000," and they may have no ground whatever for it. A man may be living on his capital, and they simply—
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Waiter Guinness) moved an Amendment providing that no notice be served unless it contains a statement of the reasons for which the Commissioners allege that the income exceeds £5,000. If that is the case it is practically the same point.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The two occasions are entirely different. In the one case it is merely a matter of giving a notice, but this is a case of actual assessment of income on which the tax is chargeable.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a different point.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Here the Commissioners are actually fixing the amount at a special figure, which they allege to be the sum which the income stands at. I think they ought to be made to show some primâ facie grounds why that should be. I do not think, in all common fairness, that it is right that any body of men, however impartial, should be able to go to an individual and say he has to prove that his income is less than the figure they said, while there is no appeal of any kind from their decision. If the Commissioners think that the person has an income in excess of £5,000, I think they ought to show some reason for their allegation. A man may be living on his capital, or in a luxurious manner which his income does not justify; but I do not think that should be a ground why the Commissioners should come down upon him to show what his income really is unless they have some primâ facie reason for bringing him to book. I should very much desire, if they are to have these absolute powers without appeal, that they should be compelled by statute to give some sort of reason why they think a man's income is as much as they say, and then leave him to prove that it is not. I do not think they ought to be allowed to come down upon a man without stating any reason. That savours far too much of tyranny.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This is a small point, and I think the request is quite an unreasonable one. The hon. Member will see there are two cases involved. The first is where there is no return at all made and the ether is where there is a failure on the part of the person to make a return. The Section says, "If any person fails to make any return or to give any notice required by this Section, he shall be liable to a penalty of £50, and after judgment," etc. Yet the Commissioners by this Amendment are asked to detail their reasons. There is no precedent at all for the proposal.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite admit that these particular words in themselves would have very little effect unless there was some court or body or superior authority

    341
    who could judge the reasons of the Commissioners, and see whether they were good or not. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the Commissioners under this Section should make assessments off their own bat without any appeal against their decision? I am quite sure he does not intend that. We have already imposed a penalty on any person who fails to make a proper return. I am quite sure that it cannot be the intention of the Government to place in the hands of the Crown and of the Commissioners the power of imposing any tax whatever, to an unlimited amount, upon subjects of the Crown without any appeal and with no reasons whatever. Surely that is an impossible situation which the right hon. Gentleman could not intend.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would be out of order to discuss the question of appeal now, but I am quite willing, by the leave of the Committee, to say a word in reference to it. I agree there ought to be some provision as to appeal, and an arrangement will have to be made that a special court of appeal should sit in these cases.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A court of law?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, not to a court of law on a question of amount. At the present moment there is an appeal from the District Commissioner to the Special Commissioner, but in this case we ought to have a special appeal to a special Court of Commissioners. That is the arrangement we propose to make in reference to this matter. I cannot invite
    discussion on that now, and any observation of mine on it is out of order.
    Sir E. CARSON: When will we see the Amendment setting up the Court of Commissioners?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think any amendment is necessary at all. Arrangements have already been made with regard to that.
    Sir E. CARSON: Surely in a matter of this kind what guarantee will there be that there would be an appeal, or that a special tribunal will be set up unless it is in the Act of Parliament. Suppose the subject were told he had been assessed at so much, and that he must rest content with that?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are not satisfied—I am not criticising—but if they are not satisfied with the undertaking of the Inland Revenue, I would be quite willing to put in provisions of the kind. I cannot do that at this stage. I would have to go back, and shall, therefore do it on Report stage.
    Mr. CAVE: It is an appeal from Commissioners A to Commissioners B that is. I think, proposed, but what we want is an appeal to some impartial tribunal.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order in discussing that question now.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 695.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

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

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

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, J. S.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gardner, Ernest

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, J.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gretton John

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Bowles, G. Stewart

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

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Carille, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Keswick, William

    Renton, Leslie

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Renwick, George

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Du Cros, Arthur

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Stanier, Beville

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Starkey, John R.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Leverton Harris.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

    NOES.

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

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glover, Thomas

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Agnew, George William

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Parker, James Halifax)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Partington, Oswald

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barker, Sir John

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barnes, G. N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Radford, G. H.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bell, Richard

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Reddy, M.

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bennett, E. N.

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Branch, James

    Hooper, A. G.

    Robinson, S.

    Brigg, John

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bright, J. A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rowlands, J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jackson, R. S.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Syndey Charles

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jowett, F. W.

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Joyce, Michael

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Seddon, J.

    Clough, William

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Seely, Colonel

    Clynes, J. R.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Lambert, George

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Steadman, W. C.

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

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cowan, W. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Summerbell, T.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tomkinson, James

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Verney, F. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Vivian, Henry

    Duckworth, Sir James

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Wardle, George J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Waring, Walter

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Elibank, Master of

    Maddison, Frederick

    Watt, Henry A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Essex, R. W.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Massie, J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Falconer, J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Mond, A.

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

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Montgomery, H. G.

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

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Muldoon, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fullerton, Hugh

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gibson, J. P.

    Myer, Horatio

    Gill, A. H.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nicholls, George

    Mr. HICKS BEACH (for Sir Seymour King)Mr. HICKS BEACH (for Sir Seymour King) moved, to add at the end of Subsection (5), the words "Provided that no assessment shall be made hereunder where proceedings for a penalty have been commenced under Sub-section four hereof." For not complying with the Sub-section as to making a return a man is liable to a penalty of £50; and, secondly, to punitive fines of £50 for every day that he fails to make his return. Under Sub-section (5) and Subsection (6) the Super-tax Commissioners are given powers to make an assessment if needed. A man may be liable to these cumulative penalties of £50 and to treble the amount of the duty for which lie is liable. In the general law with regard to Income Tax that is not the case. A man cannot be liable to treble the amount of the duty while he is being sued in the High Courts. All I ask in this Amendment is that a man shall not be subject to treble the duty, while at the same time being sued in the courts.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think the hon. Member can really mean to do what this Amendment says, and I am not surprised that the hon. Baronet in whose name it stands (Sir Seymour King) is not here to move it. A penalty is imposed upon a person who wilfully neglects a duty imposed upon him by the State. He is obliged to make a return, and if he fails he is liable to a penalty. Nevertheless, the hon. Member wants to provide that although a man fails in his duty, and thereby incurs a penalty, the Commissioners should be prevented from imposing it.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I want to prevent the Commissioners making a treble assessment upon the property in addition to bringing the man before the High Court.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is not what the Amendment says.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words "the general powers and procedure with reference to assessments made by the Special Commissioners," and to insert instead thereof the words "provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to persons who are to be chargeable with duty, assessments."
    This and the two following Amendments are necessary in order to give to the Commissioners powers already possessed by the Income Tax Commissioners; they confer no new powers.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (6), to leave out the word "to" ["and to appeals"].
    In Sub-section (6), to leave out the words "assessments by the Special Commissioners" ["assessments by the Special Commissioners under this Section"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the charge, assessment, collection, and recovery of duty."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words "and the Special Commissioners shall, for the purpose of assessment, have any powers of an inspector or surveyor of taxes, and for the purpose of the representation of the Crown on any appeal before the Special Commissioners, any person nominated in that behalf by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall have the same powers at and upon the determination of the appeal as a surveyor of taxes has at and upon the determination of any appeal under the Income Tax Acts."
    Sir E. CARSON: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it proper that these gentlemen should have the powers of inspectors and surveyors of taxes? It seems to me an extraordinary thing that they should have that power. Surely they have their own duties to do.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The words have that appearance, but it really is not the case. It is necessary to insert these words in order to enable them to make the assessment.
    Sir E. CARSON: When the surveyor makes the assessment it goes to the General Commissioners. You are now going to make the Special Commissioners detectors in the cases they are to decide. I shall certainly divide against this Amendment.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 85.

    Division No. 696.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barker, Sir John

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

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Agnew, George William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Partington, Oswald

    Bell, Richard

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bottomley, Horatio

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Branch, James

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Brigg, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Bright, J. A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Reddy, M.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Byles, William Pollard

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

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

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Clough, William

    Jonnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Robinson, S.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cobbold, Felix Thernley

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rowlands, J.

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

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cooper, G. J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S

    Lamont, Norman

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Seddon, J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Seely, Colonel

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Crossley, William J.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Steadman, W. C.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Lynch, H. B.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Summerbell, T.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Erskine, David C.

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

    Verney, F. W.

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Vivian, Henry

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Mallett, Charles E.

    Waring, Walter

    Falconer, J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Massie, J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Middlebrook, William

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mond, A.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Gibson, J. P.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gill, A. H.

    Muldoon, John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Glover, Thomas

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Nicholls, George

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cave, George

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fell, Arthur

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Forster, Henry William

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gordon, J.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gretton, John

    Bull, Sir William James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    348

    349

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Stanier, Beville

    Hills, J. W.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Starkey, John R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Keswick, William

    Pretyman, E. G.

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Wintorton, Earl

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

    Renton, Leslie

    Younger, George

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Renwick, George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved at the end of Subsection (6) to add the words:—"Provided that any person charged by an assessment to Super-tax who shall think himself aggrieved by any determination of an appeal by the Special Commissioners shall be entitled, on giving notice in writing within ten days from such determination, to have the appeal reheard both on law and fact by the county court judge or the stipendiary magistrate, if any, of the district in which such person shall reside, and such judge or stipendiary magistrate shall have and exercise all the powers of the Special Commissioners in relation to the assessment appealed against and the determination thereof, and his decision on questions of fact shall be final and conclusive."
    This gives an appeal against the decision of the Commissioners. I have adopted for the form the Irish precedent, with the alternative of appeal either to the county court judge or to the stipendiary magistrate. I am not wedded to either. I do not care in what form the appeal is given provided there is some appeal to an independent court. We have been told of some arrangement by which the appeal is from one Commissioner to another. What is proposed is this. The assessment for Super-tax is to be made by a salaried officer—a member of the Board of Inland Revenue, who is appointed as a Special Commissioner, and if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the assessment he is to appeal not to some independent body, but to other members of the same Board of Special Commissioners. It will probably happen that if the first Commissioner goes on wrong lines his colleagues on the Board of special Commissioners will follow on the same lines; they will not deal with it on fresh lines. In one case it will be an appeal from C to A and B, and then in the next an appeal from A to B and C. It is conceded that there
    350
    must be an appeal, and what I press for is an effective one. In the first part of this Bill the question of an appeal was also raised from this side of the House, and one was ultimately given to Referees. Originally the Referees were to be appointed by the Government, but ultimately they were to be appointed by an independent authority, which was to consist of judges, and so on. Why should we not have in this case also a similar appeal? If you do not like a court then there could be an appeal to Referees appointed by an independent authority. I am quite certain that sooner or later this point must be conceded, and I am certain there will be some kind of arrangement under which another tribunal will be given in subsititution for the appeal from one Commissioner to another. I am not wedded to the county court appeal, but I want some kind of judicial tribunal set up, I do not care what it is. Art, all events, there must be an appeal, not to Government officials but to some independent tribunal.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Two matters are raised by this Amendment. The first deals with an appeal on questions of law, and the other with an appeal on questions of fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that sooner or later we must concede an appeal, apparently according to him on both these matters, but we do not agree at all, and I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would really argue—indeed, he has abstained from arguing that there ought to be an appeal from these special Commissioners on questions of fact to the county court judge or any other court of law with regard to whether the Super-tax is chargeable, and whether the income was £5,000. As the Bill now stands, there is an appeal on questions of law, and that, I think, is sufficient. There is no appeal on questions of fact, and I do not think the proposal in his Amendment is better than that in the Bill, namely, that it should be

    351
    decided by the Commissioners themselves. He has said once more, what has been said over and over again, that there must be an appeal from these gentlemen as they are in some sense judges in their own cause, but they are not so in any sense. No doubt they are officials, but I fail to understand how they can be said to be interested or how they can be said to be judges in their own cause. A judge in his own cause, as we generally understand it, is a man who may benefit by the decisions he may give. That is not the position they occupy at all, as long as we have to deal with questions of law. You cannot possibly have an appeal on questions of fact from these Commissioners.
    Sir E. CARSON: I look upon this as a most tyrannical section. The Solicitor-General says these Commissioners will not be judges in their own case. I say they will. Would the Solicitor-General deny that the Surveyor of Taxes at present is interested in the case? He is the man who acts as a detective, getting evidence in regard to the matter, and having done so, he makes an assessment which is brought before the General Commissioners, and the Surveyor of Taxes appears on one side and the subject appears on the other. In this case the Special Commissioner is himself the Surveyor of Taxes. He makes the assessment. Having got evidence to his own satisfaction he then places it before himself, argues it to his own satisfaction, and decades it in accordance with the evidence that he himself has procured. I call that being judges in their own case, and it is idle and ridiculous to tell us that is a proper tribunal to set lip from which there is to be no appeal. I cannot understand the difficulty we have had with the Government in trying to prevent the whole of these assessments being kept entirely in the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess them just as the officer pleases. It is really a very serious thing to make a new departure, and unless you have an appeal you really have nothing more nor less than these Commissioners, who will say, "We are satisfied that the income ought to be so and so, and it must be so And so whether it is or not." That is absolutely unfair. It is at variance with the whole idea of the assessment of Income Tax as we have always understood it in this country, and this is about the most tyrannical clause which has been put into the Bill.
    Mr. HELME: The fact that the assessment of the Super-tax is left in the hands of a Special Commissioner has given general satisfaction. The assessment of Super-tax is not exactly on the lines of the assessment for the ordinary payment of Income Tax, but rather the aggregation of the total that a man may enjoy whose income is beyond £5,000 from all sources. Therefore I think if the offer that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to divide the Special Commissioners and allow a second set of Commissioners to be appointed as Appeal Commissioners, is accepted, the public will be well satisfied that the arrangement will be carried out entirely honestly and without difficulty in the working of this important scheme.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: There seems some doubt as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did adumbrate on the former Amendment. It was out of order for him then exactly to explain, but I understood that he did admit an appeal and said it would be to a Special Board. I did not understand that the Special Board should merely consist of the same Commissioners as the others, but that it should be in some way specially constituted. I did not understand exactly how it was to be constituted. It is of the utmost importance for us to know how it is to be constituted. I think the Government have fairly met us in regard to other points in regard to appeals, but in this particular case they have not done so. I do think that we ought to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to set up this Board of Appeal. I understood him to say that he would bring in words which would make it perfectly clear, but as this Amendment raises the issue I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state now what is to be the constitution of the board to which he is already committed.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I share the view that the appointment of the board should be in accordance with some statutory form provided for in the Bill itself. I am not prepared to submit any words at the present moment, but I will undertake to put words on the Paper which will give the House full opportunity for discussing the matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The question is whether these Commissioners, to whom there is to be an appeal, are to be independent of the Government of the day. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see

    353
    what is to become of the liberty of the subject unless they are independent. This, in my opinion, is really in principle one of the most serious matters introduced in relation to this Bill. It may not be so if the right hon. Gentleman gives us the answer we desire. If the appeal is to be to an independent body of Commissioners or Referees, whose appointment is independent of the Government of the day, there will be some safeguard, but unless they are absolutely independent it must be obvious that the Government of the day will have the power of assessing any tax they choose on a subject of the Crown without appeal. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure us that in the provision he proposes to insert he will make it absolutely clear that the Commissioners or Referees will be absolutely independent, and that they will not hold their appointment subject to the Government of the day?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member opposite has exaggerated the point. What happens at the present moment? If any party is dissatisfied with the assessment, he may appeal to those very Commissioners, and there is absolutely no appeal from them. Their decision is final, except on a question of law. They are the same Commissioners, and they are appointed in the same way exactly. If a man has an income of £20,000, he can be assessed by these Commissioners at 1s. 2d. in the £. That does not interfere with the liberty of the subject, but the moment you charge the Super-tax of 6d. on £17,000 then at once, according to the hon. Member, it is an interference with the liberty of the subject. I think we have really met the Opposition as far as we possibly can in this matter. The position taken up by the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly ridiculous. It is absurd to say that if a man in the position of Lord Rothschild wished to appeal against the assessment, he should go before Mr. Plowden or the magistrate at Bow Street. That is really not an appeal on a question of this kind. You cannot ask men in these positions to go to a police-court to get their incomes reviewed. These questions are infinitely better settled by these trained men who are really independent.
    Anyone who thinks that the position of these civil servants is that they can be dismissed on a month's notice really knows nothing about the Civil Service. There is no more independent body of men as far
    354
    as the Executive is concerned. No Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Prime Minister ever interferes with these Commissioners. Anybody who knows anything about the working of the Treasury knows perfectly well that they never interfere in any individual case, whether of Death Duties or any other branch of the revenue, and never even know what is going on, and if there were any attempt to find out there is nobody who would resent it more than the officials of the Inland Revenue. It is quite true that where the special Commissioners assess now there is no appeal at all. We say that in future we are prepared to make an arrangement whereby there can be an appeal exactly as there is from judges now, an appeal from one judge to five judges of the same rank. There are cases now of that kind, of judges in the same rank, sitting in judgment on the decision given by one judge. The same sort of arrangement will be made by the Special Commissioners. I cannot conceive a better tribunal. They are experienced, trained, high-minded and impartial, and I do not think that the subject need fear.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not think it would be easy in the course of a short speech to give a more inadequate impression of the law as it stands at the present time than the right hon. Gentleman has done. The right hon. Gentleman says that at present there is an appeal to Special Commissioners, and there is no apeal from them on questions of fact. As a matter of fact there is no appeal to the Special Commissioners, but an option to be assessed either by the Special Commissioners or by an independent body of General Commissioners. I think the view which the public take may be guessed from the fact that less than 1 per cent. of the cases go to the Special Commissioners. That is so for the very reason that people know that the Special Commissioners are Government officials, against whom I say nothing, except that Government officials, whether they like it or not, and whether they know it or not, charged with the assessment and collection of taxes, must have a bias in favour of putting the assessment up. I am astonished that the Liberal Party of all bodies in the world should be ready apparently to commit themselves in finance wholly to the control of a set of Government officials. It is not my idea of the old Liberal Party. As things are now the assessment is made by an independent

    355
    tribunal—that is, the general body of Commissioners. It is only if the subject likes that it goes to these Special Commissioners, and in less than 1 per cent. of the cases is that course taken, and for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has given, that there is no appeal from them on the question of fact. If a man is going to be assessed for taxes he ought not to be subject to the uncontrolled discretion of Government officers, however high placed, high minded, or desirous of doing their duty. It has been admitted in Debate on the earlier Clauses that he ought to have recourse to, at all events, somebody outside Government influence. I tried earlier in the night to give the option to go to the General Commissioners. That was not conceded. The decision of the Committee was that the assessment must go to those Government officials. I say there ought to be an appeal from them of some kind on questions of fact. I do not care at all about the form of the appeal provided that appeal is given to some independent body.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It seems to be assumed that to say of the Inland Revenue officials they are zealous in the collection of the Revenue is some kind of reproach to them. It is exactly the contrary. It is a matter of praise. No doubt the Treasury and future Chancellors of the Exchequer will all expect them to be zealous. What the Opposition complain of is that the Government are about to produce a state of things under which the amour propre and the esprit de corps of the Civil Service are going to be so twisted and distorted as to be a mischief to the taxpayer and an invasion of the liberty of the subject. That is only one of many results that follow from this hopelessly illogical and absurd attempt to confine executive and judicial duties in this way, and to suppose that no mischievous results will follow therefrom.
    Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 208.

    Division No. 697.]

    AYES.

    [11.45 p.m.

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Renton, Leslie

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Renwick, George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hills, J. W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hunt, Rowland

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

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Starkey, John R.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, William

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

    Clive, Percy Archer

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Winterton, Earl

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, George

    Fell, Arthur

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. George Faber.

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barker, Sir John

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Atkins, W. Ryland D.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Branch, James

    Agnew, George William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

    Brigg, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Bright, J. A.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Bell, Richard

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Changing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clough, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Clynes, J. R.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Robinson, S.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Crossley, William J.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rowlands, J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lambert, George

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy, (Essex, Harwich)

    Seddon, J.

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seely, Colonel

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Mackaness, Frederic C.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Erskine, David C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Essex, R. W.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Tomkinson, James

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Toulmin, George

    Falconer, James

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

    Trovelyan, Charles Philips

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Verney, F. W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Maddison, Frederick

    Vivian, Henry

    Findlay, Alexander

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walters, John Tudor

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Gibson, James Puckering

    Massie, J.

    Waring, Walter

    Gill, A. H.

    Middlebrook, William

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Mond, A.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Glover, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Myer, Horatio

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gulland, John W.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hancock, John George

    Nicholls, George

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose).

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

    Harwood, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Partington, Oswald

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Healy, T. M. (Loath, North)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (7) after the word "make" ["make an additional assessment"], to insert the words "an assessment or."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved in Subsection (7) to leave out the words "or within three years after the expiration thereof."
    I quite agree that the Commissioners must have power to amend an assessment or to make an additional assessment during any time within the year of assessment, but I submit that in the case of the Super-tax "within three years after the expiration of the year of assessment" is too long
    358
    a period to allow. It would hang up the whole of a man's financial arrangements; if a man died it would hang up his estate for a period of three years. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should meet us by reducing the time.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret I cannot accept the Amendment. The Sub-section simply gives the Commissioners the same power in respect of the Super-tax that they already have in regard to ordinary Income Tax.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I object to the machinery set up by this Clause on the ground that it is absolutely unnecessary, and that the tax, against which in itself as a matter of principle I have not raised my voice, could be equally well—in fact, more effectively—collected by the machinery already in existence. It has always been acknowledged that collection at the source has been the most beneficial step that this country has adopted in the system of collecting Income Tax. I am perfectly aware of the difficulties which were stated to exist in collecting at the source in the case of graduated taxes. These were pointed out by the Select Committee on the Income Tax. But I should like to point out, too, that it is by no means universally agreed that the objections that were raised at the time of the "investigation" were well maintained. I think it was only yesterday that we heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean say that he for one did not accept the conclusions of the Committee. Really I think the objection which has been raised to collecting at the source in the case of this extra 6d. was that it would lock up a considerable sum of money—perhaps £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 during the year—to be refunded to the taxpayers. But there is no difficulty in that, for the machinery is already in existence for the purpose. The real question comes: Whether it is a real difficulty that this £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 should be partially locked up during the greater pant of the year. What is meant when you lock up that money during the year? Where is it? It does not lie, it is evident, in the pockets of the Income Tax Commissioners. The fact is that the money is passed at once, as soon as collected, into the Bank of England, and that it then does its work.
    The locking up of a sum of money such as this would involve is by no means a very serious matter for either the nation or the business of the country as a whole or for individuals. It is quite evident that if that money is going to work in the hands of the bank during the year, that so far as the general commerce, industry, and business of the country is concerned, the locking up is merely a verbal quibble, and really means very little indeed. What it really means, of course, is that so far as the individual is concerned you collect £25 more in the £1,000 than you are justified in doing, and return it to him in the early part of the year. Objection has been raised that this would be a considerable cost to the country, but the machinery already exists for refunding in the case of the smaller incomes, and I maintain that any extension needed of that machinery which would be involved would be more than adequately repaid by an increase of power of effecting its purpose—an increased yield of the tax—which that machinery would have over what it has now. There is not the slightest doubt that a tax of this sort, dependent on an assessment partly made by the Commissioners and partly by the people themselves, is open to a very considerable amount of evasion and leakage. We all know that evasion and leakage of that kind has not only a material effect on others who have to make good the amount, of this evasion, but also has a demoralising effect on the taxpayers of the country as a whole. If it can be collected at the source that is the right way to collect it, and it ought to be so collected and not in the way that it is put forward in the Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 199; Noes, 82.

    Division No. 698.]

    AYES.

    [12.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Agnew, George William

    Branch, James

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Crossley, William J.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Barker, Sir John

    Clough, William

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

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

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Erskine, David C.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowlands, J.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Falconer, James

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Maclean, Donald

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seddon, J.

    Findlay, Alexander

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Seely, Colonel

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Callum, John M.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gibson, James Puckering

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Marnham, F. J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Gulland, John W.

    Massie, J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hancock, John George

    Middlebrook, William

    Tomkinson, James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mond, A.

    Toulmin, George

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Verney, F. W.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Nicholls, George

    Walters, John Tudor

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-Shire)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Harwood, George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Waring, Walter

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Partington, Oswald

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Lambert, George

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Lamont, Norman

    Ridsdale, E. A.

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Robinson, S.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, J.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Renton, Leslie

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Renwick, George

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clyde, James Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Younger, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Valentia.

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

  PART V.—STAMPS.

    CLAUSE 52.—(Stamp Duty on Conveyances or Transfers on, Sale.)
    The stamp duties chargeable under the heading "Conveyance or Transfer on Sale of any Property" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act) shall be double those specified in that Schedule: Provided that this Section shall not apply to the conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section one hundred and twenty-two of that Act.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR moved, after the word "shall" ["shall be double those specified in that Schedule"] to insert the words, "Except in the case of land which has previously passed under the operation of any of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts."
    In moving this Amendment, I would direct the attention of the Committee to the Clause as it stands. It reads as follows: "The Stamp Duties chargeable under the heading 'Conveyance or Transfer on Sale of any Property' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891 (in this part of this Act referred to as the principal Act) shall be double those specified in that Schedule." That affects the whole of the land of Ireland. I have heard from time to time objections taken to legislation by reference, and here we are referred to the Act of 1891. That being so, I am compelled to draw the attention of the Committee to what the Act of 1891 says. Section 54 of that Act says: "For the purpose of this Act the expression 'Conveyance upon Sale' includes every instrument and every decree or order of any court or of any Commissioners whereby any property or any estate or interest in any property upon the sale thereof is transferred to or vested in the purchaser." It will be well known to the Committee that the Estate Commissioners of Ireland are transferring the property of the landlords of Ireland to those who have been and some of whom still are the tenants of the said landlords. Therefore, all the operations conducted under those Commissioners and under the Land Estate Commissioners before they were constituted came under the scope and bearing of this Clause. That being so, it behoves us to examine very carefully what the effect of this Clause will be upon those who come under its operation. I am again compelled to refer to one of the Sections of the Act, Section 56, Sub-section (2). It
    364
    says: "Where the consideration or any part of the consideration for a conveyance on sale consists of money payable periodically for a definite period exceeding 20 years or in perpetuity." It will be known to the Committee that the periodical payments in respect of the redemption of Irish land extends to a period of 68½ years, so that is over the 20 years specified.
    "Or for any indefinite period not terminable with life the conveyance is to be charged in respect of that consideration with ad valorem duty on the total amount which will, or may, according to the terms of sale, be payable during the period of 20 years next after the day of the date of the instrument."
    If property purchased by a tenant farmer in Ireland should afterwards become the subject of transfer, the duty to be charged will be not upon its immediate value, but upon futurity. It may be the right hon. Gentleman will fulfil the promise he made on May 18th, when he made a very harsh speech, the tone and temper of which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon), the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway alike condemned. He said the case of the tenants and the case of the purchasers, which was then presented equally by the hon. Members below and hon. Members above the Gangway, would be judged upon its merits. I hold the right hon. Gentleman to those words, and I shall be very curious to know how he has considered the matter from that day to this. I shall be very curious to know what his judgment upon the merits of the case is going to be to-night. If he is prepared to say he will exempt the property of tenant purchasers in Ireland up to a certain amount, I shall be curious to know what that amount is. If the limit is to be a small amount, then, of course, it would cover a great many cases of the tenant purchasers in Ireland. Let us suppose he exempts all under £500. That would cover a great number of cases of tenant purchasers in Ireland, but there would still remain a large margin of tenant purchasers who would come under the lash of this Section of the Bill. Let me take, for example, the case of a tenant purchaser whose annual payments arc.£25, and who has bought his farm for 22 years' purchase. That would amount to £530, and would come over the amount of the concession. If he sold his interest—let us call it a freehold interest—at the

    365
    present time he would on the present rate pay £2 10s. If it is to be doubled, according to the proposal now before the Committee, he would have to pay £5. That would be a hardship. The man with £500 would be exempt and the man with £530 would have to pay double. That would not even be the worst, because it has been said on the best authority that a man would not only have to pay double upon the amount I have stated, but he would also have to pay at the same rate on the redemption value, namely, the amount of money that had been advanced to him by the Land Commissioners in order to purchase his holding. He would have to pay annually not only the £25 to which I have referred, but on the amount of the purchase money advanced by the Commissioners.
    How does that work out in a case submitted by an hon. Member on this side, the case of £50 rental? Twenty years' purchase would amount to £1,000, so that the man would have to pay under the Act of 1891 the amount due to the State through the Estate Commissioners; that is to say, he would have to pay upon the £1,000 as well as upon the amount of money that he had sold his land for. So that he would have to pay not only double but four times over. There is no analogous case whatever on this side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the 18th May that a tenant purchaser in Ireland would be placed by this Bill in exactly the same position as the tenant purchaser or a man passing an interest on this side. That is not so, and it has been stated by those who are authorities on this subject that there is no analogy whatever between a purchaser in Ireland and a man who buys an interest in land on this side. Therefore, I submit that if this Clause is applied to Ireland under the provisions of the Act of 1891 that it will work gross injustice towards the tenant purchasers in Ireland, and will be inequitable and unjust as to its incidence to all those who have bought under the Estates Commissioners, and who may in future desire to transfer their property under varying circumstances. There will be proved, therefore, to have been a wide difference between those who have purchased under the Estates Commissioners and those who have had fair rents fixed under the Land Commissioners in Ireland, because those who have had fair rents fixed will have only one tax to pay, whereas in the case of a man who has bought and wishes to transfer his interest, he will have to pay the tax plus
    366
    another tax. That is the difference between the two cases, and if this Clause is applied to the purchasing tenants in Ireland it must inevitably work out inequitably and unjustly to those who have bought.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That question was exhaustively discussed on the Resolution. I am the last person to deny that Ireland has great grievances which ought to be redressed, but in this respect Ireland is much better off than the United Kingdom. One reason is that in the transfer of land under the Land Purchase Acts, conducted by means of State credit, there is no Stamp Duty at all, whereas in this country, if a tenant farmer wishes to acquire his holding, he does not get the benefit of State credit, he has to borrow the money at 4, 4½ or 5 per cent. and to pay the Stamp Duty. In Ireland he gets his money at 2¾ per cent. to 3 per cent., he gets the deed without any stamp, and I believe there are other arrangements with regard to fees which enable him to dispense with some legal expenses which in this country he would necessarily have to incur. The only grievance complained of by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not that the operation of land purchase is hampered by the duty, but that when the tenant has acquired the holding and wants to sell it, it is subject to this duty. I do not think that is much of a grievance when it is compared with what a freeholder in this country would be subject to.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman's second point has nothing to do with the Budget. It is the law at the present moment. There is the same law exactly in Ireland as in this country. My hon. and learned Friend did not quote the part of my speech in which I said there was a case for consideration with regard to the small tenants, but that is a case not merely for Ireland, but also for the United Kingdom. There are Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Hooper), and one or two others, which are intended to limit the operation of the new tax to transactions over certain figures. I am prepared to consider these suggestions favourably, and they must be considered not only in relation to Ireland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. I agree that if small transactions were exempted, it would undoubtedly mean that four-fifths of the land transactions in Ireland would not be subject to the operation of the tax. The same remark would apply probably to small

    367
    holdings and workmen's dwelling-houses in this country. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on that point, but on the general argument which has been put before the Committee now I have to say that I cannot accept the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "What amount will be excepted?"] I ought to make it perfectly clear that the Government will accept a limitation. I am rather disposed to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, which excepts from the double duty transactions "in cases where the amount or value of the consideration for the sale doss not exceed five hundred pounds." But we must have special provisions to protect the Revenue against that limit being so worked as to be a means of evading duty. On the Report stage it will be open to me to move an Amendment as to the limit, and at the same time to introduce words to protect the Revenue.
    Mr. J. MULDOON: It appears to me that the first part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the last part. In the latter part he admitted that in the case of small tenancies in Ireland the duty worked unjustly, and he said he was willing to consider the question favourably before the Report stage. I did not understand whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined his observations to the question of the double tax, but I would like to say that our chief objection to the proposal in the Finance Bill is not confined to the double tax. Before the Finance Bill was introduced at all there was a real grievance in Ireland on this question of Stamp Duties. That grievance has simply been aggravated by the increase of the Duties proposed in the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that in the case of small tenancies there is a real hardship. I would like to point out that while considering the case of the small tenancies he must really give his attention to the unfair and inequitable character of the legislation which for the purpose of the Stamp Duties brings in redemption values. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was a grievance in the case of Ireland on account of the different treatment of that country as compared with England. Although he repeated that to-night there were some parts of his speech which were not entirely satisfactory on that point. No doubt the law in this matter is the
    368
    same in both countries, but while in Great Britain you have at most about 2,000, you have in Ireland 200,000 purchasing tenants. You were taxing them unjustly before, and now you propose to double the Tax.
    I would like to give the Committee an instance of how the tax operates at present. An ordinary farm is sold for £400. Under the present law there is a Stamp Duty of 10s. per cent. or £2. The tenant, on the other hand, who happens to have purchased his land, and who is subject to a £40 annuity, and to whom the Land Commission have advanced a sum of £1,000 upon which he is paying the annuity, if he comes to transfer his land, although his outgoings and the expenditure are exactly the same as those of the ordinary tenant who has not purchased, has nevertheless got to pay not only the 10s. per cent. upon the £400 of the purchase-money, but he has also got to pay 10s. per cent. upon the £1,000 which has been advanced by the Irish Land Commission. In other words, he has to pay a sum of £7, and under this Bill he will have to pay a sum of £14. How can anyone defend that in principle? How can anyone say that a tax of £14 on the one hand, and £4 on the other hand is either just or fair, and upon what principle of law, leaving Statutes aside—for I know that Statutes can be quoted in aid of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—can that be defended? Why should the tenant who has that additional burden upon him when he purchases the land have to pay more because there is an additional burden upon him? I think that this is entirely unfair and ought never to have been proposed. We cannot speak of the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made until we have seen it, but I would like to impress on him the necessity of doing something in respect of bringing into the purchase the consideration of the redemption value of the annuity. It affects all the purchasing tenants in Ireland, and a tax like that imposed upon Ireland where you have so many purchasing tenants as regards its incidence differentiates unfairly towards Ireland. We have unquestionably a strong case on that point, and we think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to leave it to the draughtsmen or the permanent officials of the Treasury in whom we have not complete confidence, but ought to look into it himself, and he will then see that we have a very strong case, and a case the injustice of which is doubled by this Bill.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I confess I was considerably disappointed at the announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer just made. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to the same profession as myself, and his own experience should have brought this grievance of Ireland before him more vividly than it would be brought before other persons who are not so experienced. I am also disappointed that a gentleman who I know has a sincere sympathy with my country should not have seen on an examination of this question that the present state of the law is itself an intolerable grievance, and that that grievance is enormously aggravated by the proposal made under the Bill. Our grievance is this: In a very short time we hope that the whole of the land of Ireland will be held by tenant purchasers. At the present time I suppose that fully half the land of Ireland is held by tenant purchasers, and when our hopes are realised, and the whole land of Ireland is held by tenant purchasers, the position will be this: that the Stamp Duty on the transfer of land in Ireland will be something like four times the Stamp Duty paid in England on the transfer of land. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can assure him it is so. The matter is not open to doubt; it is one of figures. When the operation of land purchase shall have vested the land of Ireland in the tenant purchaser, I assert that the transfer of land in Ireland can only take place on payment of four times the Stamp Duty paid in England. What is the reason of that? It is because the Land Commission advance may be taken to be generally in the ratio of three times the purchase-money for which the tenant purchaser buys the land. In other words, for the consideration which he is getting—and it is exactly the same consideration which the English tenant gets—the Irish tenant purchaser will pay four times as much as the English tenant pays upon. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is a special grievance in the case of smaller tenants in Ireland, and the grievance which he is prepared to consider and to meet is the grievance of the small tenants. When this matter was being discussed on the Budget Resolutions the Attorney-General for Ireland put what he thought was the reductio ad absurdum in reference to the case of large tenants:—
    "The large tenant in Ireland." he said, "can borrow, and sometimes does borrow, £6,000 from the Strife, and is that man to be exempt from the new Stamp Duties? Why this alleged grievance?
    370
    But that is the very man who ought to be exempted. Take the facts. A tenant in Ireland buys his farm for £6,000. He buys it no doubt with the advantage of State purchase money, but his interest in his farm is worth no more the day after he buys it than the day before he bought it. The £6,000 is all due; consequently what he has to sell is not worth one penny more. If he buys it under the Land Purchase Acts he pays the old Stamp Duty, and if he sells it the day after the purchase he will pay in Stamp Duty £60 more. Take the case of a man who buys his farm for £6,000—it is not worth any more the day after he bought it from his landlord than the day before he bought it. The freehold was worth to buy £6,000, and consequently what he has to sell is not worth one penny more than the day after he bought it than it was the day before he bought it. His farm was worth £1,000 before he bought under the Land Purchase Acts, and he sells it for £1,000. The Stamp Duty at the present rate would be £2 10s., and the Stamp Duty the day after he bought would be £32 10s. What is the justification for that, and is not that the case which requires some redress, and not the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put in which only a very small duty is due?
    We have been told that the Irish tenant has received great benefits from the Legislature. Perhaps he has, but does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that the remission of the Stamp Duty on these land purchase transactions was done for the benefit of the tenant? It was done for the benefit of the landlord. It was the landlord who always paid these Stamp Duties in the case of land purchase transactions, and that was so invariably. I have acted for, I may say, hundreds and thousands of tenants before and after the Act of 1903, and the tenant was never asked to pay the Stamp Duty on the vesting order. The Stamp Duties and all the expenses connected with the sale were paid by the landlord. That was part of the bargain the tenants en masse made. They would not have bought on any other terms. You may say they are very fortunate to buy their farms without legal expenses. Those are the only terms on which land purchase could be worked. They bought dear enough at the best. They paid the full value of their lands, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want them to pay any more. They would have been paying more if they were asked to pay a single penny either of

    371
    increased amount to the landlord or of Stamp Duty. It was a great State transaction carried out for the benefit of the country as a whole, and under the Act of 1903 that was the reason of the remission of the Stamp Duties as a concession to the landlords, who otherwise would have been compelled to pay those Stamp Duties out of the purchase money.
    Let us put aside this notion that the remission of the Stamp Duty on land purchase transactions was a benefit to the tenant. It was an indirect benefit in this way, that anything which forwarded land transactions benefited the tenant in that way, but in no other aspect was the remission of the Stamp Duty either intended to be or was an actual benefit to the tenant. That being so, the remission had nothing to do with what we are now considering. This Bill has no relation to land purchase, the Stamp Duties have no relation to land purchase, and we are simply discussing what Stamp Duty shall the Irish tenant pay when he sells his farm. The question is, Is he to pay four times more than what the English tenant farmer pays when he sells his farm? That is the simple issue that is raised in a more aggravated form in the large transactions than in the small transactions. Take the case which the Attorney-General mentioned of the £6,000 man. It is not made a penny more valuable by the fact that he has bought at £6,000. The £6,000 is due. When he sells his farm he does not get a penny more for it, and in case he happened to get any more he would pay Stamp Duty on the increased purchase money, and consequently would be under no compliment to the State. The question is, not whether he is to pay the Stamp Duty on the full consideration money, but whether he is to pay an amount which is really four times the sum which he puts in his pocket.
    We are told that is English law. Of course it is English law. Is it the law in England that all the land in this country will shortly be vested in tenant purchasers? There is no such thing. Consequently, although the law is the same, it will operate in a wholly different way in the two countries. The right hon. Gentleman says truly that there are in England a number of cases connected with building societies where there are instalment mortgages. We, on these benches, would be quite prepared to see instalment mortgages in England getting the same benefit that we ask for Ireland. I submit that those are the lines on which
    372
    any concession should proceed, and not on any distinction between large and small transactions. The concession with the £500 limit will mean very little in Ireland. The whole of the £500 will be represented by the money advanced by the Land Commission. The gross amount on which you pay Stamp Duty is the purchase money and the Land Commission advance, which is three or four times the purchase money. Therefore, if the concession is limited to £500 cases, it will really be limited to cases where the tenant is getting only £100 or £150, whereas in England it will cover the cases where the man is getting £500. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from the point of view which is really peculiar to it, namely, the nature of this instalment mortgage. The Land Commission mortgage differs from every other kind of mortgage in that you cannot pay it off even at the amount you originally borrowed. It is converted into a kind of stock, and you must find the price at which the stock is redeemable at the day, which may be more or less than the actual amount outstanding. The concession limited to £500 transactions is really no concession to Ireland at all. It is the cases involving £30 or £60 Stamp Duty which will extract money from Ireland. This concession will not mean more than a few thousands, whereas the gross amount of Stamp Duties exacted from Ireland as a whole, which do not exist in England, would run to as much as perhaps £50,000 per annum, if large and small transactions are lumped together.
    I called attention to this matter in the year 1906. In 1904 the then Attorney-General for Ireland, Lord Atkinson, laid down the law from these benches that the practice which had previously prevailed of charging Stamp Duty on the amount of unredeemed advances was not legal. His words are extant in "Hansard." His words certainly conveyed to Irish Members generally that the only reason why he did not in the Act of 1903 introduce an Amendment was because he did not consider it necessary. All those who have the carrying out of these transactions in Ireland know that the law is perfectly plain, and cannot be questioned. You must on every sale add to the purchase money the amount of every charge or payment due connected with the land which is to be sold. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt, either on the discussion on the Resolution or to-night, to show that we have not in Ireland a real grievance in this respect.

    373
    It is no answer to say that the law is the same in the two countries if it works differently—as it does. In Ireland this is a tax which will ultimately fall on every acre of agricultural land. In England it does not fall upon a single acre. There is, I grant, the case of the building society; but let the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to deal equal justice between the two countries, provide for both cases, and see that in neither case the instalment mortgage shall be taken into consideration when the Stamp Duty is being imposed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer give in to Irishmen? Irish Members have voted in every Division with him, but I always understood the way to get a concession from the Government was to show your teeth. I remain of the opinion that if the Irish Members had consistently opposed this Budget at every stage there would have been no question whatever but that this Amendment would now be conceded. I want to examine the dynamics of this question—to see where we stand. The Irish Members, by a long process of over 25 years, have succeeded in convincing the various British Governments which have appeared in this land, that the old system of tenure in Ireland led to bloodshed, imprisonment, disaster, and emigration, and that it was not convenient for England to have the old tenure. Accordingly a series of statutes have been passed whereby, at the end of 60 years, the Irish people will become possessors of their own soil. In the meantime comes the British Government and says, "Oh, we will discount that great advantage for Ireland. True it is that the ordinary difference between one man and another is this: You pay £10 rent, and you only pay £9 annuity to the State. But because you have got an advantage of £1—for that is about the general rule—in your annuity the State will exact from you in taxes wherever you sell your land four
    1 A.M.
    times the Stamp Duty previously claimed." In other words, what the Irish tenants have got for fighting is this: That they have substituted for the landlords the State which exacts from them, not merely as a landlord, but as a Tax Commissioner. I quite agree that these taxes will not come up every year in the ordinary sense. But at the end of 50 years the State, that is England, will have recovered from Ireland every sixpence which the landlord would have recovered in the meantime as rent. The difference is this: The landlord occasionally kept up State at home; he occasionally lived in the country, he occasionally kept up a pack of hounds, and, perhaps, he occasionally engaged in some little industrial concern. But, as regards the money England is exacting from us, it is spent at Devon port, or Plymouth, or Southampton, or the Isle of Wight, or on those places in Whitehall—those huge five million buildings you put up in every street in London. You would not sweep a crossing in Dublin if you could avoid it. The net result of the entire transaction will be that the Irish people as a whole will not have gained one single shilling, if yon take the transaction over 50 or 60 years. I do not know whether this Amendment has been put clown with the assent of the Chairman of the Irish party or whether it is a sporadic Amendment. All I say is this: The Chancellor is not ill-advised; he knows that whenever he is in trouble he will have the support of the general body of those who are giving sporadic opposition. We had an opportunity of defeating this Budget; we could easily have defeated it. But we did not defeat it, and the result is that the Chancellor refuses this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 143.

    Division No. 699.]

    AYES.

    [1.5 a.m.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Duffy, William J.

    Hills, J. W.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Glover, Thomas

    Kerry, Earl of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Gordon, J.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gretton, John

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

    Cave, George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Lundon, Thomas

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

    Muldoon, John

    Renwick, George

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Seddon, J.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Stanler, Beville

    Younger, George

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Starkey, John R.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Hazleton.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Reddy, M.

    Valentia, Viscount

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Agnew, George William

    Hancock, John George

    Pollard, Dr.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harwood, George

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Robinson, S.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Heime, Norval Watson

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rowlands, J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

    Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

    Jowett, F. W.

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Clough, William

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Summerbell, T.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Thomasson, Franklin

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Tomkinson, James

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

    Toulmin, George

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Walters, John Tudor

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

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Waring, Walter

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Massie, J.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Middlebrook, William

    Wiles, Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Mond, A.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Essex, R. W.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Falconer, James

    Nicholls, George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Fullerton, Hugh

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Gibson, James Puckering

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Partington, Oswald

    Mr. RENWICK: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Considering that we were here at three o'clock yesterday morning, it is hardly fair to ask us to continue sitting now after one o'clock. We are dealing with questions of very great moment—not such as we have been previously dealing with, concerning men with £5,000 a year, but, as we have heard from speeches below the Gangway, we are dealing with questions referring to many of the poorest people in this country, and in Ireland especially. I
    376
    think it is absolutely necessary, when we are dealing with such questions affecting the welfare of a large number of people, that we should have clear intellects and not, as I saw a few moments ago, several hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen asleep on the benches. Depend upon it, when we see that state of affairs it is time we went home. Therefore, I move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Motion. I was

    377
    under the impression that it was understood that we were to go up to the end of the Conveyancing Stamps. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I may be wrong. Certainly that was the impression conveyed to me. Evidently the hon. Member was not under that impression. But I think we ought to get to the end of these Conveyancing Stamps, and deal with the other Clauses on stamps to-morrow. I think it is now understood by all Members of the House that we ought to get that. It means that the sooner we dispose of them the sooner we will be able to disperse. I am not going to dispense blame. That is not my business at present; it is not the point now. I think it is in the interest of the whole House, of every Member, that we should get through these proposals as soon as possible. The hon. Member seems to imagine that these proposals involve the interests of very poor people. I do not think he can possibly say that, after the indication I gave that the Government were prepared to make a concession on that point—a concession that goes beyond most of the notices of Motion put down by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House. I do trust, therefore, we shall not proceed with the Motion.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I really think the Motion is a reasonable one. It certainly had been indicated that the right hon. Gentleman desired to obtain these legal Clauses on the Stamp Duties to-night, and so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we agreed that the right hon. Gentleman should get these Clauses provided time is available for reasonable discussion of important points. So far as I am aware, no question of any arrangement has gone any further than that, and to that extent we are perfectly prepared to go. But it has been obvious that very important points and difficulties have arisen which we have been unable to avoid. We are now in this position, that it is a quarter past one. There are hon. Members below the Gangway who have still important Amendments to move on this Clause and there are other very important Amendments on the Paper. The Question is a new one. It is a new part of the Bill, and really I think we are bound to admit that, although the right hon. Gentleman has put his plea from the point of view of the general convenience of hon. Members of this House—and I admit that is a very strong plea—there is a stronger one, and that is our duty to do this work in a proper manner We cannot do that work at this
    378
    hour of the morning, in a succession of late sittings, as it ought to be done.
    Really we must again point out that it is no answer to a Motion of this description to say that there is still so much work to do. Surely there must be some consideration of time available when the Government are considering what are the proposals they intend to make in the House of Commons in one Session. The real cause of all this trouble is that we are asked by the Government to do in one Session what really would be the work of several Sessions. That is really the whole point. Surely I am only appealing to what every Member of the Committee will realise is the fact. Supposing this proposal relating to stamps stood by itself, would it not, taken by itself, have involved a very long and most important discussion, and would it not have been considered as a question involving the most important matter of the Session? But simply because these proposals are sandwiched in among other proposals of even greater importance they are therefore to be passed by and to be taken not in regard to their actual importance, but to their relative importance to other proposals. That surely is not a way to conduct the business of the country. It will be no solace to people who will suffer by these proposals that they are told they were passed over in order to enable us to discuss something of greater importance. There is no disposition on this side of the House to prolong discussion; there is no desire to be obstructive. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no desire to waste time. It is not reasonable to ask us to take four more very contentious clauses, involving very important matter, beginning at twenty minutes past one in the morning. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to allow us to go home now and to content himself with the only assurance which can be given, that there will be no desire on this side of the House to unduly prolong discussion.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In reply to what the hon. and gallant Member has said, I do not really think that a general and vague assurance of that kind is of the slightest use. It is not an operative one. I am not complaining at all of what has happened to-night, nor do I complain of the hon. and gallant Member or his colleagues on the Front Bench; but he must know that a mere assurance of the kind he has given is not the slightest use, as it does

    379
    not take effect. I should be glad, however, if he, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, would give some indication of what he conceives to be a reasonable time for the discussion of the Clauses which I think we ought to get to-night. There are in them really only two or three points. It is not like the Land Tax or even the Super-tax, which bristle with a number of points; we are simply doubling the duty. That may be either good or bad, but that is really all that it is. It is not as though we were setting up a new machinery. In such a case there might be twenty or thirty new points requiring discussion. All that is involved is one proposition which has already been discussed at great length. We are introducing no new principle. I therefore suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that we should proceed now, or that there should be some proposal made in a more concrete form.
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman. There were some informal negotiations between us this evening. I told the right hon. Gentleman at the time that I should be agreeable not to let him go to bed too early, and he replied that he would be agreeable not to allow me to go to bed too early. I think we can come to terms. I understand that he wishes to get these particular Clauses by a reasonable hour to-morrow afternoon. There are certain points to which we attach importance. As there are 57 Questions on the Order Paper, we shall probably begin the discussion on the Finance Bill at about half-past three or a quarter to four o'clock. If we finished the discussion of these particular Clauses by seven o'clock, and then proceeded with the Resolutions respecting mineral rights, I think that would be a fair basis for agreement. I am quite prepared to make that offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not commit myself to half-past six or seven. That will give us three hours to debate the Clauses. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us on that basis.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to point out exactly with what we are dealing. The Chief Secretary has told us that we are dealing with £180,000,000 to begin with as regards the landlord interest in Ireland. It may be presumed that there will be another £180,000,000 of transactions for Great Britain, so that we are dealing altogether in these Clauses with some £360,000,000 on which Stamp Duties
    380
    will be payable. In addition to that, it is proposed to double for the first time the duty on transactions between father and son, and mother and daughter. Such propositions ought to be carefully examined. As regards much of the Debate on the Bill, I have very little to grumble at. I look at the matter from the point of view of my own country, and I must say that from some of the concessions Ireland will not get one groat of benefit. You gave away half a million of money yesterday with the airiest of airs, and as far as Ireland is concerned we have nothing to gain from that concession; it does not benefit us one hair's breadth. We are now on a wholly different proposal, one in which I take considerable interest. I would be very loath indeed to contravene what was said on behalf of the general body of the Opposition, but personally I have no objection to sit up late at any time. My object is that the people of Ireland should know what is going on—
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "The section you speak for."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: They will be remembered when the hon. Member is forgotten. The present proposals are of keen and considerable interest to Ireland, and I hope that fair and adequate time will be allowed for their discussion.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite recognise that the hon. Baronet has met me in a reasonable spirit. I wish he could let me have these Clauses before seven o'clock, for I should like to point out to the Opposition that we have a series of Resolutions to get through. There is only one novel principle—that with reference to mineral rights. The others are Resolu-lutions dealing with matters already in the Finance Bill. We must get the whole of these Resolutions tomorrow. We should get not merely the conclusion of the discussion on the Stamp Duties, but the beginning of that on these Resolutions before seven o'clock, so that we may not be very late to-morrow night. Those Members who are interested in the Mineral Rights Duties would like to discuss them at an early hour. We cannot come to them quite at once, because there are some formal Resolutions that must be taken first. On that understanding, I am disposed to accept the Motion to report Progress.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before Two o'clock a.m. (Wednesday, 22nd September).

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Customs and Inland Revenue Department (Examination).
  Customs and Inland Revenue Department (Examination).
FINANCE BILL.
  STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENTS).
  STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENTS).
  Licensed Public-houses (Valuation).
  Licensed Public-houses (Valuation).
  Smithells Common, Bolton.
  Smithells Common, Bolton.
  Drumhamagh Goods Siding (Midland Great Western Railway).
  Drumhamagh Goods Siding (Midland Great Western Railway).
  Steamships "Derwent" and "Ruby."
  Steamships "Derwent" and "Ruby."
  Holyhead Mail Jetty (Submarine Fog Bells).
  Holyhead Mail Jetty (Submarine Fog Bells).
  Ordnance Survey (Reduced Pension).
  Ordnance Survey (Reduced Pension).
  Dublin National Library (Removal of Statues).
  Dublin National Library (Removal of Statues).
  Sub-Postmasters (Remuneration).
  Sub-Postmasters (Remuneration).
  Objection to Vaccination (Camberwell).
  Objection to Vaccination (Camberwell).
  Ordnance Survey (Royal Engineers).
  Ordnance Survey (Royal Engineers).
  Recruits Rejected (Medically Unfit).
  Recruits Rejected (Medically Unfit).
  Intermediate Education (Modern Literary Course).
  Intermediate Education (Modern Literary Course).
  Dopping Hepenstal Estate (Evicted Tenants).
  Dopping Hepenstal Estate (Evicted Tenants).
  County of Longford (Free Police Quota).
  County of Longford (Free Police Quota).
  Gun Licences (Ireland).
  Gun Licences (Ireland).
  Douglas Estate, County Longford.
  Douglas Estate, County Longford.
  Old Age Pension Refused (Poor Relief Disqualification).
  Old Age Pension Refused (Poor Relief Disqualification).
  Portadown Rioting.
  Portadown Rioting.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
IRVINE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
HAMILTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed,and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE had two Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1, which ran—
"1. The provisions of section seventeen of the Education Act, 1902, requiring that all matters relating to the exercise by a local education authority or council having powers under that Act of their powers under that Act shall stand referred to the education committee constituted under that section, and enabling the local education authority or council to delegate to the education committee so constituted any of their powers under that Act, shall apply not only with respect to the powers conferred on the local education authority or council under that Act, but also to any powers connected with education conferred on the authority or council under any other Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money."
The first Amendment proposed to insert after the word "conferred" ["connected with education conferred"] the words "by or under any other Act." The noble Earl said that their Lordships would have noted that his Amendments had been circulated in two different forms. The second form
22
was a result, he understood, of negotiations with His Majesty's Government. Therefore, unless any noble Lord desired an explanation, he did not propose to speak in support of the Amendments.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word 'conferred,' to insert the words 'by or under any other Act."'—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON) accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to insert, after the word "Act" at the end of the clause the words "scheme or order."
Amendment moved—
"In line 15, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'scheme or order.'"—(Lord Belper.)
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to leave out at the end of the clause the words "under any other Act" and to insert, "expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under the Education Act, 1902."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'under any other Act,' and to insert the words 'expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under the Education Act, 1902.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER had several Amendments on the Paper to Clause 4 which ran—
"4. Where with a view to following the profession of teacher a person has, in pursuance of regulations made by the Board of Education, entered into an undertaking that he will, in consideration of any grant made by the Board in respect of his maintenance, education, and training, complete the

23
course of education or training specified in the undertaking, and will subsequently follow the profession of teacher in the manner and for the period specified in the undertaking, and in the event of failure to do so will repay to the Board such proportion of the grants made by the Board as is specified in the undertaking, the undertaking shall be binding on him notwithstanding that he was an infant at the time when the undertaking was given, and any sums repayable in accordance with the undertaking shall be recoverable as debts to the Crown."
The Amendments were to insert in various places in the clause the words "or any local education authority." The noble Lord explained that this clause was originally brought in by the Board of Education in order to enforce their contracts with regard to persons in training colleges where contracts had been entered into by persons who were legally infants. It struck a great many people that what was desirable for a Department to enable them to enforce their contracts was also desirable in the case of a local authority to enable them to enforce contracts with regard to their teachers in respect to their payments or terms of office. He understood there was some objection to this on the part of the Board. He did not exactly know what the point was as to which they objected, but he would be glad to hear what their objection was to the Amendment, and then at a later stage he would communicate with those who were responsible for this Amendment—for it was moved at the suggestion of the Education Committee of the County Councils Association—to see whether they wished to press it or not. But at all events there seemed to be a prima facie case that what was good law for one authority was good for another. He begged to move his first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 11, after the word 'education,' to insert the words 'or any local education autbority.'"—(Lord Belper.)
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON*VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON said the Amendment dealt with a difficulty which had arisen with reference to the position of students who went into training colleges. A great part of the cost of those training colleges was defrayed by the State and some by local subscriptions; but he was putting it broadly when he said that three-quarters of the capital cost of all training colleges now built and five-sixths of the maintenance expenses were defrayed from funds provided by the Board of Education. The difficulty that had arisen was that the great bulk of the students when they came in to
24
the colleges, were minors, and therefore no obligation undertaken by them at present would be legally enforcible. If they resisted the obligation which they undertook that they would devote themselves to the teaching profession or pay part of the expenses which had been incurred, it could not be enforced. If, as was suggested by the Amendment, this power was given also to the local education authority it would amount to a limitation of the area of their employment. If the authority was exercised by the Board of Education the obligation which was placed upon the students was binding and could be enforced by the Board, but they would be at liberty to accept employment in any part of the country where their services might be required. If it was enforced by a local authority, its own teachers and students would be obliged, under the noble Lord's Amendment, to serve in the particular area of the authority, and possibly without any limit of time. Under the Education Board's indenture there was a limit that they must serve the public for at least, he thought, seven out of ten years. But there was no obligation in this Amendment fixing either the locality or the time. Therefore this might be binding them for their lives to the local education authority, who were under no correlative obligation to provide employment in every case, and it would, in the opinion of the Board of Education, be very detrimental to the best interests both of education and of the administration of a public fund. He understood the noble Lord would reconsider this case, and he (Viscount Wolverhampton) would be happy to communicate with the Department in the interval, and then if the noble Lord was not convinced the question could be raised at some subsequent stage.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he understood that the objection of the noble Viscount was that if this Amendment was carried it would bind, or be able to bind, those young people under a particular education authority for all their lives. Certainly he bad no knowledge that that was the intention in moving the Amendment, but obviously teachers could make a contract for a short period with an education authority, and it seemed only reasonable that such an authority should be able to enforce a contract with a minor in the same way that the Education Board were able to enforce a contract with regard to any person in a training college. But before a later period of the Bill he

25
would take the opportunity of consulting those who had suggested this Amendment, and if they wished to press it further he would put it down at a future stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BELPER'SLORD BELPER'S other Amendments, being consequential, were not moved.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 5 to insert the following new clause:
'In any legal proceedings by a local education authority, the production of a certificate, purporting to be signed by a duly qualified practitioner approved by the Board of Education for the purposes of subsection three of section one of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, to the effect that a child is defective or epileptic within the meaning of that section, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated, unless the parent or guardian of the child referred to in the certificate requires the medical practitioner to be called as a witness; but it shall be lawful for the parent or guardian to give evidence in proof that the certificate is incorrect.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The report of Amendments to be received Tomorrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 179.)

RULE COMMITTEE BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c. 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 Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend Clause 1—
"1. Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall, after the commencement of this Act, extend to and take effect in every urban or rural district, or other place for which it has not been adopted, as if it had been so adopted."
by leaving out the words "or rural" and the words "or other place." He said that the housing problem was not so acute in the country districts as in the towns. The conditions were entirely different. This was recognised in Section 55, subsection (1) of the principal Act, which made it imperative that the necessity for the adoption of that part of the Bill should be proved before a county council before the local rural authority could adopt it. The section was repealed by the Act of 1900, but very similar clauses were inserted in that Act which were now proposed to be repealed by this Brill. The essential differences between the ownership of houses in town and in rural districts should be taken into consideration. Houses were held in towns purely as a commercial investment, and from which the owner sought to get the best return he possibly could, while in rural districts landlords who held the working class houses held them not as a commercial investment, but very frequently more at a loss than a profit and as an adjunct to the equipment of an estate. Secondly, he would ask their Lordships to consider the difficulties of water and drainage schemes in the country as compared with the towns. Thirdly, the rating conditions were entirely different, and the rents from the houses in the rural districts were considerably lower than those in towns, and consequently there was a greater risk to the rates. When they considered these things he thought it must be evident that the provisions which had been inserted in former Acts requiring that the necessity should be proved before a county council before a rural authority could adopt Part III of the principal Act were even more necessary now owing to the greatly extended scope of this Bill and as a safeguard against the adoption of hasty schemes which might greatly embarrass a

27
rural district. The object of his Amendment was to give rural districts the power of adoption if they wished it instead of its being compulsory as this Bill would make it. If Part III was extended to every rural district on the application of four inhabitant householders, who need not even be direct ratepayers, they might force the Local Government Board to put into operation this Act and compel the rural authority to make a town planning scheme which would be a very serious burden to the rural authority.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'or rural' and to leave out the words 'or other place.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP) said it was perfectly true, as the noble Lord had said, that there was a great difference in the problem with regard to the housing question as between rural and urban districts. The Government had tried to recognise that difference throughout the Bill so that they could deal with at the same time rural or urban lands. The need for housing accommodation in the rural districts, he thought, was generally admitted, and most of their Lordships who had experience of the country districts knew there was an urgent need for more houses. The Report of the Select Committee of 1896 laid considerable emphasis upon that. The Amendment of the noble Lord, which proposed that the words "or rural" should be omitted from this clause, struck really at the root of the whole Bill. This was one of the main provisions of the Bill, that the Housing of the Working Classes Act should be applied to rural districts without the need of special legislation. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. The Government recognised that there were strong objections held to various clauses in the Bill by noble Lords opposite, and His Majesty's Government hoped to accept some of the Amendments suggested by the Opposition and to move others themselves. The Government also hoped that the Bill would practically, at any rate in its main outline, retain the shape in which it was introduced to their Lordships' House and would eventually become law. But he did not know whether the noble Lord realised that the Amendment technically went a great deal further than the mover intended. In one of the schedules the sections of the original Act were repealed unless they were
28
enacted for other purposes in this Bill itself, and therefore it would be impossible for any rural area to adopt the provisions of the Act the sections of which had been repealed. It would be obvious, therefore, to their Lordships that the step which would be taken if the Amendment was adopted would be actually a retrograde one, putting the position in rural areas behind what it was in 1880. He was sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, and in those circumstances he hoped that he would not press the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN said he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES put the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he wished, on this Question, to remind their Lordships of the very great importance of this clause. No one could appreciate the Bill properly who did not bear in mind the enormous change which this clause made in the existing law. At the present time under Part III housing schemes could not be forced upon any local authority. This clause made the scheme compulsory upon every local authority. Therefore when in later clauses they found that powers were given to the Local Government Board, their Lordships must always remember that it was not merely that they were giving the Local Government Board more powers, but they were giving powers to enforce Part III which up to the present time had not been compulsory upon any local authority. He merely made that remark because he was sure that unless their Lordships kept that in mind all through the Bill they would fail to appreciate the importance of it.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON said that, although the Amendment to this clause had been withdrawn, he wished to say a few words in support of the views expressed by the noble Lord with regard to the need for these schemes in rural districts. The noble Earl who was in charge of the Bill had said that in rural districts there was more need for additional buildings and the further building of cottages than in the towns. It might be so in certain rural districts, but it was not, so in all rural districts. A rather curious circumstance had come to his know-

29
ledge with regard to this point. The Local Government Board not very long ago, if he was not misinformed, sent out a circular to rural district councils throughout the country asking them to report to the Board if there was a great lack of accommodation and a great lack of cottages for the working classes in their particular rural districts. The rural district with which he happened to be acquainted replied pointing out that after due inquiries of every kind they could not report to the Local Government Board that there was any need for further accommodation for the working classes in their district. He could not believe that that was a unique case in this country. He did not know whether the noble Earl would give them any further information about the inquiry that was made by the Local Government Board. He thought it would be rather germane to this point.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
"2.—(1) A local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act, by means of an order submitted to the Local Government Board and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
(2) The procedure under this section for the compulsory purchase of laud shall be substituted for the procedure for the same purpose under section one hundred and seventy-six of the Public Health Act, 1875, as applied by subsection (1) of section fifty-seven of the principal Act.
(3) A local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Local Government Board, acquire land by agreement for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for those purposes."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to dispense with the Local Government Board's confirmation of Orders submitted to them for the compulsory purchase of land for housing. He said this was one of a series of Amendments which he was going to propose in this clause and in the schedule, and he thought it would be convenient and save time if he explained the general meaning of his Amendments. First of all he would take the state of things which this clause, taken in connection with the First Schedule, proposed to introduce. If they would turn to the schedule they would see that where a local authority proposed to purchase land compulsorily under this Act they might submit to the Board an Order. Then in subsection (6), if within the
30
prescribed period—that was, the period prescribed by the Board—no objection was taken, or if it was withdrawn, it was provided that—
"the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the order."
That meant that they gave it the force of an Act of Parliament. But if objection had been presented and had not been withdrawn the Board had to forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held. Then they received the report, and after considering the report they might then confirm the Order. And after the Order was confirmed, if their Lordships would look at subsection (2), they would see that it was final, that it took effect as if enacted in this Act. The words were—
"and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act."
That gave to the Local Government Board the most complete and the most absolute authority to make and to confirm an Order without any reference to Parliament. That was the effect of the clause which related to this subject. If they would return to his Amendment, which also must be read together with part of the schedule which it did not propose to repeal, they would see that it provided that if within the prescribed period no objection to the Order had been presented to the Board by persons interested in the land, or if every such objection had been withdrawn, the Board should, without further inquiry confirm the Order, either without modification or subject to modification. That was an unopposed Order. If they looked at subsection (4) of his proposed new subsections standing on the Paper, with regard to which he would say a word or two in a moment, they would see the requirement that that Order should be laid before Parliament. In the case of an Order to which objection had been taken, he proposed that the Board should appoint an impartial person, not in the employment of any Government Department, to hold a public inquiry, and if on considering his report it appeared to the Board that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land was used, or any other circumstance, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the Order of the Board should

31
be provisional only and should not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament. Therefore his proposal with regard to an opposed Order was that it should be confirmed by Parliament. He now desired to call their Lordships' attention to subsection (4) of his Amendments, which provided that an Order other than a Provisional Order made by the Board under this section should come into force after it had lain on the Table for thirty days subject to an Address. That subsection, and indeed all this Amendment, was taken from the Port of London Bill to which His Majesty's Government acceded last year, and the object of subsection (4) was to meet particular cases. He thought he had now fully explained his Amendments as a whole, and their Lordships would understand that when he moved his first Amendment it was because of the proposals which were almost immediately going to follow.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'and confirmed by the Board.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he was much obliged to the noble Earl for having described his Amendments, because it was difficult to refer to one without referring to them all, and in a complicated case like this the course adopted was far the most convenient. The noble Earl had also described the effect of his Amendments and the proposals of His Majesty's Government in a way to which he could add nothing. He could only explain the reasons which had induced His Majesty's Government to put these particular provisions in the Bill, and why they preferred them to the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl. The course which His Majesty's Government suggested should be followed was the course which their Lordships had already agreed to in the Small Holdings Act. The noble Earl, on the contrary, was anxious that their Lordships should in this case follow the provisions of the Port of London Act. He would give one or two reasons to explain why His Majesty's Government preferred the procedure of the Small Holdings Act. In the first place it was cheaper; they thought it was more expeditious, and perhaps better suited for the particular cases with which this Act would deal. On the other hand, the procedure prescribed under the Port of London Act was long and expensive, and was more suitable in the case of the Port of London where the land was
32
frequently owned by persons with whom the Port of London Authority were in competition. Therefore in the matter of land the Port of London Authority was, as it were, one of the parties to the case. That was not so in this Bill. The Local Government Board was rather in the impartial position of an arbitrator. The Port of London Authority was anxious to acquire land in the neighbourhood, and would enter into competition with those people whom the Port of London Authority displaced. Therefore they were in no sense an impartial authority, and consequently it was quite right than an arbitrator should be appointed from outside. But here the Local Government Board were not parties to the case. That, he thought, made a considerable difference, and that was why it was unnecessary to call in a person not in the employ of any Government Department. It they began to call in an outside person they had to pay his expenses, which would necessarily add to the costs under this Bill. He asked their Lordships to consider for a moment what those expenses would be. When once they added the fee of an arbitrator of this kind to the expenses of such an inquiry, they had then added no inconsiderable sum to the expenses of the four or five acres which perhaps was all that the local authority was seeking to acquire.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said it need not be only four or five acres.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that beyond that explanation he was not sure that he need detain their Lordships longer. The point at issue between His Majesty's Government and these Amendments was clear. Their Lordships had agreed to a procedure in regard to another measure which the Government thought should be similar in this case, and he hoped their Lordships would allow this procedure to stand under this Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said there would be no difference of opinion on either side of the House as to the desire that proceedings under this clause should be as far as possible cheap and efficient, and as rapid as might be in the circumstances of the case; and they ought to remember that this clause did not relate to what in his judgment was the more important proposal of Part I of this Bill—

33
namely, the making of orders by the Local Government Board on local authorities to do certain work—but related solely to procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land after such an order had been made. He could very well understand the reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to follow the procedure of the Small Holdings Act in this Bill. That procedure was carefully examined in Parliament, and might be said to have been the result of an agreement on both sides in both Houses. And so far as he was aware, excepting in one point, he thought it had proved satisfactory with regard to the acquisition of small holdings. That one point, to his mind, was a serious defect in the procedure, and that was the absence of any appeal from an Order of the Board of Agriculture to a Court of Law on a point of law. After all, Government Departments, however admirably conducted, were not infallible. They might in making an Order interpret the law in a wrong direction, and it was right that His Majesty's subjects should in all cases such as this have the protection of the Courts of Law. And therefore if the procedure proposed in this Bill, copied from the Small Holdings Act, was to remain, he trusted that His Majesty's Government would favourably consider some Amendment giving protection in those cases.
The noble Earl spoke of the acquisition of four or five acres, and referred to it as a comparatively small matter; but this part of the Bill applied, not only to rural districts, but to the largest towns in the country, and the purchase of four or five acres of land in London or Manchester or Birmingham would be a transaction of great magnitude, requiring a very great expenditure, and involving a very considerable price to be paid for the land required. He did not think it was reasonable that cases such as these should be dealt with precisely on the same lines as the acquisition of a few acres of land outside a country village. The matter was far more akin to the acquisition of land under the Port of London Act of last session than to the acquisition of land under the Small Holdings Act, and surely it was not unreasonable that the noble Earl below the Gangway should have suggested to their Lordships that that being so the procedure under the Port of London Act was more applicable than that under the Small Holdings Act. The noble
34
Earl opposite stated that in that case the Port Authority was one of the parties concerned, and therefore it was right that there should be a provision for an impartial arbitrator to be appointed in any matter of the kind. The noble Earl contended that in this case the Local Government Board was absolutely impartial, and that therefore no such provision would be required. But what was the position of the Local Government Board? It had made an Order compelling a local authority to carry out a scheme under Part III of the Housing and Working Classes Act, which enabled that authority to exercise compulsory powers for the purchase of land. It was an absolutely interested Board, because the great difficulty in this matter, as everybody knew, was the question of expense, and the Local Government Board could not but desire in carrying out its powers under this Bill to secure the land at the cheapest rate possible. Therefore it seemed to be almost as interested as the Port Authority under the Port of London Act. For these reasons he hoped His Majesty's Government might reconsider their opposition to the proposals of his noble friend, and that, at any rate if they felt it necessary to adhere to a simpler procedure in the case of the rural areas, they would afford to the owners of valuable land in the large cities in this country as great a protection as had been afforded in the case of the Port of London Act.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): The noble Viscount has stated his opinions with the most admirable moderation, as he always does, and one is naturally tempted to endeavour to meet him. At the same time, I do not think he has succeeded in establishing any real analogy between the position of the Local Government Board in this matter and the Port of London Authority acting under the Port of London Act. The noble Earl who introduced this Amendment confined himself to the simple statement that this was in the Port of London Act, and did not attempt, I think, to give any reason why it should be applied under this Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I had not come to that yet. My reason for not stating so was because my Amendment followed.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was only putting in a general explanation.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount said that the Local Government Board were in a sense a party to the purchase of land in such a case. I confess that I cannot see that that is so in the slightest degree. The Board are not going to acquire the land. Except in the interests of general economy, there is no reason why they should care how much is paid for the land. They are not concerned in the local rate rising in consequence of an excessive price being paid. They are, I should have thought, in as impartial a position as any set of people can be who are called in to adjudicate upon a particular subject. I understand that the noble Viscount holds out the idea that some differential procedure might be introduced according as the value of the land to be taken is high or low.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No; urban or rural.
THE EARL OF CREWE: But I do not know that it would always work out exactly in a manner which the noble Viscount contemplates. We should be extremely unwilling to make any change in procedure of that kind, and I am afraid, therefore, we are bound to resist the Amendment of the noble Earl. Of course, we could consider before some later stage of the Bill whether it is possible to safeguard the interests of the vendor in certain cases, but I am afraid it can hardly be done in the manner which the noble Viscount suggests. I am afraid, therefore, we must resist at this stage the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND hoped His Majesty's Government would give their Lordships better reasons for resisting this proposal. What were the reasons? Their Lordships had not been informed. The noble Earl who had charge of the Bill told them it would be more expensive. Well, it would be very little more expensive. The noble Earl told them it would be slow. Well, he hoped their procedure was going to be slow when they were going to take other people's property compulsorily. This was not a matter which required any urgency. Any action
36
that was taken under Part III of the principal Act should be taken deliberately. There was no earthly object in hurrying the matter; and as far as expense was concerned, he had yet to learn that the expense would be great, although, of course, if it was really great that was, no doubt, a certain objection. Yet he could not help thinking that it was better for owners that the process of taking their property from them compulsorily should be a little more expensive, than that they should be left entirely at the mercy of a Government Department. He did not in the least agree that the Local Government Board had no interest in the matter. It was true it had no pecuniary interest, no interest which could be pointed to as a material consideration, but the Local Government Board, just like every other office, had the greatest interest in carrying out its schemes and its theories. They had seen how it was with the Small Holdings Act, how the Board of Agriculture had staked its reputation, or, at least, the Minister of Agriculture had staked as it were the credit of the Government, upon the large spread of small holdings. Was that not interest? And very much the same thing might happen under this Bill. He hoped his noble friend would not give way about this Amendment. He thought it was a most important point. As for differentiating between a rural or county borough, as had been spoken of, he would hesitate very much to recommend their Lordships to consider the interests of the larger of the rich owners of a town rather than the small owners in the country districts. He thought everyone should be defended in the possession of his property. It would not be difficult to show that in some instances the Small Holdings Act had not worked very successfully in the way of protecting owners from having their land taken from them at a lower rate than ought to have been paid. But at any rate in this matter he thought they should observe the principle that if a man's land was to be taken compulsorily it should only be done after a thoroughly impartial inquiry and by a slow process. He liked the process because it was slow, and he ventured to think that it ought to commend itself to the Committee.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that His Majesty's Government could not consider the Amendment without seeing what it was to lead to, and the real difference

37
between the Government and the noble Earl was this. The noble Earl wished to secure an impartial inquiry. The Government, however, intended to send down some one from the Local Government Board who would not be in a position of impartiality. To insist upon that provision placed the landowners at the mercy of the Local Government Board.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON) pointed out that the procedure followed exactly that of the Small Holdings Act, which had been agreed to on both sides of the House. He thought he could fairly say that the wisdom of their Lordships in passing that Act had been demonstrated. It had been working smoothly and without friction, and there was only one county council in England which refused to act. In a period of fourteen months 44,000 acres had already been obtained by schemes and orders, and they received applications for about 1,000 acres a week. There were no cases of hardship as far as he could make out; and there had been only two cases of alleged hardship, which had been proved to be trumped up and bogus. He did not think, in the circumstances, there need be any apprehension in putting this Bill under the same procedure as the Small Holdings Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that the noble Earl had imported into the discussion a new feature altogether. As that had been done, Jet him state what a Judge had said with regard to a recent case in Norfolk. There was an occupier of two farms, one with heavy land, and the other with lighter land, and a compulsory Order was made, in spite of his opposition, acquiring the light land farm for small holdings. He sought before the Court to show that the Board of Agriculture had disregarded some provisions of the Act in confirming the Order. He went into Court, and what happened? He (Lord Camperdown) had an extract in his hand from the judgment of Mr. Justice Darling, delivered on the 12th July this year. The Judge said—
"Here is a Public Department put in a position of absolute supremacy. Whatever the action of the farmer was who came to the Court asking for relief under the Order, the Court can only say that Parliament has enacted only last year that the Board of Agriculture, in acting as they had, should be no more impeachable than Parliament itself."
38
That was the exact position; and if their Lordships wanted to know how that was arrived at, let them look at the First Schedule, subsection (2), which provided that—
"An Order when so confirmed shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act; and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act."
There they had the opinion of a Judge which showed that they had entirely taken away from the Courts of law any control whatever on any matter with regard to the Small Holdings Act. His case had been put so much better by Viscount St. Aldwyn and the Duke of Northumberland that he hesitated about saying even one word more, but when the noble Earl told him that the Port of London Act had no strict analogy to this Bill, he thought the noble Earl had hardly appreciated what he had pointed out in speaking on Clause 1, which placed compulsion upon all local authorities with regard to housing schemes, whether in town or country. It did not at all follow that three or five acres might be taken. It might be 100 or 200 acres. In cases of that sort, was the best way simply the way which they said was the cheapest? Had justice nothing to do with it? For that reason he thought that the procedure which they sanctioned with regard to the Small Holdings Act certainly did not apply in cases of great importance such as this.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am tempted to say a word with regard to this Amendment, because it seems to me to raise a question of principle of the first importance—a question of principle which runs all through the Bill now before us, and not only through this Bill but through many other Bills which we have to consider. In these days we are constantly offered legislation for the purpose of enabling houses or land—private property—to be taken away from the owners of such property for one purpose or another. Now nobody, I think, will be found to contend that there is anything unreasonable in depriving owners of their land or their property for some useful public purpose. The only question that does arise is what safeguards you are going to put in the way

39
of the arbitrary acquisition of such property; what precautions you are going to take that those who are deprived of it are adequately compensated for their loss. We are regarded by the noble Earl opposite as unduly apprehensive in regard to the wide powers which this Bill confers upon the Local Government Board. I can assure him that in that feeling, which is a widely prevalent feeling, no question of personal mistrust or suspicion enters. But what we do feel, and feel very strongly, is that these heads of Departments must from the very nature of things be not wholly disinterested and indifferent in the manner in which they deal with them. I go further. I think it is most desirable that a Minister in charge of legislation such as that we are now considering, or of legislation such as that embodied in the Small Holdings Act, should be more or less of an enthusiast in the cause which he has to champion. And I think, without disrespect to the noble Earl who presides over the Board of Agriculture, I do not think I should be doing him an injustice if I imputed to him a great deal of enthusiasm for the cause he so persistently advocates in this House and in the country. But that enthusiastic temperament does not always produce an absolutely judicial frame of mind, and our fear is that in these cases the Ministers who will have to give effect to the provisions of a Bill such as this will be carried away by that feeling of enthusiasm, and not only that, but the staff will become infected also with that temper of enthusiasm. Indeed I do not think it is altogether unfair to suggest that these gentlemen sometimes owe the official position which is given to them to the fact that they are enthusiasts and desire to make a success of the enterprise at no matter what cost. Therefore when the President of the Board of Agriculture comes to the Table and tells us that this Bill is on all-fours with the procedure under the Small Holdings Act, I am not in the least reassured. The subject-matter, moreover, is of an entirely different character. Under this Bill you may deal not merely with the acquisition of a few acres for villagers who desire to be provided with small holdings. You may deal with great schemes involving important interests in urban areas, and you may deal with them over the heads of great municipal bodies who are at present responsible for these matters. The noble Earl pointed out to us that in his opinion the procedure resorted to under
40
the Port of London Bill was not appropriate to the Bill on the Table. I must say I was not greatly convinced by the argument which the noble Earl produced. For example, I do not think he was entirely successful in showing that the procedure suggested by my noble friend Lord Camperdown would necessarily involve either great delay or great expense. We all of us desire to avoid delay or expense, but let me remind the Committee that the Act referred to is not the only precedent to which we have a right to refer. There are other Acts. For example, I am under the impression that under the London Building Act of 1894 the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act apply, and that you have a commission of three members who have to deal with disputed cases under that Act. But there is another case to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl. We have all of us seen a Bill which has not yet come to this House—the Development Bill. Now, as we understand the Development Bill, there may under that Bill arise cases in which private property is to be interfered with, as under this Bill, for some public purpose. What is proposed in the Development Bill is that the Lands Clauses Act shall apply, and that disputed cases of compensation are to be decided, not by an arbitrator appointed by a Government Department, but by the Lord Chief Justice—a very different provision. I must say that I hope my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment. It seems to me it is a duty that we owe to ourselves to include in this Bill some machinery which is more likely to inspire public confidence than that which it now contains, and I really venture to suggest to noble Lords opposite that it is not only due to Parliament and the public that this should be done. It seems to me fairer to the Minister who is at the head of a Department that he should be relieved of the tremendous responsibility of finally deciding in important cases of this kind. He may desire ever so keenly to be absolutely impartial, but after he has warmly espoused a cause, after he has, perhaps, conducted a heated controversy about a particular case, it is absolutely impossible that in the last resort, when he has to decide in a judicial capacity on the merits of that case, he should attract to himself that confidence which we should like to see all the heads of public Departments enjoy.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I must endeavour to explain how it is that His Majesty's Government cannot find themselves convinced by the arguments put forward from the other side of the House. I may say, first, that the noble Earl opposite, who is always fair, was really not quite correct when he said that Earl Carrington had imported a new element into the discussion when he referred to the matter of small holdings, because he was directly challenged on that point by the noble Duke opposite. The noble Marquess who has just sat down has stated clearly what is the fear noble Lords have under this Bill, and, as he said, under other Bills. He is afraid that the particular office concerned might become impregnated with enthusiasm for their measures and might not deal quite fairly with those whose property is to be taken, because they were anxious to see these measures work, and because of the natural enthusiasm with which a particular Minister may be inspired. I do not deny that in theory there are arguments which can be used in support of a view of that kind, but our fear, as I think I indicated on the Second Reading of this Bill, is of an opposite kind, and the rational course, I think, is to attempt to strike a balance between the two opposing dangers. We say that the danger of all these guarantees and safeguards is that you so hamper the conditions under which your Bill is to be carried out that you destroy thereby no small part of its usefulness. We have all known cases of Acts which have been passed with the utmost goodwill, and not without high hopes of their social value, but which for some reason have remained nugatory, and no proceedings have been taken under them. We are afraid, if all this safeguarding is overdone, that something of the kind will happen in this case. The noble Marquess, with his usual dialectical skill, has spoken of this Bill as though it dealt only with urban land of great value. Surely that is not so. We hope that a very large number of quite small transactions will take place under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Excuse me; my point was that not only small transactions, but very large transactions could take place under this Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is quite true, but the noble Marquess only mentioned the very large-priced transactions. The noble Duke has spoken frankly from
42
the point of view of the owner of the land to be taken. He is quite entitled to do that, and we all agree that the interests of the owner ought to be safeguarded. The noble Duke says he does not mind the delay. It may be the case that a few months more or less may not be of great importance, though as a matter of fact, if it is a question of confirming a Provisional Order, the delay may in some cases reach a period of two years. But I set that aside. The real reason of all this is not so much the delay or the expense, except so far as it would prevent a transaction taking place at all. There is one person who is very often alluded to from the opposite Benches—but who has not been alluded to at all in this connection—the ratepayer. These local authorities, particularly the small authorities, are likely to be debarred from these transactions at all if the expenses are likely to be as great as suggested. We have to read this Amendment concurrently with other Amendments—for instance, that which permits, under the instruction of an outside arbitrator, the employment of counsel and expert witnesses. What is likely to happen? A district council wants to take from some rich and powerful landowner a small portion of land. They know that they may have to meet some of the extremely able and very costly counsel who adorn the rooms upstairs, and that all manner of expert valuers may be brought down from London to give evidence of the value of the land. What will be the result? They will not attempt the transaction at all. We ask you to realise the nature of our fears. It is not a question of a month or two or a question of a few pounds, but it is the dread which we have, the alarm which is caused in our minds, by not only this Amendment, but the whole series of Amendments, which, of course, it is in your Lordships' power to carry. We are afraid that the operations of the Bill will be so narrowed by these Amendments that although it may look very well, the greater part of its usefulness will disappear, and on these grounds we are bound to resist this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was sure that their Lordships must have been very interested at hearing the noble Earl put forward as one of the main objects which the Government had in promoting the Bill the interests of the ratepayers. Most of those who had read the Bill with

43
some care had come to the conclusion that the last person the Government had considered was the ratepayer; and indeed one of the most striking illustrations of that attitude of mind on the part of His Majesty's Government was that under the present Bill, as the noble Earl knew, in certain circumstances the county council was given authority to override the authority of a district council and to impose upon them the obligation of providing housing accommodation. Under the existing Act there were some very careful provisions laid down, among others that the county council were to have regard to the interests of the ratepayers in the coercive action which they took. Judging from what the noble Earl had just said, one would have expected to have found those conditions reproduced in the present Bill as limiting the action of the Local Government Board. But nothing of the kind. The Local Government Board was not called upon at any moment, from one end of the Bill to the other, to have regard to the interests of the ratepayer. The noble Earl had said that his noble friend, in proposing his Amendment, had overlooked the fact that the extra expense involved in procedure would debar the authority from exercising its powers under the Bill. The great difference between the proposal of the Government and the proposal of his noble friend had already been pointed out to them by the Lord Chief Justice. The great difference was that his noble friend proposed an impartial inquiry, whereas the Government proposed one which was not impartial. That was the only difference. There was no reason why one procedure should be more expensive than the other. In one there was to be a local inquiry, but in either case the Local Government Board had to take into consideration the result of that inquiry, and there was really no reason in the world why one procedure should be more expensive than the other. The noble Earl, feeling the weakness of his contention, had referred in a vague manner to other Amendments later in the Bill which their Lordships might or might not agree to; but so far as the Amendment before them was concerned, there was really no reason why the procedure contemplated by his noble friend should be more expensive than the other. There was one exception, and that was where the matters in dispute were of great importance. Then they ought to go before Parliament. Was that
44
unfair? Under his noble friend's proposal when the matter in dispute was of great importance, then the impartial person had to send it before Parliament. That was perfectly fair, because, ex hypothesi, they were not dealing with a small authority wishing to acquire a few acres of land, but with a large and important authority dealing with an important matter. There could be no reason in the world why, in the case of a large urban authority entering upon a large housing scheme, the matter should not go before Parliament. In a case of that kind, the small extra expense involved would be very properly involved, because of the importance of the consideration. Therefore, it seemed to him that the proposal of the Government was not sound, and he hoped his noble friend would succeed in inserting his Amendment in the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that noble Lords on his side of the House were put in rather a difficulty when such a speech as the one they had just listened to was made. He thought they were considering the general scheme of the noble Earl who himself suggested that it should be discussed on this occasion. The noble Marquess said that they had no right to refer to these other clauses which the noble Earl was the first to mention to their Lordships' House. Under those circumstances it put the Government side of the House in a considerable difficulty, and he thought if noble Lords opposite referred to certain clauses they should be allowed to do the same. The particular point upon which they were not agreed was the question of expense. It was not very difficult to show that the scheme provided by the noble Earl might lead to a very great deal more expense than the scheme provided by the Bill. The Bill before their Lordships simply provided for the Local Government Board, but the scheme of the noble Earl, which they were discussing, provided for an arbitrator who might hear expensive witnesses. In those circumstances it seemed to him quite obvious that the scheme of the noble Earl was considerably more expensive than the scheme of the Bill.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Hereford, L. Bp.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Haversham, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Airedale, L.

Lochee, L.

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Blyth, L.

Marchamley, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pentland, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, L.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Glantawe, L.

Welby, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. [E. Marshal.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Ellenborough, L.

Bedford, D.

Waldegrave E. [Teller.]

Faber, L.

Devonshire, D.

Westmorland, E.

Forester, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ailesbury, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton, L.

Bristol, M.

De Vesci, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Camden, M.

Falkland, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Falmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Leigh, L.

Halifax, V.

Ludlow, L.

Cadogan, E.

Hampden, V.

Manners, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hardinge, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Carnwath, E.

Hill, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Newton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hutchinson V. (E. Donoughmore.)

North, L.

Clarendon, E.

Iveagh, V.

Northcote, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Ridley, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Denbigh, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Poltimore, L.

Derby, E.

Redesdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Abinger, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Harrowby, E.

Alverstone, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Rothschild, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bagot, L.

St. Levan, L.

Jersey, E.

Basing, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belper, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lichfield, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sandys, L.

Londesborough, E.

Calthorpe, L

Seaton, L.

Lytton, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Malmesbury, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Mayo, E.

Colchester, L.

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

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Northbrook, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Plymouth, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Desborough, L.

Walsingham, L.

Stamford, E.

Digby, L.

Wenlock, L.

Stanhope, E.

Egerton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN then moved the new subsections which he had previously outlined. He said that as their Lordships had been good enough to allow him to make an explanation of the general effect of his Amendments it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the Committee with many words. He would only just briefly say, for the information of Lord Crewe, that the subsections were taken from the Port of London Bill, and
46
they were taken for this reason, that the subject-matter of the Bill before them was much more nearly related to the subject-matter of the Port of London Bill than it was to the Small Holdings Act. He knew that as the Port of London Bill originally stood a different procedure was proposed; it was strongly opposed by counsel, and in the end the Joint Committee rejected the proposal which was made to them and substituted this proposal. It was for that reason he had inserted it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 18, after 'Act,' to insert the following new subsections:
(2) If within the period prescribed by the Board no objection to an Order under this section has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, but if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Board shall appoint an impartial person not in the employment of any Government Department to hold a public inquiry on their behalf in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and the local authority and all persons interested in the land, and such other persons, as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow, shall permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry.
(3) If the person who held the inquiry reports, or if on considering his report, it appears to the Board that by reason of the extent or situation of any land proposed to be acquired compulsorily, or the purposes for which such land is used, or any other circumstances, the land ought not to be acquired compulsorily without the sanction of Parliament, the order of the Board shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.
(4) An Order other than a Provisional Order made by the Board under this section shall come into force after it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the table of both Houses of Parliament, unless either House during those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the Order, in which case no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new sub-section—
"(2) Land which has been acquired by the owners thereof under any local Act, Provisional Order, or Order having the powers of an Act of Parliament, shall not be authorised to be acquired compulsorily under this section except by a Provisional Order which shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament."
He had placed the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of safeguarding land which had been acquired by the owners under any local Act or Provisional Order from being compulsorily taken away by a local authority, and also for the purpose of asking their Lordships to confirm the general principle that land acquired by sanction of Parliament ought not to be taken away at all except by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. But at present he would not move his Amendment, because there was another Amendment down in Viscount St. Aldwyn's name which covered it.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to
Clause 3:
"3. Where a loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to a local authority for any purposes of the Housing Acts—

(a) The loan shall be made at the minimum rate allowed for the time being for loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and

(b) If the Local Government Board make a recommendation to that effect, the period for which the loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners may exceed the period allowed under the principal Act or under any other Act limiting the period for which the loan may be made, but the period shall not exceed the period recommended by the Local Government Board, nor in any case eighty years; and

(c) As between loans for different periods, the longer duration of the loan shall not be taken as a reason for fixing a higher rate of interest."

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the omission of the words which restrict the benefits of the clause, including those of minimum rate of interest and period of repayment, to local authorities. He said the clause provided that loans might be made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners at the minimum rate allowed for the time being for loans out of the Local Loans Fund. It did not extend that favourable rate of interest to loans made to other persons who were also authorised by the existing law to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the same purpose, but confined it to local authorities. Those persons included railway and dock and harbour companies, water companies, companies employing a considerable number of the working classes for whom accommodation might be required, and also owners of land and even leaseholders who had an interest of not less than fifty years. In the rural districts and in not a few urban districts, the cottages of the working classes had been supplied by private persons or companies, rather than by public authorities, and he believed any future provision was likely to be made in the same way. Why, then, should those persons not be allowed the same facilities as local authorities? He had asked on Second Reading why those favourable terms with regard to the rate of interest on loans should not have been extended to all who were authorised to borrow under existing Acts, and the only answer he received from the noble Earl the Leader of the House was that the Treasury had been lenient in one case and would not extend their leniency to another. He did not press the Amendment because it might be a matter

49
of privilege, but he raised it as an appeal to His Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision, which of course could be altered in another place. He was sure there could be no better public object than the provision of good housing accommodation for the working classes, and he could not understand why, when the Public Works Loan Commissioners were authorised to lend to all the parties he had named, just as they had been authorised to lend to the local authorities, the same rate of interest should not be charged to the persons named as to the local authorities. If that were done it surely would be in the interests of the cause they all had at heart.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'to a local authority.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that the omission of the words "local authority" would enable the loans to be made to private individuals.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said it would apply to all those authorised by the existing law.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought that the main answer to the noble Viscount's Amendment was that the bulk of the loans under the section were secured at any rate mainly upon those particular dwellings in respect to which the money was advanced. He thought their Lordships would see that generally, with regard to the class of buildings that would be put up, it was not a very satisfactory security for a loan which would be spread over a period of eighty years. Of course, the case of local authorities stood upon a different basis, because they had other funds at their disposal which naturally were security for the repayment of the loans. But if they were not dealing with authorities of that kind, he thought it was not surprising that the Treasury had said that that was lending money to individuals as well as to societies without having security for the repayment of the money.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said they could require as much security as they liked, quite apart from the building.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following new clause on the Paper, to be inserted after Clause 6—
"Any local authority in connection with the exercise by them of their powers under Part III of the principal Act, may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and subject to such conditions (if any) as the Board may impose on giving their consent., dispense with any obligation of the local authority or any, other person to comply with any local Act, Provisional Order, or order having the effect of an Act, or any by-law, regulation, or other provision under whatever authority made, which is in operation in the area in which the local authority are exercising any of their powers under Part III of the principal Act, but nothing in this section shall confer upon any local authority power to dispense with the provisions of the London Building Acts, 1894 to 1905, or any Act amending the same, or any by-laws or regulations in force thereunder without the consent of the London County Council."
The object of the Amendment was, he explained, to facilitate the erection of houses for the working classes, and especially by the County Council of London. He felt in some difficulty about the clause as it had been placed upon the Paper. Those of their Lordships who had studied the Bill would have seen that under Clause 23 the Local Government Board sought to take powers in respect to Part I and Part II of the original Act which were identical with the power which he proposed to take under Part III by the suggested new clause. Again, under Clause 55 in the Town Planning Part more drastic provisions were proposed to be taken by the Local Government Board for overriding by-laws and Acts of Parliament than even were proposed in the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper. There were on that side of the House noble Lords who held, and he thought rightly held, that to give the Local Government, or any Government Department, the power of overriding either an Act of Parliament or a Provisional Order, was in itself an invasion of the usual practice of Parliament. It was highly desirable that anything which was done by Parliament, if it was to be abrogated, should be abrogated by Parliament. For these reasons, they were seeking to eliminate from Clause 23 and Clause 55 the provisions which would enable the Local Government Board to override anything except by-laws which they themselves had made.
He proposed, with the consent of their Lordships, to amend his proposed new clause by leaving out those parts of it which referred to Acts of Parliament and limiting it to those parts which referred to the abrogation of by-laws with the consent of the Local Government Board which by-laws they themselves had made or had sanctioned. He had handed to the Lord Chairman such an Amendment as, without troubling their Lordships to read it, would reduce the clause precisely within those limits. He desired in a few words to explain why it was absolutely necessary, if housing was to be cheap, and if housing was also to be in any way expeditious, they should adopt some system of that kind, and bring into line the wholly divergent by-laws which existed throughout the metropolis, and, he believed, equally in some of the provincial towns. At that moment the London County Council had large building schemes which were being carried on, and necessarily carried on, outside the limits of the county. He would not trouble their Lordships at that moment although he might have to do so later on with any description of the position in which they stood with regard to those schemes vis â vis the Local Government Board, but he might mention that they carried them on under the greatest possible difficulties. For instance, in Croydon they came across by-laws which forced them to have in the rear of any building of that character a space of 500 square feet. In Edmonton they could erect exactly the same building with a space in the rear of it of 150 square feet. He thought their Lordships would admit that it was highly undesirable, if houses were needed for the working classes in the neighbourhood of Croydon, that such a penalty should be exacted from the ratepayers, unless it was the opinion of the Local Government Board that such a penalty must be exacted.
Then, again, Croydon required exactly double the width of a party wall to that required in the Borough of Tottenham, and there were conflicting by-laws throughout these boroughs as to drainage, the width of streets, the making of roads, the distances between cross roads, and so on. All those questions came up at intervals, after a site had been bought. They came up at a moment when the thing had been entered into in the belief that without cost to the ratepayers the dwellings could
52
be provided; and it was discovered, after action bad been taken, that owing to a by-law which might be adopted or changed by the local authority at any moment with the consent of the Local Government Board, the buildings had a very large increased cost put upon them. He would not for a moment press their Lordships upon the point were it one of those small and isolated cases to which allusion had been made in the course of the debate that afternoon, but he must say for the London County Council that for good or ill they had spent during the last ten years £2,560,000 on working class dwellings, and having had experience in different parts of the country of the difficulties raised by by-laws, he thought they had some right to ask their Lordships' indulgence in the matter. If the Local Government Board for the special object of workmen's dwellings saw reason to relapse by-laws which it had made itself, those by-laws should be so relapsed, and the penalty which at present was laid upon the ratepayers should not be exacted from them.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
'Any local authority in connection with the exercise by them of their powers under Part III of the principal Act, may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and subject to such conditions (if any) as the Board may impose on giving their consent, dispense with any obligation of the local authority or any other person to comply with any by-law, regulation, or other provision under whatever authority made, which is in operation in the area in which the local authority are exercising any of their powers under Part III of the principal Act, but nothing in this section shall confer upon any local authority power to dispense with the provisions of the London Building Acts, 1894 to 1905, or any Act amending the same, or any by-laws or regulations in force thereunder without the consent of the London County Council.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP hoped the noble Viscount would forgive him if he confessed himself at some disadvantage in arguing on an Amendment which had been amended since the present sitting of the House began. A good many of the questions they were dealing with were somewhat technical, and when an Amendment which was already of a technical nature was altered in that way, a layman like himself was in a considerable difficulty. First of all, with regard to the particular case which the noble Viscount had in his mind of Totten-

53
ham, Tottenham would be a very proper case for a town planning scheme, and that would come under different conditions which would probably meet the case of the noble Viscount. There was one result of the Amendment, as amended, which he thought was not in the mind of the noble Viscount, and that was that it would give to the Local Government Board the supervision of all the plans of the London County Council, which the Local Government Board were not anxious to have. There was one further point. The noble Viscount argued that the Bill went a great deal too far in giving to the Local Government Board certain powers in the way of repealing Acts of Parliament and by-laws. When they came to argue those clauses they would remember with pleasure that the noble Viscount himself suggested in the original form of his Amendment that the County Council should have power to override those Acts of Parliament, with the sanction of the Local Government Board. So that the noble Viscount himself went a very great deal further than anything which was in the Bill at the present time. He would draw the attention of the noble Viscount, if he might, to an Amendment which he had himself put down as a subsequent clause to Clause 44. After Clause 44 there was an Amendment standing in his name, and it gave power to the Local Government Board to override these by-laws and other enactments when they were unreasonable, and that Amendment might, perhaps, meet the case which the noble Viscount had quite fairly put to the Committee. In any event, he would like to suggest to him that, in view of the fact that none of their Lordships had seen the noble Viscount's Amendment, as now moved, in print, it would be well to bring it up again on Report. He hoped, however, that the noble Viscount would be satisfied with the subsequent Amendment to which he had referred.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON admitted that the noble Earl's suggested new clause did make a considerable difference. He had obtained a copy of it, but he had not had time to consider it fully. He would, with their Lordships' permission, withdraw his Amendment now and bring it up again on Report if it should be found that the noble Earl's Amendment did not sufficiently cover his own.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON said that the question
54
of these building by-laws was one upon which he had been twice successful in asking their Lordships' House to pass a Bill, although, unfortunately, the Bill had gone no further than that House. The difficulties and troubles caused by unnecessary by-laws in rural districts had been so evident to the House on the two occasions on which he had had the honour to bring the subject before them that he thought there was really very little opposition on either side, and he had ventured to look upon the subject for some time as a little ewe lamb of his own. He was delighted to now find that it had been "gobbled up" by the Front Benches on both sides, the noble Viscount and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill having both put down Amendments on the subject. He would be only too thankful if he found, as a result of the two Front Benches having taken the matter up, that the difficulties and troubles and inconsistencies in the present by-laws of rural districts should be in any way obviated without his further troubling on the subject. But he would like to say that the President of the Local Government Board, after his (Lord Hylton's) Bill on the matter passed the House a year or two ago, spoke most sympathetically on the subject, and promised, if an opportunity provided itself, to father the measure through the House of Commons. That opportunity did not arise, but in a discussion upon this Bill the other day some Amendment of the kind was put down, and the President of the Local Government Board again said that if something was moved in this House he would again endeavour to give his attention to it. He would not repeat the arguments he used when he brought the subject before the House on a former occasion, but if the Front Benches were good enough to take the subject up he would only be too delighted to see it passed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
"7.—(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section seventy-four of the principal Act:—
(b) The improvements on which capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be expended, enumerated in section twenty-five of the said Act, and referred to in section thirty of the said Act, shall, in addition to cottages for labourers, farm servants, and artisans, whether employed on the settled land or not, include the provision of dwellings available for the working classes, either

55
by means of building new buildings or by means of the reconstruction, enlargement, or improvement of existing buildings, so as to make them available for the purpose, if that provision of dwellings is, in the opinion of the court, not injurious to the estate or is agreed to by the tenant for life and the trustees of the settlement.
(2) The provision by a tenant for life, at his own expense, of dwellings available for the working classes on any settled land, shall not in any case be deemed to be an injury to any interest in reversion or remainder in that land."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment to provide that the powers conferred on a tenant for life by the clause should not be exercised by him without the previous approval in writing of the trustees of the settlement. He was not quite sure what the intention of His Majesty's Government was in respect to the subsection—subsection (2)—to which his Amendment related. They evidently had in their minds some case which had been brought to their notice in which a tenant for life had built cottages and afterwards been called in question, he supposed, by his trustees, or some one interested, for having violated the terms of the settlement, or destroyed the amenities of the place or its surroundings. He had no doubt he would hear from the noble Earl the particular kind of case they had in mind. Of course the general tendency of legislation in recent years had been to free the tenant for life as much as possible and he was now, notwithstanding any terms of the settlement, allowed to use capital moneys for the building of cottages to the full extent he wished. But this went a step further, and said that when he was intent upon building cottages he was not to be restrained in any way whatever by any consideration, and wherever he built cottages, even if he built them opposite the front door of his mansion, and destroyed the garden, he was not to be called in question. That seemed to him to carry the freedom of the tenant for life too far, and his Amendment was merely to limit it to the extent that if the tenant for life wished to be absolutely protected so that he could build cottages precisely where he thought fit, he must first get the consent of his trustees. It seemed to him to be a very moderate Amendment, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words 'in any case,' and in line 35, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'provided that the powers con-
56
ferred upon a tenant for life by this subsection shall not be exercised by him without the previous approval in writing of the trustees of the settlement.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he would not venture to accuse any noble Lord or landowner of doing anything so foolish as to build cottages opposite his front door. He thought the provisions of the clause were fairly simple in their intention. The idea was that they should simplify the matter and assist any tenant for life in building such cottages if he wished to do so. His own experience was that the less one had to deal with lawyers the better, and in the case before them the intervention of the trustees would, without any doubt, give an opportunity to the family lawyer to have something to say in the matter. No doubt the noble Marquess was afraid that some unwise tenant for life might erect needless dwellings on the estate which the man who succeeded afterwards would be obliged to keep in repair, but he did not think that that would be likely to happen. One reason why he thought it was not very likely to happen was that the tenant for life would have to spend his own money in the matter, and therefore he was not likely to waste, it needlessly, or spend it in the erection of unnecessary buildings.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE was of opinion that the words went too far. He had known cases where a malicious man, a tenant for life, had seriously injured the property by spending money needlessly, because he was unfriendly to those coming after him; and he thought that there ought to be some protection in regard to the estate itself.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH hoped the House would agree to the Amendment of the noble Marquess. It did seem to him that the protection of the trustees in such a case would be valuable. He believed there was a safeguard where it was proposed to spend capital money for the building of workmen's cottages, and that was that a scheme had to be submitted through the intermediary of the Board of Agriculture. It so happened that he himself had had to inquire into that very matter in a small case in which he was interested only that day, and he was told that it was in most cases obligatory for the scheme to be adopted.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the question, of course, is not a very large one, and the whole point is whether it is more likely that a tenant for life would do the somewhat eccentric thing which the noble Lord opposite suggested—spend his own pocket money in order to annoy his heir—or whether it is more likely that trustees who do not take great interest in enterprise of this kind might not put obstruction in the way of a tenant for life who wished to improve his property in that respect. I think the latter would be more likely, and I should prefer the clause to stand as it is.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he had no doubt there were philanthropic tenants for life, but he know one or two very malicious tenants for life, and he dared say most of their Lordships had a similar acquaintance. He did not see what objection there could be to the noble Marquess's Amendment; it was surely imposing no serious limitation.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he was not sure whether the noble Earl realised that the tenant for life would have to do it out of his own pocket, so that he would have to be a most extraordinarily malicious person if he did it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN replied that he had known several people who were quite capable of doing a thing of that kind.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH pointed out that if there was no malicious intention the trustees would at once give their consent, because it would be a great improvement to the estate, and not done out of capital but out of the private money of the tenant for life. He could not conceive any reasonable trustees refusing their consent to that unless there was some malicious intention shown on the part of the tenant for life, and some desire to injure the estate thereby.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I agree with the noble Lord that reasonable trustees would not withhold their consent, but the question is whether there is not more likely to be unreasonable trustees than malicious tenants for life.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
"9.—(1) If in any case it appears to the Local Government Board that the institution of legal proceedings is requisite or desirable with respect to any property applicable or required to be applied under any trusts for the provision of dwellings available for the working classes, or that the expediting of any such legal proceedings is requisite or desirable, the Board may certify the case to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General, if he thinks fit, shall institute any legal proceedings or intervene in any legal proceedings already instituted in such manner as he thinks proper under the circumstances.
(2) Before preparing any scheme with reference to property applicable or required to be applied under any trusts for the provision of dwellings available for the working classes the Court or body who are responsible for making the scheme shall communicate with the Local Government Board and receive and consider any recommendations made by the Board with reference to the proposed scheme."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to delete the words "applicable or" ["desirable with respect to any property applicable or"]. He said he was not quite sure that he understood Clause 9; it was of rather a technical character, but as he read it it meant that supposing there was a trust of a large character covering diverse kinds of property, and there was property in the trust which was required to be applied to the provision of dwellings for the working classes, any other land which might be also under the same trust but about which nothing was said as to the provision of dwellings for the working classes might, by the action of the Local Government Board, be appropriated for that purpose. Surely those words were too wide, and he would move that the words "applicable or" should be left out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 3, to leave out the words 'applicable or.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that the matter had been considered by the Local Government Board, and in view of the objection which had been raised by the noble Duke they were willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Powers of enforcing Execution of Housing Acts.
10.—(1) If after holding a local inquiry with reference to the matter, the Local Government Board are satisfied—

(a) as respects any rural district on the complaint of the council of the county in which the district is situate, or of the parish council or parish meeting of any parish comprised in the district, or any four inhabitant householders of the district; or

(b) as respects any county district not being a rural district on the application of the council of the county in which the district is situated, or of four inhabitant householders of the district; or

(c) as respects the area of any other local authority on the application of four inhabitant householders of the area;

that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part II or Part III of the principal Act in cases where those powers ought to have been exercised, the Board may declare the authority to be in default, and may make an order directing that authority, or, if the Board think fit, in any case where the authority in default is the council of a county district, the county council, within a time limited by the order, to carry out such works and do such other things as may be mentioned in the order for the purpose of remedying the default.
(2) Where an order originally made under this section on the council of a county district is not complied with by that council, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, with the consent of the county council, instead of enforcing that order against the council of the county district, make an order directing the county council to carry out any works or do any other things which are mentioned in the original order for the purpose of remedying the default of the district council.
(3) Where the Board make an order under this section directing a county council to carry out any works or do any other thing the order may for the purpose of enabling the county council to give effect to the order apply any of the provisions of the Housing Acts or of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications or adaptations (if any) as appear necessary or expedient.
(4) Any order made by the Local Government Board under this section may be enforced by mandamus.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to delete the words "If after holding a local inquiry with reference to the matter," from the beginning of Clause 10 and to substitute the words "Where a complaint is made to." The Amendments standing in his name to Clause 10 were really only of a drafting character. They were meant to make it perfectly clear—and all his Amendments hung together—that a local inquiry need not necessarily be held supposing that the information received was frivolous. That covered the case of another Amendment to Clause 12 to be moved by the noble Duke.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'if after holding a local inquiry with reference to the matter' and to insert the words 'Where a complaint is made to.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON asked why the word "complaint" was used both in the Bill and in the Amendment. The ordinary words one would expect to find would be "Where an application is made," but the Government had used the words "Where a complaint is made." It had been put to him by persons entitled to respect that that might lead to confusion as to the law.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he did not think there was anything special in the point, but he would make inquiry, and if there was anything in it he would bring it up on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP then moved the other drafting Amendments standing in his name to Clause 10.
On Question, drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the words "or any four inhabitant householders of the district." from paragraph (a) subsection (1). He intimated that he would not move his Amendment at this stage as the Amendment to be moved by Lord Clinton just below in page 4, line 34, to leave out "or Part III" would cover his point.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to amend paragraph (a) of subsection (1) by leaving out "the district" and inserting "such parish." He merely wanted to ask why the phrase "the inhabitant householders of the district" was inserted in the clause instead of "the inhabitants of the parish." The words were "As respects any rural district on the complaint of the council of the county in which the district is situate, or of the parish council or parish meeting of any parish comprised in the district, or any four inhabitant householders of the district." It would seem to him to naturally follow that the words should be "inhabitants of the parish," but it was not a matter of any very great importance.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words `the district' and to insert the words such parish.'"(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that if the noble Viscount would look at line 21 he would see the words "as respects any rural district." That was why "district" was put at the end of the Clause; it related back, just as in (c) the word was "area."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved the omission of the words "or Part III," the effect being to take away from the Local Government Board the power to force any local authority by mandamus to embark on a housing scheme. Even if the Amendment were accepted it would, he said, leave the Local Government Board full powers over a local authority for the execution of Part I and Part II of the principal Act. Those two Parts dealt really with all the important public health matters in Housing Acts. They would enable the Local Government Board to force a local authority to deal with all the existing evils which were inseparable from unhealthy dwellings and insanitary areas. They would be able to force them to deal with plague spots of congested areas and destroy, remove, or reconstruct slum districts. He was bound to say that he believed with regard to those two Parts of the prinicipal Act that that power of the Local Government Board was absolutely necessary. It was given under the Act of 1903, and now it was strengthened by the larger powers of complaint and representation which were given to the local authorities and to the inhabitants. He believed it was necessary because the existence of these congested areas they all acknowledged and deplored, and he thought they were a proof that many local authorities were exceedingly apathetic in carrying out the duties placed upon them by former Acts of Parliament. It was, perhaps, rather a curious fact that slums existed in almost as great a degree as they did twenty years ago; and when it was shown by clear evidence that the need of action and of compelling power on the part of the Local Government Board over a local authority was really a necessity, however much they disagreed with the general idea of a Government Department compelling a popularly elected body to act contrary to its wishes,
62
he was bound to say they ought to extend the fullest power to a Government Department to deal with it.
The Government, he thought, had shown in their Bills that they were too ready to insert this power of mandamus with respect to local bodies. It was a principle which he believed was fundamentally wrong, and if carried to an extreme it was liable to make a farce of all local government. It could only be tolerated, in his opinion, if a really clear case was made out for its use. He believed that a clear case had been made for full powers with regard to Parts I and II. He did not wish to raise any objection to it in this section, but he thought the matter was quite different with regard to Part III. He had referred so much to Part II because he wanted, if he could, to draw a really broad distinction between the duties which fell on local authorities under Part II and the duties which would now fall upon them under Part III. In the former case the duties which the local authority had to carry out were duties which touched the health and the lives of the people in the localities under their charge. They were essentially local duties. But with regard to Part III, the dealing with housing schemes was certainly not a primary duty of a local authority. It was certainly not their first duty to suddenly embark on housing schemes or housing speculation; that was not a matter which affected public health in anything like the same degree as demolition or reconstruction schemes. It was really an extension of a very large measure of social reform which was not of local importance so much as of really national importance, and no evidence could be brought forward that local authorities had failed to carry out their duties in that respect, because up to the present Part III of the Act had been purely adoptive and local authorities had not been compelled to take it up at all.
He thought it was obvious that any housing scheme must be an expensive scheme, and must be a burden on the rates. They knew perfectly well that in building houses, at all events in rural districts, it was quite impossible to let them at a rent which would repay interest and sinking fund alone. He admitted fully that in urban districts rents were on a higher level than they were in rural districts. Local authorities had the increased powers of borrowing which were given them under the Act, and he under

63
stood that those powers would enable them to borrow money and pay off and set aside a sinking fund at the rate of three and a-quarter per cent. He admitted that there would be a better opportunity in urban districts than in rural districts, and he had no doubt that the President of the Local Government Board was perfectly justified on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place in showing that he could build and let a house at a rent which would repay interest and sinking fund. But it was well known to their Lordships that before a scheme could be self-supporting it was essential not only that one should be able to repay the interest and the sinking fund, but that one should be able to keep up one's buildings and do everything else that was necessary as a householder. First of all, obviously they had to keep the buildings in repair. He would like to say one word upon the percentage of cost of repairs. Formerly, under Schedule A of Income Tax, landowners were allowed sixteen per cent., roughly speaking one-sixth of the rent, as a reduction from their income for the cost of repairs. He was glad to say they knew, or had heard, that it had been acknowledged that landowners had been overtaxed in that respect, and there was to be an amendment put down in another place raising the limit of the cost of repairs to twenty-five per cent., or one-fourth. He understood that that was to be in special cases, but of course they did not know the details yet. He was sure, however, that landowners would be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that concession, and although it did not go as far as they thought necessary. at the same time he congratulated Lord Onslow and his association for the trouble taken and for the figures they collected and were able to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But whether it was one-fifth or one-fourth, it was a very large item which had to come off the rent of the building.
In addition there were the rates, which added a large sum, and there was also the cost of insurance and the very large risk, which was a real and a certain risk with that class of houses, that there would be arrears of rent which it was impossible to collect. To give their Lordships some idea of what that amounted to he would like to say that in connection with another Bill which had been before their Lordships particulars of the amount
64
of arrears of rent of certain property were furnished to him from the City of Edinburgh which showed that in the case of houses let at £6 the average percentage of arrears was thirty-three per cent. of the rental, and in the case of houses let at £7 the average percentage was twenty-five per cent. of the rental. When they added all those items together it was perfectly obvious that a housing scheme carried on by a local authority could not be self-supporting. It was essential that it should be a very heavy burden upon the rates. They need have no doubt that the experiment would be a costly one, and he did not believe it was right that a Government Department, which had no responsibility whatever for the rates, should have the power of forcing upon a popularly elected body that which would amount to a large scheme of municipal trading at the cost of the rates without the approval of that local authority, and without the consent of the constituents who elected that local authority. If they took away from the Local Government Board the power of forcing local authorities to carry out housing schemes there remained some machinery in the Bill by which those housing duties could be carried out if the rural authority was remiss in its duty. Section 12 of the Bill provided that—
"If the council of a county on the complaint of the parish council or parish meeting of any parish comprised in any rural district in the county, or of any four inhabitant householders of that district, after holding a local inquiry are satisfied that the rural district council have failed to exercise their powers under Part III of the principal Act in cases where those powers ought to have been exercised, the county council may resolve that the powers of the district council for the purposes of that Part be transferred to the county council."
That made the county council the judge of whether the schemes were required or whether they were necessary, and he personally believed the county council to be the proper authority in the matter because they were representative of the county and of the district, and they had also not only full knowledge of local requirements but had a certain responsibility for the rates. He thought it was more consonant with their ideas of local government that the county council should remain the chief authority in that respect. Of course, that section only referred to rural districts. But in order that some power should be brought in to force an urban district which was remiss in carrying out its duties in the same way as a rural district he had put Amendments

65
down to Clause 12 which he hoped would carry that out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 34, to leave out or Part III.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the practical effect of the Amendment, taken in conjunction with later Amendments, was to remove the authority of the Local Government Board with regard to Part III, and to substitute instead the action under Clause 12, in which case the county council would have authority both over the urban and the rural district councils. That was an alternative to the present scheme. Their Lordships knew that powers were given under Clause 12 already to deal with rural districts; by the Amendment of the noble Lord he would also put urban districts under the power of the county council. The town councils and also the urban district councils had both objected very strongly to the interposition of any authority between themselves and the Board, and by removing the urban district councils out of Clause 10 and putting them into Clause 12 they were left without any appeal to the Local Government Board. They preferred to be in direct communication with the Local Government Board. Where members of urban district councils had gathered together resolutions had been carried urging that no clause should be passed inserting any authority between themselves and the Local Government Board. He would further point out that there was no precedent to empower what was proposed by the Amendment. It would be taking a very strong step to put urban councils under the same power as rural councils. The County Councils Association might be against their proposal and desire that complaints should be to them as regards boroughs and urban districts; but as to smaller urban districts the Amendment of the noble Lord went much further. One effect of the Amendment would be that there would be no power to deal with default on the part of county boroughs at all; it would not apply to county boroughs; they would have to be mentioned separately. It was a very serious matter. His Majesty's Government thought the Bill as introduced provided better machinery, and he hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to stand as it was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not think the noble Earl realised the strength of the noble Lord's point. Was it to be agreed in that House that any local authority, however important it might be, was to be subject to the Local Government Board in a matter that involved very heavy expenditure of the ratepayers' money? It was not a case of bad dwellings, because that belonged to Parts I and II of the principal Act with which they were not dealing. They were dealing with cases under Part III, namely, that part of the principal Act which provided machinery for dealing with a new land scheme; and the question was whether important bodies like the county councils and county borough councils, elected expressly to protect the interests of ratepayers, were to be subject to a decree of the Local Government Board sitting in London as to how they were to expend the money of their constituents. It seemed to him to be a negation of local government as they understood it. It was astonishing to find the Liberal Party, which was so much in favour of representative self-government, proposing that representative bodies should have their decisions overridden by a Public Department in London. He did not think, whatever the fate of the noble Lord's Amendment might be, that their Lordships could assent to the extreme doctrine the Government had put forward. Therefore, even if the noble Lord did not press his Amendment it would be for their Lordships to consider the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Midleton, by which he would exempt from the operation of this Clause as affecting Part III of the Act the county councils and the great county boroughs. The noble Earl, in the speech he had just delivered, seemed to think that the county boroughs wanted control. Their Lordships could not assent to that. The noble Earl not only dealt with county boroughs, he also spoke of smaller urban constituencies. There was a recognised distinction between the two, and that distinction had been emphasised by Lord St. Aldwyn. In the face of that distinction he (Lord Salisbury) thought some of their Lordships could hardly support Lord Clinton in the Amendment he had laid before them. But although they could not go so far as to strike out "or Part III," it would need a certain amount of protection, and their Lordships would find on page 5 of the Paper an Amendment standing in

67
the name of Lord St. Aldwyn which proposed to re-instate the conditions which prevailed as to limiting the action of the county council under the existing Housing Acts in order to limit the action of the Local Government Board in respect of this Housing Act. That Amendment only dealt with rural districts. If Lord St. Aldwyn was prepared to extend it to small communities besides rural districts there would be sufficient protection, and then it would not be necessary to insist on so drastic an Amendment as that proposed by Lord Clinton. If they were not able to go with Lord Clinton on this Amendment it must be understood that they reserved the right to support the other Amendment in the form which he had ventured to mention.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND asked whether he understood the noble Earl to say that boroughs were willing to come under the authority of the Local Government Board. He understood that they objected strongly to the authority of the county councils; but did the noble Earl go so far as to say that they were willing to come under the other power?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I can answer the noble Duke in my reply to the noble Marquess. The first point of the noble Marquess's speech was directed against Clause 1 of the Bill. His objection was that Part III should be otherwise than adoptive. The particular question of whether Part III is compulsory is to be inquired into, but the point before your Lordships is the general question of compelling a local burden under Part III at all. Therefore it does not seem to be entirely relevant. I suggest that if the Amendment is not going to be pressed it would be better to reserve the discussion until the other Amendments are considered in due course. As regards the question of the noble Duke, I did not understand my noble friend behind me to say that county boroughs desired to come under the Local Government Board. All he said was that they strongly objected to come under the county council.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said he saw from a document he had had placed in his hands that they also strongly objected to come under the Loral Government Board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 35, after the word 'exercised,' to insert the words 'the Board may cause a public local inquiry to be held, and if after holding such an inquiry, the Board are satisfied that there has been such a failure on the part of the local authority.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the omission from the clause of the words "or, if the Board think fit, in any case where the authority in default is the council of a county district, the county council." He said this clause proposed in the first place that the complaint should be made by the county council that the council of a rural or urban district had not carried out the provisions of the law, and then that the Local Government Board on such complaint might make an order requiring the local authority to carry out the law. In line 37, other words were inserted which did not apply to the local authority at all. He did not quite understand what they meant. The words were—
"The Board may declare the authority to be in default and may make an order directing that authority, or, if the Board think fit, in any case where the authority in default is the council of a county district, the county council."
What right had the Local Government Board, either as the law stood or as it would stand if the Bill passed in its present shape, to make an order directing a county council to carry out the law? The county council was not the local authority for the purposes of this Bill. A county council as a county council was not charged by Parliament with any duty at all, except so far as the duties imposed upon it by that section were concerned which depended on the council's complaint, application, or consent; and, also, any action under Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill must be initiated by the county council or with the consent of the county council. Therefore he thought he was right in urging that neither the existing law nor the Bill imposed any obligation on a county council to carry out the Housing Acts. Then, he asked, what right had the Local Government Board to make an order on a county council to do it? He did not understand how those words had crept into the clause, and as he did not think the Local Government Board ought to have the right to make any such order on

69
a county council, he begged to move their omission.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 37, to leave out from the word 'authority' to the word 'within' in line 39."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Local Government Board would prefer the words to remain in the clause, but as there was a good deal of feeling in regard to them, he would accept the Amendment.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he was very glad that the Government were willing to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment, which left out more words than his Amendment would deal with. His Amendment was that the county council could not be compelled to do that which was not one of their duties. He had no objection to the noble Viscount's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved that before deciding that a local authority had failed to exercise their powers under Part III of the principal Act the Board should be satisfied that there was a necessity which was likely to be permanent for further housing accommodation for the working classes, that there was no probability that it would be otherwise provided, and that, having regard to the liability which would be incurred by the rates, it was prudent to undertake the provision. He stated that under the Act of 1890 it was provided that where a county council applied Part III of the Housing Act to a rural district it should only do so after having before it certain considerations, and having arrived at a conclusion upon them. Those considerations were practically what had been placed in the Amendment. That provision, when the Act of 1893 extended the powers of the county council in the matter, was reinstated, and it now stood as the law. The powers proposed by the clause to be conferred on the Local Government Board of making an order to compel a rural district council to provide this accommodation, of course, were far in excess of the powers granted by Parliament to the county councils in the matter of merely making Part III operative in a district. Therefore there was all the more reason for re-enacting a similar provision with
70
regard to the action of the Local Government Board in the matter. Before making the Order, which might be the cause of great expenditure, there should be considered whether accommodation should be provided, whether there was any probability that it would be otherwise provided, and whether it would be wise, having regard to the rates that it should be undertaken. Any one who knew the country knew many cases where, because of some particular trade or industry, dwellings had been built for the working classes, and perhaps within a few years, owing to the disappearance of the trade or industry, those buildings had become useless. They were bound, he thought, to provide by Statute that the Local Government Board should have before it precisely the same considerations as by the existing laws were before the county council prior to making orders,
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'default' to insert the words 'Before deciding that a local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part III of the principal Act, the Board shall be satisfied that there is a necessity which is likely to be permanent for further accommodation for the housing of the working classes in such district, that there is no probability that the required accommodation will be otherwise provided, and that having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates, it is under all the circumstances prudent for the local authority to undertake the provision of such accommodation.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that, although the Local Government Board were not prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, he was very glad to see that there was really no difference between them. The necessities of the case were met by the provision that there should be a local inquiry. After the local inquiry it might be found that the local authority was in default in some cases, and that there were some cases in which they ought to have exercised their power. The Local Government Board would not say they ought to have exercised their power if there was no necessity for further accommodation, or there was a probability that further accommodation would be provided. But other points ought to be considered by the Board, and it was not necessary to lay emphasis on one or two points when they would have to consider others later on. There was really no point of difference between the noble Viscount and himself.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said the noble Earl had overlooked a very important point, and that was that the earlier Acts contained those directions, and if those directions were overlooked it would be said that the discretion of the Local Government Board was unfettered, and that they need not take them into consideration. The noble Earl quite agreed with the noble Viscount that they should be taken into consideration, and it would be safer that there should not be an omission of those directions, lest it should be said they were not to be considered.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the House will not disregard the advice given us with the high authority of the Lord Chief Justice. Many of us were impressed by what was said by Lord Clinton, and I for one would not have dissociated myself from that proposal if I had not had reason to believe that it would be dealt with effectively in a later Amendment. The noble Earl tells us that the words proposed to be inserted by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn are superfluous, because we may assume that through the local inquiries contemplated by the Bill safeguards will have been sufficiently provided. I am totally unconvinced by the arguments of the noble Earl. Let us consider what this clause is really going to do. We are going to allow a Government Department to coerce a local authority into the expenditure of large sums of money, sums which may be very large in some cases, and which may be, very likely would be, spent for unremunerative purposes. Is it not reasonable that we should safeguard that power by every means at our disposal, and is it not perfectly reasonable to insist that those considerations which under the existing law have to be taken into account before Part III of the principal Act can be applied should be duly considered and weighed by those who are responsible? I should be very sorry if, after the discussion that has taken place, we should allow ourselves to be satisfied merely by the assumption, for it is only an assumption, that these local inquiries will result in sufficient care being paid to considerations which seem to me absolutely essential.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Committee had had the advantage of an interposition by the Lord Chief Justice, and; as it did not appear to the noble and learned Lord
72
that there was any danger that the other considerations which were not mentioned in the Amendment would be overlooked, the Government would accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH, with a view to preventing irresponsible persons from setting in motion the machinery of the section, moved to enable the Local Government Board, before considering complaints or applications, to require the deposit of a sum to cover the costs. He believed it had been a matter of controversy whether four householders of a district should be allowed to initiate proceedings. It appeared that Part I of the Housing Act dealing with large improvements enabled twelve householders to initiate proceedings and provided for security for costs to be lodged. His Amendment would extend to the case where initiatory action was taken by four men, who sometimes might be very worthy men and who sometimes might be very unworthy, and it seemed a pity that a burden should be placed on the ratepayers' shoulders unless those four men gave security for costs. Should noble Lords think that the wording of the Amendment was too drastic or went too far he would be willing to substitute the word "may" for "shall." That would bring it into accordance with Section 40 of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'default,' to insert the following new subsection:
'(2) The Local Government Board, before considering any complaint or application which may be made to them under this section by inhabitant householders, shall require the complainants or applicants to deposit such sum to cover the costs of the proceeding as the Board direct.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that they could not expect that there would be many or any complaints on trivial grounds, and he should be sorry if anything were done which would deter people, even the very poorest, from making such complaints. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It was a case where the Local Government Board might be trusted to make sufficient preliminary examination of the complaint, and not incur any costs before they had satisfied themselves that the complaint was really based on some

73
substantial foundation, and was not entirely frivolous. They knew of instances where a permissive clause of that kind had a deterrent effect. The hope of the Board was that persons would not be deterred in making complaints if they were justified in so doing, and they would be frightened if they thought they might have to make this deposit. The very poor could not deposit such a sum.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought there was something to be said for the Amendment, but, on the other hand, it was quite certain to be said outside that it was an endeavour to prevent people complaining when they had a complaint.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH did not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment providing that an Order of the Local Government Board under this clause relating to Part III of the principal Act should not take effect until a draft had been before both Houses of Parliament for thirty days; and if an address was presented against it, no further proceedings should be taken upon it. This was, he said, a provision of which advantage had been taken in many of these Acts. He urged that in view of the novelty of these proceedings and the feeling that was likely to be excited in different localities, there was no question that, even at the risk of a short delay, these Orders should be laid before Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 17, after the word 'expedient' to insert the following new subsection:
'(4) An order relating to Part III of the principal Act made by the Local Government Board under this section shall not take effect until a draft thereof 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 of a new Draft Order.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government were quite unable to accept the Amendment. Their Lordships' House did not sit for several months in the year, and it would be a great inconvenience for local
74
authorities to incur the delay which might be caused by requiring orders to be laid before Parliament. He reminded the House that the Board would only take action under this section when a local authority was in default. This was another case in which the Local Government Board was acting purely as an administrative Department, and they might safely be left with full authority.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said there would be no delay so long as the present Government were in existence because their Lordships sat all the year round. He wanted to point out to the noble Earl what he was doing. The Local Government Board were to override an authority which had been elected to represent the ratepayers, and to order them to spend the rates in defiance of what they thought right, and the Government did not propose to give them any appeal from that whatever. The Local Government Board were to have absolute authority. When the noble Earl objected to Lord Clinton's Amendment, they expected that if those local authorities were to be kept under the Local Government Board in regard to Part III they should have an appeal of some sort or kind. That was highly desirable. When the noble Earl said the Local Government Board were only acting administratively, he supposed a schoolmaster only acted administratively when he flogged a boy. He should say they were acting not only administratively but judicially. The Local Government Board had to satisfy themselves that the local authority had failed to exercise their powers under Part II or Part III of the principal Act in cases where those powers ought to have been exercised. In whose opinion was that? It was in the opinion of the Local Government Board. Surely that was exercising judicial powers. They took upon themselves to decide that the local authority had not done what it ought to have done, and the noble Earl proposed that the unfortunate local authority was to have no appeal of any sort against them, but that the word of the Board was to be law. It seemed the most drastic power that ever was given.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not think that any delay that might be caused by laying an Order before

75
Parliament could really be regarded as a serious matter in the case of the erection of houses. If the state of things in a district was so bad that a few months delay would be a serious matter he was afraid this Bill would not do much good.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has twitted us that as long as we occupy this Bench this House will always be sitting to receive these Orders for thirty days. That may be so; I cannot say. I am bound to say, having regularly attended the sittings of the House during the current session, that although I might be impressed by the burden of labour that has been put on the noble Earl I do not think noble Lords generally have so far found attendance at this House during this session a very onerous affair. The noble Earl and the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment think it necessary that there should be this safeguard with regard to the action of the Local Government Board, and my noble friend behind me pointed out that in the first place it would, or might, at any rate, carry with it considerable delay. That does not appeal to the noble Duke opposite, and in the particular instance he gave delay would not be so urgent as it might be in other particular parts of the Bill. At the same time if I were a workman wanting a house I should consider a delay of nine months or a year no light affair. But I attach more importance to the other set of considerations. What is the exact value of this appeal, if appeal it is to be? What is to happen? A particular district is found by the Local Government Board to be in default in this matter of housing. I quite agree with the noble Earl that that is in the nature of a judicial decision. Is it the proper appeal from a judicial decision that the Order should be on the Table of your Lordships' House? What possible means has this House of forming an opinion on the matter? Take a concrete case. A particular district in England or Scotland comes under this ban of the Local Government Board. By what conceivable means is the majority of your Lordships' House to find out, if the Order was on the Table, whether the Local Government Board has put a correct interpretation on the facts? I do not see that any protection is afforded. I can understand appeals which I should think very objectionable, but which would be of a serious character; but I confess I
76
do not see how these particular provisions would be of any value.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that if there were to be appeals allowed their Lordships would be well qualified to judge of them. He did not know there was not something in the noble Earl's argument. But an appeal of some sort he ventured to think there ought to be. If the appeal took the form of the Order lying on the Table of the House they all knew there was very little risk of Parliament interfering with the Executive; but, on the other hand, there was very great danger of the Executive interfering with Parliament, and that was occurring more frequently every year. He hardly remembered a case in which a Peer or a member of the other House had taken up those cases without having some really good ground to go upon. He thought the more responsible people in their Lordships' House were not likely to do so, and if any irresponsible people did so the thing was not very likely to succeed. It would be some protection. As the noble Earl had asked him a question, he would reply by asking the noble Earl one. Supposing the noble Viscount were not to insist on this appeal, would the noble Earl give the House an appeal against the Local Government Board, and, if so, what appeal would he give?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think I indicated that in my opinion any appeal was necessary. I am given to understand that, under the Public Health Act, 1875, the Local Government Board have precisely these powers with regard to the default by a local authority in respect of water supply, and there is no appeal there.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Two blacks do not make a white.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This brings to light the fundamental difference which divides us from the policy of noble Lords opposite. Their fundamental policy is to make the Government Departments omnipotent in these matters. Local authorities are to be overburdened, the Courts of Law are to be ousted, and Parliament is not to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. In

77
this case we are considering the effect of withdrawing from the cognisance of Parliament matters not small or unimportant, but matters that may be of great importance, affecting large areas, affecting the expenditure of money, and affecting matters which we think we should have an opportunity of considering. The noble Earl, as I understand, raises two objections to the Amendment of my noble friend. He says, in the first place, the procedure would perhaps occasion delay, but I noticed he was not inclined to drive that argument home. He evidently realised that an argument founded on delay was not a very serious argument, and it cannot be a very serious argument. He began with the delay; if delay occurs at all it will probably take place at a season of the year when building operations are not likely to be pursued with much activity. Apart from that, which is the greater evil—that there should be a delay of a few weeks or months on the one hand, or that this matter of public importance should be dealt with over the heads of the public authorities and without any regard to the interests of the ratepayers? Therefore I do not think there is much importance to be attached to the delay that might occur. What
is the other argument? That Parliament is not a very appropriate court of appeal for a purpose of this kind, and that the mere laying of the scheme on the Table of the Houses of Parliament would not effectually protect the interests we desire to protect. But I can conceive no form of appeal more efficient than that the scheme should lie on the Table of the two Houses and be dealt with in the light of day. It is usual for great charitable schemes to lie on the Table of the Houses of Parliament for our consideration, and when we are told that local inquiry is sufficient to give us all we require may we not recur to that well known case—the Swansea case—when a local inquiry took place, where the Department ignored the result of the inquiry, and were taken to task for their conduct by a Court of Justice? I have heard nothing to convince me that the proposal of my noble friend is an unreasonable one. I hope he will press his Amendment, and I shall certainly go with him into the Lobby.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Plymouth, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Bedford, D.

Stanhope, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Devonshire, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Northumberland, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Egerton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Bath, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Faber, L.

Bristol, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Forester, L.

Camden, M.

De Vesci, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lansdowne, M.

Falkland, V.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Hindlip, L.

Winchester, M,

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L.

Halifax, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Cadogan, E.

Hampden, V.

Lawrence, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hill, V.

Manners, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Cawdor, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Iveagh, V.

Newton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ridley, V.

North, L.

Derby, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Haddington, E.

Poltimore, L.

Harewood, E.

Allerton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harrowby, E.

Alverstone, L.

St. Levan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun, L.

Jersey, E.

Bagot, L.

Sandys, L.

Lichfield, E.

Basing, L.

Seaton, L.

Londesborough, E.

Belper, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lytton, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

Malmesbury, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Mayo, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Waleran, L.

Northbrook, E.

Clinton, L.

Wenlock, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Haversham, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Marchamley, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

O'Hagan, L.

Carrington, E.

Airedale, L.

Pentland, L.

Kimberley, E.

Allendale, L.

Pirrie, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blyth, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended at 8 o'clock and resumed at 9.15.]
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment to exclude from the scope of Clause 10 the London County Council or the council of any large borough. He said the Amendment raised in reality a question which was vital to the whole conduct of the Bill. In the course of a brief discussion before dinner their Lordships had had placed before them on several occasions a feeling which was strongly held on that side of the House and was also strongly held in the country—that it was an anomaly first to set to work to appoint representative authorities, and after having trusted them with powers for a very long period to suddenly arrive at the proposition that their authority and jurisdiction should be usurped by a Government Department. He had served long enough in Government Departments to hold the highest respect for the officials who conducted the business of those Departments, but at the same time he could not help feeling that whilst it would be perfectly reasonable in this country for the Secretary for the Colonies to assume the power of being not merely master in his own house, but of withdrawing his decisions from the authority of Parliament undoubtedly only for a time would a free hand be given. They had had quoted instances of how almost inevitably these matters worked when the uncontrolled authority of Ministers, however good, was put into contradistinction against the authority of Parliament from which such authority emanated, and to which they were bound to render an account; and he could not help thinking that in all the Departments which they had, with Presidents holding established ideas of the Constitution, this Department which was now set on foot was one of the greatest. He had been most anxious to avoid troubling their Lordships on a previous Amendment with the full force of the arguments which might have been brought to bear upon it,
80
because he knew that he should have to produce them on this Amendment, which he believed to be one of the most important. He did not suppose any member of that House who had not taken part in local government in one of our great towns or cities could realise the full force of what it was proposed to do by the Bill, even after the Amendment which had been passed au hour before.
He would take the case of the London County Council, an assembly which had not an exaggerated opinion of the decisions of their predecessors. The London County Council spent £2,650,000 upon the housing of the working classes under Part III of the original Act. When the present Council were elected the late Council had bought a very large estate in the North of London, an estate of between 400 and 500 acres of valuable land at a cost of some £400 per acre. They had acquired estates north south, east and west with a view to establishing a large number of municipal dwellings and lodging houses for the working classes. The election which was taken two and a-half years ago was decided mainly on the extravagance of the previous Council, based on the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that they had misinterpreted the views of the ratepayers of London, and an emphatic verdict was given in favour of economy. Upon that verdict the present Council undertook to act without the least desire to impede the legitimate demands for housing the people. There was no attempt to frustrate by sudden action the whole process of housing of the working classes, nor endeavour to reduce what had been done by their predecessors to failure by neglect to continue building on those sites, which, without that continuance, must have proved to be a failure from a pecuniary point of view. But it remained that the present Council were prepared to spend £800,000 in continuing or completing to a large extent some of the plans laid down whilst adding materially to the large number of empty

81
dwellings. He had been over sites where the London County Council were building in streets where private individuals had erected houses and were utterly unable to find a market for them because the London County Council could afford, with the ratepayers' money, to build the same class of houses and let them on better terms. Rows of houses built by private individuals remained empty, while the London County Council continued to build streets of houses in order, not to provide for existing needs, but to continue the policy laid down by their predecessors.
Up to the present moment the ratepayers had been able to express their own views, but now a totally different procedure was proposed. The President of the Local Government Board, of whom he spoke with the utmost respect, held strong views in the interest of those who had opposed the present London County Council which was elected by the votes of five millions of the population at the last election. He was at the Local Government Board and still held the views which stimulated those who had been displaced; his whole policy during the last two and a-half years had been to try and force upon the Council by every means in his power the continued expenditure of one and a-half million of the ratepayers' money which the ratepayers had decided they would not spend. In the Bill as it stood there was nothing to prevent four householders, who might include the butler and coachman of any two gentlemen, or anybody not necessarily paying rates, having it in their power to bring before the Local Government Board the necessity of carrying out the scheme of the previous Council, and the London County Council must appoint an inquiry and name an arbitrator to say whether he was satisfied that it was desirable to continue the old policy. What was the use of the whole principle of local self-government that had been established in this country if after the deliberate vote cast by a great mass of ratepayers, the opinion of one man, however honestly held, was allowed, without any appeal to their Lordships and only upon his ipse dixit, to overrule it? He did not believe that men would be content to spend the hours they had to spend in carrying out the unpaid functions connected with local government if at the last moment they were allowed to be overruled by a Government Department. They had spent many hours
82
in the London County Council, day after day, in considering how to cut down without loss to the ratepayers the scheme from two and a-half millions to one and a-half million, and any one who had to deal with the matter knew how difficult it had been in the past to do the best for those they represented. But under the present Bill all discretion disappeared and a local inquiry would be ordered to deal with the subject.
The point he desired to raise clearly was whether the system of the subordination of local authorities to the Local Government Board was to be carried, not merely in the case of London but also in the cases of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and other great authorities of the country. He did not personally like the system under which any local authority might be forced to carry out its sanitary duties, or be coerced from dealing with the funds of the ratepayers in an unwise manner. Whilst, however, he accepted the system in those respects he would be personally glad if the Local Government Board could not intervene in other matters of local government, because he thought that the ability of the ratepayers to spend money in their own discretion ought to be secured to them. If they were to make any distinction they should make it so that the public would overcome the private interest. One could conceive the cases of towns where a small group of individuals might control the whole town. They might have great powers on a small borough council and might be able to secure that the development of the town should be arrested; but it was impossible to attribute the same power to great municipalities like Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, where there was no danger of anything of the sort.
As an instance of what occurred in London he would take the case of Woolwich. The Marquess of Lansdowne would remember what pressure was brought to bear upon the War Office when the population of Woolwich was largely increased and when during the war in South Africa the number of persons employed at Woolwich rose from 10,000 to 21,000. There was the greatest possible pressure put upon them to provide housing accommodation, but it was met by the War Office paving higher wages in order to enable men to come by tram or rail from a distance instead of over-stocking, to meet an emergency, the local market for housing

83
the people. That emergency only existed four or five years, and if during that period the Local Government Board had been called upon by four householders at Woolwich they would have built at the expanse of the ratepayers a large number of houses without hearing the argument that in five years time the demand for the extra housing accommodation would have entirely disappeared. What would have been the position now that the number of employés at Woolwich had been reduced from 21,000 to 8,000? The older houses would have been deserted in order that the more popular and newer houses might be taken. He maintained that the War Office adopted the right course in paying higher wages to bring workmen from a distance, and that the ratepayers were saved from an enormous sum being put into an unnecessary industry.
The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, would doubtless tell them that no one would be so foolish as to adopt any course but that which was pursued in the case of Woolwich, but they had heard some remarks about enthusiasm, and he was quite certain that if they looked upon this question without taking instances, but simply from the point of view of how it would be regarded by all those who had respect for our municipal representative system, they would feel that it was a vicious and retrograde system to in any way overcome the actual votes of the ratepayers by the opinion of any individual, however distinguished a representative of a Government Department he might be; and he would urge upon their Lordships to consider what was the fairest method in which they could limit the Bill. He did not believe for one moment that it would be considered reasonable to interfere with what had hitherto been an optional service and regulate the provision of workmen's dwellings, not because of the displacement of the population for public improvement, but apparently to provide fresh dwellings of a good character for a deserving class of persons. It would not be considered reasonable for that to be enforced in the case of large municipalities, however necessary it might be in small districts in which a small group of individuals might have special power of going against an Act of Parliament. The Amendment limited the scope to county boroughs, but as he did not wish to be tied to that, because perhaps the Govern-
84
ment oath might regard it as too wide and think that the great boroughs outside London would be sufficient, he proposed to put in the Amendment words providing that it related only to Part III of the principal Act, He hoped that he would not be unreasonable in thinking that if the Bill was to be applied to the whole of Great Britain—to the London County Council as well as the great boroughs—it would be an anomaly and create a great injustice.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 19, after the word 'mandamus' to insert the following new subsection:
'(5) For the purposes of this section so far as it relates to Part III of the principal Act, the expression 'local authority' shall not include the London County Council, or the council of any county borough.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the noble Viscount had referred to the valuable work performed by the borough councils, but the main portion of his speech was really devoted to the London County Council. He was sure that no member of their Lordships' House would be anxious to underrate the valuable services which the London County Council had rendered to the citizens of that county, but the Amendment of the noble Viscount went a great deal further and included all county boroughs throughout the country. Lord Midleton was mistaken if he thought it was the intention or desire of the Local Government Board to usurp the functions laid upon the county boroughs and the London County Council by Parliament. Nothing would please the Local Government Board better than to feel that there was no necessity to take action under this section against either the London County Council or the county boroughs. But while they recognised that the Local Government Board would be most anxious not to take action, and that nothing would please them more than to feel that sufficient action had already been taken under the Act, the requirements of the working classes in their own areas had to be considered. The noble Viscount had referred to the case of Woolwich, and had spoken of them as enthusiasts. Just before dinner Lord St. Aldwyn, apparently on the suggestion he (Earl Beauchamp) had made, agreed to an Amendment which would exactly fit the case of Woolwich because it provided for the gyrations of the population. Viscount Midleton had characterised the proposal of the Bill to override the

85
wishes of the people as vicious and retrograde, and when other Bills came before the House he hoped the noble Viscount would remember that phrase because it was not unlikely to be quoted against him and his Party. In any case this Amendment went a great deal further than the Government could possibly accept, and he regretted that he could not agree on behalf of the Local Government Board to the insertion of the proposed new subsection.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN pointed out that although Earl Beauchamp had suggested that the argument of the noble Viscount was directed more to the London County Council than to the councils of county boroughs, his own speech did not touch the London County Council except so far as it referred to the Amendment which the Government were unable to accept. Reference had been made to the case of Woolwich, and he was sure the noble Earl would admit that it would have been absurd for the President of the Local Government Board to enforce his will on the London County Council under such circumstances. With regard to the metropolis, he could almost claim the assent of the Government to the proposal of the Amendment. But would they not go further and extend it to the great communities of Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, which held a peculiar and unique position among the municipalities of the country? Would it not be almost absurd for the President of the Local Government Board to dictate to the county council of these great communities what they should do with regard to the carrying out of Part III of the Act? He was of opinion that the noble Viscount had gone rather far in including all the county boroughs within the scope of his Amendment, but he hoped the Government might be disposed to agree to the Amendment if it was limited.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think we must all agree that there is—and I frankly admit it—a distinction which can fairly be drawn between such bodies as the London County Council and the small county boroughs which by the noble Viscount's Amendment would be included; but at the same time I am afraid there is a general difference of view between noble Lords opposite and ourselves on this
86
matter. With regard to the question of Part III being of the same nature as those sanitary Acts under which the Local Government Board have compulsory powers, the noble Viscount draws a sharp line. He will admit that in questions of sewage, water supply, and similar matters it might be necessary from time to time to use the compulsory powers of a Government Department obtained under the Public Health and other Acts. He probably knows there have been cases where these powers have been applied to county boroughs. Well in our view the case under Part III is of the same nature and quite as important in the public interest as those of other public bodies. There are very large numbers of people who regard sewage and water supply schemes as extravagancies and luxuries. There are in London thousands of people who consider a great system of drainage in the light of what they would call "utter rubbish," and say that after all people got on very well before and they did not die, and all these extravagant schemes are great nonsense. That would apply in a. still greater degree to this housing provision. I am not in a position to say what my right hon. friend will be able to do or whether he can do anything with regard to meeting the noble Viscount in this matter. As I understand it, Lord St. Aldwyn would be prepared to limit the application of the Amendment to London and some of the great cities which are in themselves counties, and he would advise the noble Viscount to withdraw that part of his Amendment which includes all borough counties. I will see that my right hon. friend is apprised of that before the Report stage, but I am afraid that I cannot give a definite answer at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said it was a matter of regret to those sitting on that side of the House that the noble Earl could not speak more definitely as to what the Government would do to meet the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The noble Earl must recognise the weakness of the argument he had just addressed to the House. He had dwelt upon sanitary and other provisions that it had been found necessary to see carried out even in large urban communities by invoking the central authority; but the argument could not be put forward in this instance unless cases were produced in which there had been shown to be failure to provide sufficient
**
87
housing accommodation. The Bill had been considered for many months, and the Government must have had all the facts in their hands. Could they say that in great communities like Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham there was a great want of housing accommodation which the authorities had been unwilling to remedy? The Committee knew that in Birmingham great changes had been made in order to meet these requirements, and the same rule doubtless would apply to Manchester and Liverpool. Speaking for himself, he saw no choice but to put the Amendment in the Bill and if the Government did not agree to modify it as suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn let them provide their own modification.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that as he understood it the argument in favour of the Amendment was twofold. It was, in the first instance, that to give this power to the Local Government Board was wholly unnecessary bcause the excellent local bodies did the work already. That might be the case, but the time might arrive when the Local Government Board would be anxious to have the necessary power in order to hold it over those bodies who declined to act. The other part of the argument was that a system of mandamus was not one which could be employed against large local authorities duly elected by ratepayers and occupying an important position. He would remind noble Lords opposite that a system of mandamus was put by themselves into their own Education Act, and was a leading feature of their Defaulting Authorities Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to say, in the first place, that the Local Government Board have no wish to usurp the functions of the larger urban municipalities, but he has just told us that what the Government desire to obtain is the power to hold over these large municipalities this departmental sword, which may fall upon their necks at any moment. That is exactly the point on which we join issue with the Government. In our view these larger urban municipal bodies may fairly claim to enjoy a certain amount of independence and I think we may claim, as the noble Earl who leads the House is quite ready to admit, there is a large distinction between the London County Council and the larger municipalities, and the smaller county councils. If that is so we surely might be
88
able to come to terms. The difference is inconsiderable, and I venture to suggest that the noble Earl might accept the Amendment with the qualifying words limiting it to Part III of the Bill, and give to these great municipal bodies to which we have delegated a large measure of self-government the advantages of that decentralisation which noble Lords opposite have most strenuously advocated.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
11.—(1) Where it appears to the Local Government Board that a local authority have failed to perform their duty under the Housing Acts of carrying out an improvement scheme under Part I of the principal Act, or have failed to give effect to any order as respects an obstructive building, or to a reconstruction scheme, under Part II of that Act, or have failed to cause to be made the inspection of their district required by this Act, the Board may make an order requiring the local authority to remedy the default and to carry out any works or do any other things which are necessary for the purpose under the Housing Acts within a time fixed by the order.
(2) Any order made by the Local Government Board under this section may be enforced by mandamus.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to add a proviso at the end of the first subsection, which provision, he said, was really brought forward in the interest of the progress of the Bill. At present it was not in the power of the Local Government Board by its own initiative to force any municipality beyond a certain strength, without reference to Parliament, to build houses under Part III of the Bill, although they had power of displacement in sanitary cases to force the erection of dwellings. The difficulty in which they were placed would be found if any great scheme were brought forward by the London County Council or by a large borough, either for railway or tramway purposes or for the building of a large bridge, because a large displacement of the population then necessarily occurred. The Local Government Board urged that the population must be replaced on or near to the site, but meanwhile by voluntary action much larger provision might be made within a distance of two or three miles to which those driven out might migrate. It would be found that when under a Government Order the houses on or ear the site were rebuilt no one went back, and very often the

89
houses were left vacant for a long period of time. What he asked by the Amendment was that in the case of any municipality that voluntarily entered upon a large scheme and possessed in the borough a large number of houses which practically gave the accommodation that was required, the Local Government Board should not then come forward and say that, although it was quite true that the accommodation was provided, two months had been lost in carrying out the scheme and the houses must be replaced. The Amendment had been very moderately drawn and he asked the Government to consider it. He believed it would not prevent any single individual obtaining housing accommodation whilst it would enable local bodies to voluntarily enter into schemes under Part III of the Bill—a course they could not at present pursue.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 30, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'Provided that dwellings erected under Part III of the Housing Act, 1890, within one year of any Order of the Local Government Board under Part I of the said Act, or dwellings in course of being erected or to be erected, shall be regarded as the rehousing accommodation required to be provided in connection with the displacement on account of public improvements in any case in which the dwellings so erected are within a radius of three miles of the displacement.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government were unable to accept the Amendment, which really confused two different sets of circumstances. In the event of displacement of dwelling houses in connection with any scheme the London County Council or other authority concerned were bound to make provision for the people so displaced. That was one set of circumstances. But in addition there was the other set which related to dwellings to be erected more especially in connection with the Bill before the House. One set had little or nothing to do with the other. If houses were necessary for the working classes it was generally agreed that they ought to be built, and if there was displacement owing to some reconstruction scheme then houses ought to be erected for those people who were displaced. They, however, were quite a different set of people from those dealt with under re-housing, which was the object of the Bill. Supposing there were any unforeseen circumstances which rendered necessary some alternative scheme. There
90
were already provisions to meet special circumstances, and he ventured to submit that it would hardly be right to count upon the erection of houses which were being put up to meet one set of circumstances as being sufficient not only to re-house those displaced, but also to meet the original needs which the first scheme was intended to meet. As there already existed this special provision he hoped the noble Viscount would be satisfied and not press the motion.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said that after the appeal which had been made he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
13.—(1) Where the council of a county are of opinion that for any reason it is expedient that the council should exercise, as respects any rural district in the county, any of the powers of a local authority under Part III of the principal Act, the council, after giving notice to the council of the district of their intention to do so, may apply to the Local Government Board for an order conferring such powers on them.
(2) Upon such an application being made the Board may make an order conferring on the county council as respects the rural district all or any of the powers of a local authority under Part III of the principal Act, and thereupon the provisions of the Housing Acts relating to those powers (including those enabling the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend, and fixing the terms for which money may be lent and borrowed) shall apply as if the council were a local authority under Part III of the principal Act: Provided that the expanses incurred by the county council under any such order shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.
(3) Where, under any such order, the county council have executed any works in a rural district they may transfer the works to the council of that district on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to the proviso requiring the county council to charge the expenses incurred in exercise of the powers over the whole county area. He proposed to add "unless after a local inquiry the county council are satisfied that it is just to limit the charge for the whole or part of the ex-

91
penses so incurred to the rural district or to some contributing place or places therein, in which case they may order that any such expenses shall be so charged." He submitted that it was only fair that the county council should have power to allocate the expenses over the area of the defaulting minor authority and not be required to spread them over the whole county.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 23, after the word 'purposes' to insert the words unless after a local inquiry the county council are satisfied that it is just to limit the charge for the whole or part of the expenses so incurred to the rural district or to some contributing place or places therein, in which case they may order that any such expenses shall be so charged.'''—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP hoped he might be able to make this complicated point clear. This was a case where a county council were anxious to take over the powers which now belonged to the rural district council. The position of His Majesty's Government in this case was that if the county council desired to take over those powers they ought to pay for it themselves. If the rural district council were in default then the Government were of opinion that the question as to who should pay or whether part of the expenses should be upon the rural district council which was in default was a matter which might fairly be argued. That was dealt with in a subsequent clause, but the present case was that where a county council rather intruded itself, was rather anxious to take over from the rural district council their powers, in those circumstances the Local Government Board thought that the county council should be expected to pay for the expenses which they incurred. There was a distinction between the cases of where the rural district council was in fault and of where the county council was merely taking over authority from the rural district council. A letter had reached the Local Government Board only that day from the Rural District Councils Association in which they said that they attached a great deal of importance to the proviso and were most anxious that the Amendment should not be carried as they felt that county councils would not be in a hurry to apply to the Local Government Board for wholesale transfer from the rural district councils where the rural district councils were not in default if they knew that the expense would have to be defrayed as part of the
92
general county expenses. They were anxious that the Amendment should not be accepted, and with that view the Local Government Board entirely concurred.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought it extremely likely that if the county council were compelled to raise a general rate in the county for the purpose of making an improvement in a rural district council's area, the proposal would not be carried on the county council because the representatives of the ratepayers on the council would not like to saddle their own districts with expenses which ought to be met by the area of the rural district for whose benefit those expenses were incurred. This Amendment was similar to one which they did their best to get inserted in the other House of Parliament, but which met with very scant support. He was bound to say he had heard no argument from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill why this proposal was unfair; why the expense which was to be incurred in a case where the Local Government Board approved of the county council taking over the duty of a rural district council should not fall upon the rural district council as it would do in the case where the rural district council spent the money itself. He believed the clause would be perfectly inoperative if left in its present state. He could not conceive that any county council would be able to pass a resolution to take over any powers, although they thought it was desirable and although the Local Government Board also thought it desirable, under the clause as it now stood. He could not conceive any case in which the representatives of the ratepayers of the rest of the county would submit to have thrown upon them an expense which ought to be borne by a locality.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said it was assumed that a county council were going to take upon themselves to discharge an office that they considered some district had neglected to discharge. What the Amendment suggested was that it should be charged upon the county rate unless after local inquiry the county council were satisfied that it was just to allocate the charge to the whole or part of the district where the expense had to be incurred. The point was whether or not the county council who had taken upon themselves to move in the matter and to discharge a duty which Ought to be discharged by the district,

93
should also have the right of saying that the defaulting district should pay. He had not heard a single argument why that was not a just provision. The powers were only optional on the county council. It was really in the interests of the working of the Bill, so that the proper work should be done and the proper charge put upon the district that ought to have done the work.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble and learned Lord does not draw a clear distinction between Clause 12 and Clause 13. It is undoubtedly true that if there is a default on the part of the district authority and if their powers under those circumstances are taken over by the county council, the charge ought to be, and will be, borne by the district. But here you have an entirely different case. The county council say they would like to take over the powers of a certain rural district in order to engage it in a building scheme. The Local Government Board may think the power will be well exercised, but the building scheme may be of an extent, once the powers are taken over, which includes more than the rural district requires for its own purposes, and under such circumstances it does seem to me that if the county council choose to embark on a large and in itself a most useful scheme which may serve a great deal more, in the case of some populous community than the rural district involved, the charge should be equally spread over the county. Otherwise, I can conceive of cases in which a county council would be able to execute a really considerable scheme in one corner of its area and to charge the whole upon an unfortunate district which might not want the scheme at all. It is necessary to draw a distinction between Clause 12 and Clause 13.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not understand the argument of the noble Earl. He seemed to suggest that the county council would in this case be doing something which would be very hard on the ratepayers of the local district, but he surely must have forgotten that something very much harder might be done by the President of the Local Government Board to the ratepayers of the district entirely against their will. Did His Majesty's Government really suppose that a county council would ever take over the duties unless it could charge the expenses incurred
94
upon the district if it were thought right to do so? If the noble Earl desired he would be quite willing to add to the Amendment "with the consent of the Local Government Board," so as to obviate any possible case of unfairness on the part of the county council to the district. But if the Government could not agree to the Amendment he could only say that he entirely concurred with the view that the clause would not work at all.
LORD WENLOCK LORD WENLOCK was of opinion that the clause should disappear altogether. He could not imagine a county council placing itself in such a position as was portrayed in the clause, and so far as he could see it would be very much better if the Government would be good enough to jettison the whole of the clause. As the clause stood at present it was merely blocking up this part of the Bill.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD moved, after Clause 13, to insert a new clause that on the outside of every dwelling house subject to the operation of the Act there should be affixed by the owner, or, in the case of leasehold property, by the leaseholder, in a conspicuous position, the name and address of the owner or leaseholder, and also, if the house were let, the name and address of the landlord, and that any neglect of this requirement should render the owner or landlord liable to such fine as might be ordered by the Local Government Board. He said he had been moved to submit the clause by his own local and personal experience. He had on many occasions been led to the conviction by that experience that if such a clause as this were adopted it would effect almost automatically a very great improvement in a vast number of working-class cottages. In principle he could see no sort of objection to having houses so labled. Every farmer, and every one of their Lordships who might be a farmer, was expected to have his name on the farmer's cart, and he could see no reason in the nature of things why for the benefit of the public the name of the owner or leaseholder or landlord of a cottage should not be similarly made public. It would hardly

95
fail as a matter of general practice to stimulate the attention and the care given to those cottages by the various owners or leaseholders. The good landlord or good owner had nothing to fear from the action of such a clause. The law had no terrors to the righteous man. He did not suppose there was a single member of their Lordships' House who had any cottages in such a condition that he had any reason whatever for not having his name on the outside. The clause was really directed against an entirely different class—the negligent owner or the penurious owner, or, worst of all, the speculating owner. His conviction was that the clause simply by bringing these various classes into what might be called a beneficial and healthy publicity would automatically have a great effect in improving the condition of the whole class of cottages. He could not but feel that the healthy public opinion of the neighbourhood would by this simple requirement be brought directly to bear upon all that class of property, and it was for those reasons that he ventured to move the clause.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'On the outside of every dwelling-house subject to the operation of this Act there Shall be affixed by the owner, or in the case of leasehold property by the leaseholder, in a conspicuous position, the name and address of the owner or leaseholder, and also (if the house is let) the name and address of the landlord, as defined in this Act.
Any neglect of this requirement shall render the owner, or (if the house is let) the landlord, or in case of leasehold property the leaseholder, liable to such a fine as may be ordered by the Local Government Board.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said their Lordships would not be surprised that His Majesty's Government were unable to see their way to accept the clause. At the same time, all people who were interested in the question of housing reform were agreed that one of the most difficult things was to find out who really was the owner and who was responsible for a house in an insanitary condition, and there was no doubt at all but that the idea at the root of the Amendment was one which would be very warmly welcomed by a large number of people whose work lay especially in the more crowded districts of our great towns. But the right rev. Prelate had moved the Amendment in a form which left a good deal to the imagination. It was not quite clear who were to be deemed the "owner" and the "land-
96
lord." The terms were not especially defined. There was a further proposal that the Local Government Board should impose fines upon certain individuals. That was a new proposal in our legislation, and there was also the difficulty that if the Local Government Board were to determine what fine ought to be imposed they would be obliged to go into the circumstances of each case, and it would be quite impossible for the Local Government Board to do that. In those circumstances he hoped that the right rev. Prelate would not press the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON was rather surprised that the Amendment had been received with so little sympathy. It seemed to him one which was deserving of some support as illustrative of what he might call the incongruities of ownership. The Gun Club, which he believed was the headquarters of pigeon shooting, was the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he had no doubt that the right rev. Prelate would regard that particular dwelling place as almost unfit for human habitation. But, oddly enough, the right rev. Prelate, being an Ecclesiastical Commissioner himself, was therefore in the position of landlord.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD said it was for that reason, being an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, he inserted the word "leaseholder." The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were themselves landlords, and he believed the best of landlords, but much of their property was let on lease and they had no immediate power in such a case as that mentioned. His desire was, in the form in which he moved the clause, to restrict its operation to those who were personally and directly responsible. One part of the argument of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was not quite clear to him. The noble Earl said that an objection to the clause was that they could not always find out who the owner or the leaseholder was, or that they could not do so without very great difficulty. If that were so, how was the law to be brought into operation at all? It must be possible to find the owner or no action could be taken in regard to houses. As he did not find that he had any very obvious support on either side of the House he would withdraw his proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14:
Contracts by Landlord in Letting Working Class Houses.
14.—(1) In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation by persons of the working classes a house or part of a house there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
(2) In this section the expression "letting for habitation by persons of the working-classes" means the letting for habitation of a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding:—

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

(b) in the case of a house situate in a borough or urban district with a population according to the last census for the time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six pounds;

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

LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "that the House is" and said that if the Amendment were carried and the words of a subsequent Amendment inserted, the subsection would read as follows, "In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation by persons of the working-classes a house or part of a house there shall be implied a condition at the commencement of the holding that the house shall not be occupied unless or until it is in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation." The noble Earl in charge of the Bill was, of course, aware that all over the country cottage property came into hand at one time and another on the expiry of the life under old life-hold tenures, or on the expiry of a lease in the case of long leasehold tenures. Whenever such property came into hand the owners invariably found it in a very dilapidated condition, and only two alternatives might appear to be possible. One was that the owner should pull down the old dilapidated premises, and the other was that he should completely rebuild the premises. Such an alternative in these days would make it a little difficult for their Lordships to know where to turn, and the alternative of rebuilding dilapidated premises was not always easy to carry out. But, as a matter of fact, there was a third alternative, and it was that alternative which he was suggesting. What often happened was that where a person had been living for a number of years in an old dilapidated cottage that had come into hand, he went to the owner and said, "If you will give me a sufficiently long lease and allow me to continue to occupy the promises at a very
98
low rent, I will do repairs and make the house habitable, and I shall be glad to go on living there with my family." He could assure their Lordships that in a great many parts of the country that was not an imaginary case. If the clause stood as at present it would not be possible for owners to meet the wishes of their tenants in that way, because the clause said that no contracts should be made without the owner first putting the tenancy in proper repair. If the Amendment were carried the case would be met, because the words would be that the premises should not be occupied until they were put into a fit and proper condition.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'that the house is.'"—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought there would probably be a good deal of sympathy with the case put by the noble Lord, but he did not think the noble Lord had remembered that one effect of the Amendment would be that a landlord who had made a contract with a person of the worknig-class to let him a house within the meaning of the clause would be under no obligation to make the house reasonably fit for human habitation in itself, and the tenant could not occupy it until it had been made fit. The position in such circumstances would really be rather unfair to the tenant, and there seemed to be no reason why an obligation which had existed since the passing of the Housing Act of 1885 should now be altered. He thought that perhaps the noble Lord, after hearing that consideration, which, possibly, was new to him, would withdraw his Amendment and consider whether some other form of words might not be introduced.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND asked whether it was very likely that a workman would take a house in such a state that he could not occupy it without any contract that he should put it in order or that the landlord should do so. He could not imagine a workingman being so foolish as to do that.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said the case the noble Lord had put had constantly come before him. Working people did, unfortunately, take such houses, and if an accident happened the landlord relied upon that house having been taken without any

99
covenant or condition that it should be in a proper condition. The Amendment would only prevent a man taking a house going into occupation until it was fit. What was desired was to stereotype the fact that where houses were let to the working-classes there should be an implied condition that they were in a reasonable state. It was very desirable that it should be clear, because there were constantly cases where men took premises for better or worse, although utterly unfit for habitation.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON thought some consideration should be paid to the fact that these leases were very common in some parts of the country. A man took a dilapidated dwelling knowing that he had got to put it in a proper state of repair. He took it because he could get it at a very low rent. He did not want to argue whether the system was a good or a bad one—he dared say it was a very bad one—but there were tens of thousands of cases in this country. It was a perfectly well recognised system in the south-west of England. He did not wish for one moment to take away the liability of any landlord to put his houses in repair before he let the m, but they should not attempt to do away with the system by this clause which really was brought in for quite a different object.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is clear that two entirely separate sets of considerations have been raised. I think that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will agree to the proposal not to move the Amendment as it stands, because it is evidently open to the objections raised, and if he thinks it desirable to bring in some words to meet the case of repairing leases under certain conditions, I have no doubt that my right hon. friend will consider before the Report stage what will be the best course.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON said he was quite willing to defer the point until Report, but he would like to be allowed to say that he was moving this Amendment, not in the interests of landlords but in the interests of tenants, because in the case of the property he had described it was to the landlord's advantage in ninty-nine cases out of a hundred to pull down the cottages. He could assure the noble Earl that he was no enemy to this Bill. He only
100
wished to see it passed in a form which would do a maximum of good with as little injustice to everybody concerned as possible, and he hoped the noble Earl would accept his assurance that it was in the interests of a very large class of tenants of cottage property that he had brought forward this Amendment. It would enable men who had put by a little money and were anxious to take these repairing leases at a very low rent to do so. The landlord said, "I am not inclined to spend any money, but if you like to take this lease for a number of years at a very low rent you shall be allowed to do it." Under the clause as it stood they were going to make that absolutely illegal in future.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said it was perfectly easy to add a proviso to the clause to meet the noble Lord's wishes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to substitute the word "tenancy" for "holding." the word "holding" meant in ordinary understanding the subject held, and not that particular tenure. In all leases under the Agricultural Holdings Act the word "holding" meant the farm or the house which the tenant had.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 32, to leave out the word 'holding' and to insert the word 'tenancy.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the word "holding" was in the corresponding section of the Housing Act of 1885 and in the Act of 1890, and therefore it was thought desirable that its use should be continued.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 14. If their Lordships would look at the subsection they would see that the expression "letting for habitation by persons of the working classes" meant the letting for habitation of a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding, in the case of a house in the administrative county of London, £40; in the case of a house in a borough or urban district, £26; and in the case of a house situated elsewhere, £16. It seemed to him very strange that they should define men of the working-classes, not by any-

101
thing in their occupation, but by the valuation of the house in which they lived. At the same time, there was nothing in the Bill which indicated who were the people for whom these houses were to be built. The Government appeared to have gone to work the wrong way. He thought what they ought to have done was to put in a definition of the working classes and leave the houses to look after themselves. But he did not wish to attribute to the Government any original sin which did not properly appertain to them, because he was bound to say that they were not the original sinners in this matter. The original sinners were the Government who passed the Act of 1890. He was rather curious to see how the sums £40, £26, and £16 were arrived at, and he thought he had discovered it. The limit of compound in London was £20, in other big towns in England £13, and in the country £8. His Majesty's Government had multiplied those figures by two—twice twenty was forty; twice thirteen, twenty-six; and twice eight, sixteen. Why the Government did not multiply by four or divide by two he did not know, but perhaps they would tell their Lordships. At the same time, it would be seen that if they defined a man of the working-class by the house in which he lived, they really did not define a man but only a house. There was nothing, for instance, to prevent the noble Earl in charge of the Bill or himself from living in the country in a house rented at £16, and he knew many good houses in the country at that figure. If the noble Earl or he rented such a house there, with the assistance of three other householders they would be able to call upon their neighbours to support a scheme to build houses. What their Lordships really ought to do was to leave out this subsection altogether, and then to add a definition of working-classes as he proposed to do on a later clause.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 14, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he felt in some difficulty because Viscount St. Aldwyn had an Amendment which also dealt with this question, and he was not quite sure whether their Lordships would prefer to take the general discussion on the noble Viscount's Amendment, where it would be,
102
perhaps, a little more in order, or whether it should be taken on the Amendment of the noble Earl. The noble Earl and the noble Viscount evidently agreed in objecting to the terms of the Bill, although they did not agree as to the Amendment they wished to have inserted. Perhaps it would be for the general convenience of their Lordships to hear the whole case before deciding.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he, had placed an Amendment on the Paper with regard to this clause, but he frankly admitted that he preferred his noble friend's Amendment to his own. The origin of this clause, for which he was afraid he was partly responsible, he being one of the original sinners of 1890, was simply this; that the limit of value in the compounding system was adopted in England as distinguishing the houses inhabited by the working-classes. Now, for some reason which he did not understand, except, no doubt, that rents had risen in the towns, the President of the Local Government Board had chosen to double that limit and define the houses occupied by the working-classes as houses in London of £40 rental, houses in other urban districts of £26 rental, and houses in the country of £16 rental. Their Lordships were probably acquainted with the rural districts of England, and to say that any person could properly be defined as a member of the working-classes who lived in a house in a country village at a rental of £16 was simply absurd. He thought a similar criticism, although not to so great an extent, might be applied to the rental proposed to be adopted with regard to urban districts. It would be far simpler to do what his noble friend proposed, i.e., to adopt a definition of the working-classes which already existed in the law, and which his noble friend simply proposed to incorporate in this Bill. What was the history of the clause as it stood in this Bill? This clause had never been considered in another place. It was not considered by the Standing Committee before whom the Bill went last year. It was inserted in the Bill when introduced by the President of the Local Government Board in the present session, and it was never considered at all in Committee. Yet this was the clause which was produced to their Lordships as a definite proposition from the House of Commons. He hoped their

103
Lordships would accept the Amendment of his noble friend.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH hoped their Lordships would accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount and strike out the clause. There was no doubt, as had already been suggested, that the clause would have the effect of doubling the number of compounders. He did not wish to argue by a side wind as to whether compounding was a good or a bad thing. As all their Lordships were aware, it was a thing about which there was a great deal to be said, and he, for his own part, thought an enormous amount could be said against it. But, without doubt, one effect of the clause would be to increase the system of compounding which so many thought to be deleterious. Perhaps he might be allowed to draw attention to an Amendment of his relating to line 36, with regard to the definition of rent. He did not know whether he was in order in speaking to an Amendment not exactly before their Lordships, but it was all part of the same question, and it might save time if he spoke to it now. His Amendment was in the nature of a drafting Amendment, and it referred to the rent of houses because, unless rent was specified as a rack rent, it would lead to a good deal of confusion, inasmuch as there were a number of large houses in London and elsewhere which were let at very low rents, sometimes as low as £10 or £20 a year, the balance being taken in premiums. Therefore, it would be better, he suggested, that the word "rack" should be inserted before "rent," which signified the rent of the full value of the house, otherwise there would be great danger of bringing houses under the purview of this clause which were not working class habitations at all.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP was afraid he had once more to say that it was impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept any of these Amendments, and that they would feel themselves obliged to ask their Lordships, if necessary, to divide upon this question. He thought it was obvious to any of their Lordships who had followed the discussion on this Bill that this particular provision was, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, one of the most important, and therefore they would be quite unable to agree to the Amendments. The noble Viscount had stated,
104
quite truly, what really was the determining factor with regard to the increase of the amounts. It was the fact that there had been a very marked increase in the rents of working-class dwellings, not only in London, but also in the provinces. He would give their Lordships some figures with regard to London. The average annual rental value of houses under £50 gross rental increased by about one-seventh between 1880 and 1900, and in some districts the increase was still greater. In St. Pancras and several other districts the increase was one-sixth, while in East London the rise was over one-fourth in Bethnal Green and as high as one-third in Stepney. In the provinces the increase was still greater. Thus, the average annual rental value of houses in Great Britain (excluding London) rented at £20 or less increased during the same period by more than twenty-five per cent., and the rise was continuous throughout this period. Taking all houses into consideration the actual increase in rent amounted to twenty-three per cent. during this period. That this increase was mainly due to the rise in the rents of working-class dwellings was shown by the fact that houses rented at £20 or under, though more in number than in 1880, were proportionately fewer in 1900. There were some figures extracted from the London County Council statistics which showed the average weekly rents of new working-class tenements in London and its neighbourhood. In Marylebone rent was 12 s. 9½d. for four rooms to 19 s. for six rooms; in Stepney from 11 s. 5d. for four rooms to 18 s. for six rooms; in Southwark, 10 s. 7d. for four rooms to 18 s. for six rooms; in Fulham 13 s. 8d. for four rooms to 15 s. 6d. (£40 a year) for six rooms; and in Acton 11 s. 8¾d. for four rooms to 17 s. for six rooms. The average for Central London was 10 s. for four rooms to 17 s. 5d. (£45a year) for six rooms. Therefore their Lordships would see that the figures proposed in the Bill were not extravagant. It was probably an open secret that His Majesty's Government had been much pressed to make the figures even higher than at present. In the opinion of the Government the figures proposed by the Bill were a reasonable compromise which they hoped their Lordships would be very unwilling to disturb.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was afraid the noble Earl and he were rather

105
at cross purposes. This was a Bill for dwellings for the working-classes. The question, therefore, naturally was, Who were the working-classes? How did they ascertain who was a working man, except by defining him? He did not object at all to the figures which the noble Earl quoted. If the Amendment he proposed to move later were accepted the effect would be that while a working-class man would be defined, the value of the house would be left at any figure which was found desirable. The houses would be houses suitable for the working-classes. Perhaps he might say, for the information of their Lordships, that his definition of the working classes was the one in the Standing Orders of the House, and was the generally recognised definition of working-classes.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that in any observations he might offer his sole object was to make the Bill a good one. He was greatly in sympathy with the object of the Bill, but he had not heard one word to suggest that the standard set up in this clause was the right one, and, having an intimate acquaintance with the suburbs of London, he did say that to take £40 as the standard of a house for the working-classes was an absurdity. There were thousands of clerks who could not be called working class men who lived in houses rented at £25 or £30 a year, and therefore he wanted to know why this standard in the clause should be adopted in preference to the definition of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Here again we have two entirely separate questions to consider. The first is the noble Earl's proposal that a definition of working-classes as people who pursue certain occupations, and whose income does not rise above a certain amount, should be adopted in place of a rental basis. It is quite true that that definition is a well-known one; it is used in the Housing Act of 1902, with particular reference to the housing of persons displaced by public improvements. That is the only case I can recall at the moment in which it is used. Well, in that case, it is very easy to find out whether people fulfil those particular conditions. I think the noble Lord proposed to limit the provision of these houses to persons of 30 s. a week. Supposing a man after becoming an
106
occupant of one of these houses receives 31 s. or 32 s.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Had we not better postpone that until we reach it?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I was under the impression that the noble Earl had nothing more to say, but I certainly will postpone it. I was speaking of the difficulty of dealing with this continuous operation of the particular kind of definition proposed by the noble Earl in order that the subsection might not be struck out, because, if it is struck out, we shall have no useful opportunity of discussing the particular terms of the noble Earl's further Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, yes, you will—on Report.
LORD ALVERSTONE: The noble Earl is only moving to leave out the last part of the clause, and not the whole clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes, it is only to strike out subsection (2).
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes; working class as defined by this Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No. Perhaps he might remind the noble Earl what it was. He (Lord Camperdown) said that he was going to propose to insert the words "as defined by this Act," but he pointed out that the clause dealing with the definition would not be reached for some time, and that, therefore, as it was wiser not to count his chickens before they were hatched, he had better postpone these words until the Report stage. What the Committee were now on was his Amendment to strike out subsection (2) of Clause 14.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl is perfectly correct; but instead of counting his chickens before they are hatched he is proceeding to break the eggs.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, I am not.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is obviously impossible to argue the case for the subsection if it is out of order to point out that there is no reasonable substitute

107
for it, because it must be a consideration when you are dealing with such a proposal to inquire whether there is anything else that can be reasonably put in its place, so that I do not think I have travelled outside the rules of order in your Lordships' House. What I have said so far is with regard to a substitute. Now as regards the question of rent, I was extremely surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice say that there are no workmen's dwelling in London, so far as he knows, or very few which are rented at £40.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I really did not say so. What I said was that £40 a year is no test, because I know numbers of single houses, occupied by clerks, which are rented at £25 or £30 a year—not £40.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I have no doubt he is perfectly correct, but that does not alter the fact that there are a great many cases in London where persons have to pay 12 s. or 15 s. a week, the latter amount working out to about £40 a year. The idea that in rural districts there are no houses rented at £16 occupied by the working-classes is treated as preposterous. It is quite true, no doubt, that cottages owned by your Lordships may be rented at 2s. 6d. per week, and sometimes less, but if I were told that there were no workmen who pay 6s. or a little more for their houses, I confess I should be very greatly surprised. I venture to think, therefore, that so far as the figures of rent are concerned, the case of the noble Viscount is not supported by evidence. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp gave a series of figures as to the rents in London, some of which I think must have almost surprised noble Lords opposite. But if the Committee are determined that the principle of selection of classes of persons, instead of by the value of houses, shall be adopted, you will no doubt do so, but I very much doubt whether it is a wise system to adopt. I do not believe it would find favour as a rule with the people who own these houses. It is an infinitely more convenient classification for the landlord to know that houses of a particular rental are treated as working-class houses rather than to select houses with a particular class of inhabitant. I go further and say it does not seem reasonable that a house of this kind should not be occupied
108
by persons who do not come under the definition of the noble Earl, and I mention that merely in order to enforce the point that it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any definition of the working classes in a matter of this kind which will not prove to be unfair to individuals. There are people of various other occupations, such as typists, and very small clerks in some cases, who might very properly be housed under these circumstances, and I know no argument against it. Therefore, under the circumstances, I do not think your Lordships would be acting wisely if you were to attempt to pin down these houses to a particular class of persons.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved an Amendment to subsection (2) so as to define the expression "letting for habitation by persons of the working-classes" as meaning letting at a "rack" rent not exceeding the amounts set forth in the subsection. He said this did not amount to very much more than a drafting Amendment. There were sometimes questions, for instance in London, where houses were not working-class houses at all but were let at very low rents with a premium, and unless "rack" rent was specified in the clause it might lead to confusion. His Amendment was really meant more for the avoidance of confusion than with any particular principle.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 36, after the third 'a,' insert the word 'rack.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government were unable to accept this Amendment. In his previous speech he had referred to the question of compounding, and he was informed that that really did not arise under the present clause. Therefore, it was unnecessary for their Lordships to consider it in this connection. There was, he thought, sound reason for using the word "rent." It was the word used in Section 75 of the Housing Act of 1890, and this clause was only an extension of that. It was also used in Section 12 of the Housing Act of 1885. He thought there would be very real difficulty in particular cases in deciding what was, as a matter of fact, "rack" rent; and the substitution of a rather indefinite term, which would give rise to a good deal of

109
uncertainty, was, he thought, most undesirable in a clause dealing with contracts. He hoped the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said the only object of his Amendment was to avoid uncertainty, but it was not of such importance that he desired to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to provide that the definition of a working-class house in London should be a house at a rent not exceeding £30, instead of £40, as proposed in paragraph (a) of the subsection. This matter had been discussed at such length that he did not want to detain their Lordships on it, but as the Government could not accept the principle for which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, contended, he hoped they might be able to accept some kind of reduction of the figures in the Bill. As he had reminded their Lordships, these figures had never been considered at all in another place, but were purely the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board, and therefore it was perfectly competent for their Lordships to deal with them as they thought right without any reference to anything that had been decided elsewhere. He confessed he was not so cognisant with the rents in London and large towns as he was with those in the country, and his feeling was that the figure of £16 was quite excessive for the country districts. He would, however, move his first Amendment to substitute £30 for £40 in order to obtain some reply from His Majesty's Government as to their particular reason for taking this figure.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 38, to leave out the word 'forty' and to insert the word 'thirty.'"—(Viscount; St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought their Lordships would agree that whether these particular figures received or did not receive lengthy discussion in another place, in so far as they emanated, as the noble Viscount suggested, purely from the brain of the President of the Local Government Board they certainly came from a man particularly well acquainted with the circumstances of the working classes in this
110
country, and therefore deserved, prima facie, some attention from their Lordships. He was very sorry he could not give the noble Viscount more information than he had already given with regard to the rents of working-class tenements in London.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN asked whether the figures which the noble Earl had given referred to the rents of tenements, of houses, or of dwellings, because his noble friend and the Leader of the House had used these terms as if they were synonymous. Just now the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said these statistics were statistics of tenements, but when he first read them out he had alluded to them as rents of houses. He thought it well to clear this point up.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said these figures referred to the weekly rents of working-class houses in London, taken from the London County Council's statistics, and published, he believed, during the present year, although they referred to 1907.
EARL CADOGAN: Then are tenements considered to be synonymous with dwellings?
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he did not think they were, but he was sorry that he had not furnished himself with more figures for the satisfaction of the noble Viscount. If the noble Viscount would bring the matter up at a later stage, he would see he was well furnished with figures, dealing not only with weekly rents for London, but also for the provinces, and he would do his best to give the noble Viscount the information for which he sought.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN confessed that his principal object in this matter was to raise the question of the £16 limit in rural districts, and he would postpone the question regarding towns until Report, in order that the noble Earl might then be able to give some more information on the subject. He would therefore withdraw the present Amendment, and move to substitute £8 for £16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN then moved that the definition under the section of a working-class house in rural districts should be a house at a rent not exceeding £8, instead of £16, the figure in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 5, to leave out the word 'sixteen' and to insert the word 'eight.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN hoped the noble Viscount would persist in the Amendment. It was a very important point, and he was certain that in the rural districts of Scot-
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
15.—(1) The last foregoing section shall as respects contracts to which that section applies take effect as if the condition implied by that section included an undertaking that the house shall, during the holding, be kept by the landlord in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
(2) If it appears to the local authority within the meaning of Part II of the principal Act that
land there were no working-class houses at anything like £12 a year rental. There were very few over £4 and £8 would be amply sufficient.
On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Kimberley, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Liverpool, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Glantawe, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Haversham, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hereford, L. Bp.

Pentland, L.

Pirrie, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Airedale, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Allendale, L.

Weardale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Blyth, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Northbrook, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Bedford, D.

Onslow, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Devonshire, D.

Plymouth, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Northumberland, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Digby, L.

Rutland, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Egerton, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Forester, L.

Bath, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bristol, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harris, L.

Camden, M.

De Vesci, V.

Hindlip, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Falkland, V.

Hylton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Winchester, M.

Halifax, V.

Lawrence, L.

Hampden, V.

Leigh, L.

Cadogan, E.

Hill, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Camperdown, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Iveagh, V.

Newton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Milner, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Ridley, V.

Poltimore, L.

Denbigh, E,

St. Aldwyn, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Derby, E.

St. Levan, L.

Harewood, E.

Abinger, L.

Saltoun, L.

Harrowby, E.

Alverstone, L.

Sandys, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ashbourne, L.

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

Lichfield, E.

Bagot, L.

Londesborough, E.

Basing, L.

Templemore, L.

Lytton, E.

Belper, L.

Waleran, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Walsingham, L.

Mayo, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

the undertaking implied by virtue of this section is not complied with in the case of any house to which it applies, the authority shall, if a closing order is not made with respect to the house, by written notice require the landlord, within a reasonable time, not being less than fourteen days, specified in the notice, to execute such works as the authority may specify in the notice as being necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
(3) If the notice is not complied with the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice, do the work required to be done and recover the expenses incurred by them in so doing from the landlord as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction

113
Acts, or, if they think fit, the authority may by order declare any such expenses to be payable by annual instalments within a period not exceeding that of the interest of the landlord in the house nor in any case five years, with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per cent. per annum until the whole amount is paid, and any such instalments or interest or any part thereof may be recovered from the landlord as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
(4) A landlord may appeal to the Local Government Board against any notice requiring him to execute works under this section, and against any demand for the recovery of expenses from him under this section or order made with respect to those expenses under this section by the authority, by giving notice of appeal to the Board within fourteen days after the notice is received, or the demand or order is made, as the case may be, and no proceedings shall be taken in respect of such notice requiring works, order or demand, whilst the appeal is pending.
(5) In this section, the expression "landlord" means any person who lets the house under any contract referred to in this section, and includes his successors in title, and the expression "house" includes part of a house.
Sections forty-nine and fifty of the principal Act as amended by section thirteen of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903 (which relate to the service of notices and the description of owner in proceedings), shall apply for the purposes of this section, with the substitution, where required, of the landlord for the owner of a dwelling-house.
(6)Any remedy given by this section for noncompliance with the undertaking implied by virtue of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available to the tenant against the landlord, either at common law or otherwise.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend subsection (1) by inserting, after the word "applies," the words "and in the absence of any express obligation whereby the tenant is bound to perform necessary repairs." He said that his object in putting down the Amendment was to guard against repairing leases being affected by the operation of the clause, but as he understood that they would probably be dealt with on Report he would not refer to them at this stage. He would, however, mention the case of ordinary farm tenancies where, as a matter of course, the tenant was now under an obligation to do certain repairs. He did not suppose for a moment that the clause was intended to apply to such tenancies, but from the wording of it he had no doubt that it would apply, particularly where the house was within the limit of value specified in a previous section. The cases he had in mind were those of tenancies in respect of which there was the ordinary clause in the lease that the tenant should keep his roof watertight and perform other repairs of a minor character, neglect of
114
which would in time make the house unfit for human habitation. If the noble Earl did not like the words of the Amendment perhaps he would agree to consider the matter and deal with it later.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 7, after the word 'applies' to insert the words 'and in the absence of any express obligation whereby the tenant is bound to perform necessary repairs.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP understood the noble Lord to raise specifically the question of farm tenancies. He did not think it was the intention of the Local Government Board that farm tenancies should be considered under this section, and if the noble Lord would put down before Report an Amendment dealing specifically with tenancies of that description he thought it would be possible to deal with the matter more satisfactorily than they could possibly do. In connection with an Amendment which obviously included a good deal more than the noble Lord intended.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND wished to know how the clause would affect the letting of royalties. When a royalty owner let to a company of coalowners the right to work his minerals, the coalowners sometimes had handed over to them houses or cottages already built, and at other times they built houses themselves for their employés, which returned to the royalty owner at the termination of the lease or when the coal was exhausted. It appeared to him that under this clause the royalty owner might be forced to repair the houses of the colliery company. That would be a serious liability, and one that would never be contemplated when the colliery was let by the royalty owner.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP remarked that he was not an expert in these matters, but he thought that if the intention had been such as the noble Duke suggested the clause would have read "owner or landlord."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND was afraid he could not accept as a satisfactory explanation what the noble Earl had said about "owner or landlord," because subsection (5) of the clause under discussion stated that "the expression 'landlord' means any person who lets

115
the house under any contract referred to in this section and includes his successors in title, and the expression 'house' includes part of a house." That was the definition of the person who let the house.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP still thought that the words of the clause met the case the noble Duke had mentioned, and that the owner would not be liable under the circumstances mentioned for the repairs. If, however, there was any serious fear that difficulties would arise in regard to such a matter he hoped the noble Duke would himself put down an Amendment that would in his opinion meet the case, and it would receive careful consideration.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON asked if Earl Beauchamp would accept an Amendment dealing with the question of repairs if it covered only the case of farm tenancies.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP replied that he did not feel in a position to promise anything on the subject. What he had said was that in his opinion the question of farm tenancies was not one which was intended by the Local Government Board to be included in the clause. He opposed the Amendment as moved by Lord Clinton because it included a good deal more than farm tenancies. If the noble Lord would put an Amendment down relating only to farm tenancies it should receive the careful attention of the Government.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON said that if their Lordships passed this clause without an Amendment such as that put down by his noble friend it would mean that they would revolutionise the system under which small cottage property was tenanted all over the country.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think that Earl Beauchamp had brought forward any strong argument against the Amendment. Suppose a tenant had undertaken to do repairs, why should he not be liable to perform them? Why should they make the landlord liable for these repairs by Act of Parliament? They ought to have a better reason from the noble Earl why the Amendment should not be inserted before deciding not to press it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP explained that he did not deal with the matter fully because he did not think the point was seriously pressed by Lord Clinton. He understood the question was likely to be more seriously raised on a subsequent part of the Bill. Viscount St. Aldwyn would see that Lord Clinton's Amendment enabled a landlord and tenant to contract themselves entirely out of the undertaking. That, of course, was an Amendment to which His Majesty's Government could not agree. The clause was really intended for the protection of a class of tenants very different from those referred to by the Duke of Northumberland and Lord Clinton. It was meant to cover the case of the class which was generally too poor and ignorant to be able to protect itself. If the Amendment were accepted it would practically make the clause of no effect in any place where houses were scarce and there was a great deal of competition for them. He was afraid it was only too true that there were persons who had no objection to living in houses which were in reality unfit for human habitation. They were only too ready, if they could get possession of a house, to undertake to perform the necessary repairs, and they did so without fully appreciating what that undertaking meant. The real objection the Government had to the Amendment, and it was one which he was afraid they could not get over, was that it would result in giving a very general power to landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of this particular clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was rather at a loss to understand why the noble Earl objected to the Amendment. He had said that the Government were unwilling to allow landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Bill. As they knew, however, a working man might live in a house up to £40 a year. Was he a person unable to protect himself in any sort of way? Was he not able to undertake an obligation to perform necessary repairs? The truth was the Government were determined to do away with contract altogether and to manage the business by Act of Parliament. He thought, however, that they would find it very difficult, and that the business would be badly done. He did not understand at present why a man who was paying £40 for a house was not to be allowed to make a contract of any kind.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY observed that the clause would operate against a certain class of small landlords who let hovels of any description for a very small sum and compelled the tenants to put them in repair. He knew of a few cases of that kind. The cottages were in the worst possible condition. They were occupied by indigent and dirty people, who did not keep them in repair. They paid one or two sovereigns a year to live in these hovels, and were satisfied to let the places get into any state of neglect. The clause would prevent those cottages being contracted out of the provisions of the Bill, and if only for that reason he thought it would be a good thing if the clause were allowed to remain as printed in the Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought the best course, perhaps, would be for Lord Clinton not to press the Amendment now, but, as the Government had admitted that there were cases in respect of which exceptions might very properly be made, or, at any rate, that they would favourably consider proposals of the kind, that the matter should be brought up again on Report.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am quite willing to fall in with the course suggested by the noble Viscount opposite. What the Government want is to prevent any agreement between a landlord and tenant to create and maintain a slum. In my opinion, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would undoubtedly be possible to do that. It is true there may be cases, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord and also by the noble Duke, which need further consideration. I have no doubt that the Local Government Board will carefully consider what has been said before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved an Amendment at the end of the first subsection providing that "nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory on the landlord to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier, or any person for whom the tenant is as between himself and the landlord responsible." He said that Clause 15 made a very considerable alteration in the law, because it provided that in respect of houses within a rental value specified in Clause 14
118
the landlord should not only be responsible for the house being at the commencement of the tenancy in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, but that his responsibility should continue throughout the whole of the tenancy. Under those circumstances it was only fair to guard against a contingency which was not at all unknown—namely, that of having a tenant who, either wilfully or by gross carelessness, did great damage to a house. It was not at all an uncommon thing for a tenant to let a house go out of such repair as he was supposed to keep it in, to fail to keep it clean, to remove floors or windows, and to play havoc generally with the place either by a wilful act or by failure to look properly after the premises. In that way the house was rendered unfit for human habitation, and it was done in such a way that the landlord could not possibly be held responsible for it. It was impossible for the landlord always to prevent damage being done in such a manner, and the object of the Amendment was to relieve him of responsibility in a contingency of that kind. He ventured to say that such a provision was necessary because unless there were some safeguard the clause would put into the hands of malicious people another weapon against the landlord. Malicious people might do great damage and might bring on the landlord, not only the cost of the repairs, but also of the initiation of proceedings by the local authority under the clause. He did not wish to take away from the landlord the obligation of keeping his house fit for human habitation as a general rule, but it must be evident that he should be guarded from the very serious danger he would run owing to the unfair position he would be placed in by a tenant who by gross carelessness or by wilful malice made his tenement unfit for human habitation. Such a very simple Amendment he thought ought to recommend itself to the notice of their Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 10, after the word 'habitation' to insert the words 'but nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory on the landlord to remedy any defect caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier, or any person for whom the tenant is as between himself and the landlord responsible.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
THE EARL OF HARROWBY THE EARL OF HARROWBY regarded the Amendment as very important, more especially as it affected agricultural cottages. Landlords in the country only re-

119
ceived from £3 to £5 a year for cottages, and if this clause were passed he could not help thinking that rents would have to be put up all round. Landlords would have to spend a great deal of money on property of this class or else a good many cottages which were not in a thorough state of repair would have to be pulled down.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP very much regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment as it stood. There was, however, an Amendment down, he believed, to Clause 17, in his name, which would to some extent penalise a tenant who treated his landlord's house with disrespect. He would remind the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment that there was one remedy which was always in the hands of the landlord. He could always give notice to a tenant, and as most of the cottages were held on weekly tenancies this would involve a speedy clearance of the objectionable occupier. Therefore if tenants were found to be neglecting a house in such a way that it was likley to become unfit for human habitation the landlord had the remedy in his own hands. He could turn out the man almost at once, and with a vigilant estate agent he did not think it was likely that a landlord would suffer any great damage from injury which might be accomplished by a tenant. He readily admitted that the Amendment which he intended to move at a later stage did not entirely cover the point. Their Lordships would know that there was a clause dealing with compensation to be paid to people who were turned out of their houses. The Amendment he proposed to move prevented those people who had treated their houses badly from receiving any compensation if they were removed, and he hoped that would be sufficient to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that he and his noble freinds had not been able to find the Amendment referred to by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I regret to say it is not on the Paper. My noble friend was mistaken in thinking that it had been put down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that, of course, noble Lords on that side accepted the noble Earl's statement regarding his intention to have the Amendment put on the Paper. But even if this ghostly
120
Amendment had appeared on the Paper he was not sure that it would have met the argument of his noble friend, because, as he understood it, all the Amendment would ensure was that when a tenant had been turned out and there was a claim for compensation it would be set off against any wilful damage he had committed. That was a very different point from the one they were now discussing. If a tenant rendered his house unfit for human habitation by his own default, it seemed very hard that the landlord should be held responsible. The remedy, said the noble Earl, was to turn the man out of his cottage. Did not the noble Earl see that there might be a very great deal of damage done before the man could be got rid of. Suppose the cottage was occupied by a drunken fellow who smashed all the windows and left the rooms undoubtedly unfit for human habitation. Was a landlord to be held responsible and to be called on to turn the tenant out of his holding? Perhaps by so doing he would cause great misery and distress to the wife and family. He could see possibilities of great hardships being caused in such cases, and he held that the landlord ought not to be made responsible for something which happened through no fault of his own. If the noble Earl could not accept the words of Lord Zouche perhaps he would give his noble friend a promise that the matter should be looked into at a later stage. That seemed to be only elementary justice.
THE EARL of CREWE: I quite agree that the case mentioned by the noble Marquess would be a hard one for the landlord, but the remedy of eviction which the noble Marquess thinks hard on the other side is not quite the only one that is available. What would happen supposing the landlord were not liable? Somebody would be liable, because the house bas to be put in repair. I suppose the tenant would be liable. As the Bill stands it is in the landlord's power to tell the tenant that if he does not put the place in repair at his own expense he will have to go. The effect in those circumstances would be the same as that which the noble Lord, I suppose, wishes to bring about—namely, to transfer the liability from landlord to tenant.
LORD HYLTON: The landlord alone is to be liable under the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The landlord is liable, but he can give the tenant the choice

121
of quitting the tenement or doing the repairs. I think in the case put by the noble Marquess of a drunken man who breaks all the windows, it would be distinctly reasonable for the landlord to say, "I do not want to turn you out, but you must repair all the windows or go." The rural case has been mainly argued, but I should like to point out that in the minds of those who have drawn the Bill it is the urban case which is considered most important, and it is thought especially desirable to put this pressure upon landlords to look closely after their property in urban areas. I have no doubt the existence of this liability will make landlords look more carefully after their town property than has been the case hitherto.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said that he was, of course, in their Lordships' hands. He felt rather a difficulty in dealing with the matter, because the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that part of his case would be met by an Amendment he had put down to be moved later on, and it had turned out that the Amendment was not on the Paper. He thought this was a matter of extreme importance, because it was not only a question of making the tenant liable to do this or that, or, should there be any question of compensation, treating the amount of the damage as a set off against the compensation, but it was a question of freeing the landlord from a very unfair burden that might be laid on him. In regard to the point that the landlord might turn a man out of premises which had been misused, it did not follow that he could do so at once, because a house might be let on a longer term than a week. Of course, he did not know whether their Lordships gave him any support or not, but if they did he should be inclined, in the absence of any better way of dealing with the matter, to press the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND trusted that the noble Lord would press the Amendment. The doctrine laid down by noble Lords opposite was a very serious one. They said it was to be made the law of the land that a tenant should be protected from the landlord, and that the landlord should have the duty of doing all the repairs. The noble Earl who led the House said that in case of wilful damage the landlord was to say to the tenant, "You are either not to take the protection which the law gives you, or you are to be evicted. The law says you
122
need not repair." When the Bill was going through the other House the attention of His Majesty's Government was called to this, and they said they did not think the tenant should repair. The landlord, therefore, was to tell the tenant that, unless he did that which the Government now said they would not enforce, he would evict the tenant. That was placing the landlord in a very false position, and he trusted the noble Lord would force the matter to a decision.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY desired to know where the hardship lay. If they let a house to a tenant and he destroyed the windows, they had a remedy against him at law for damaging the property. If the tenant did the same thing again, he could again be punished. Therefore he did not see where the hardships came in on the part of the landlord. He himself let a good many houses on repairing leases and a good many which he had to repair himself. He was thoroughly convinced that if a man did not fulfil his obligations they had the right to proceed against him by ordinary law and to compel him to do so.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY pointed out that noble Lords on the Government Bench had not answered the Duke of Northumberland's question as to colliery cottages—that was to say, they had not stated whether the owner or the colliery people to whom he had leased the property were to be liable for keeping the cottages in repair. A very serious position would be created in the Midlands and the North of England where landowners had much colliery property if they were to be made liable for these repairs.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know whether the noble Viscount was in the House, but I distinctly stated that as regards colliery houses I was going to confer with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH moved a lengthy Amendment, which he had put down at the request of the Permanent Benefit Building Society, and the proposal appeared to him so fair and reasonable that he had every hope the Government would accept it. He would like the Committee to bear in mind the remarks made by Lord

123
Zouche of Haryngworth on the previous Amendment, because they accurately represented what he proposed. The noble Earl the Leader of the House had told them it was desirable that landlords should look more closely after their property, and it was partly with that object that these Amendments had been suggested. He would refer their Lordships to subsection (3) of the Amendment, which provided that the landlord or the local authority or any other authorised person might at reasonable times enter any house for the purpose of viewing its condition. It was only fair that there should be a right of entry in these cases, because under the existing law once a house was let the landlord had no right of entry, unless it was specially agreed to. Clause 15 of the present Bill made no provision for entry, although they were imposing on the landlord the duty of keeping the tenement in a proper state of repair.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 10, after the word 'habitation' to insert:
'(2) In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation by persons of the workingclasses a house or part of a house there shall be implied the following conditions—

(a) That the tenant or occupier will keep the house, buildings, and premises in a clean state and condition:

(b) That the tenants and occupiers will not do or permit to be done any act or thing rendering the house or premises in any respect unfit for human habitation:

(c) That the tenant and occupier will, if during the holding, the house or premises shall in any respect become to their knowledge unfit for habitation, forthwith give notice in writing to the owner or his agent of the fact, and state in what respects the house or promises have become unfit for habitation:

(3) The landlord or the local authority, or any person authorised by him or them in writing, may at reasonable times of the day, on giving twenty-four hours notice in writing to the tenant or occupier, enter any house, premises, or building to which this section applies for the purpose of viewing the state and condition thereof.
(4) If it appears to the landlord or the local authority that the undertaking implied by virtue of this section is not complied with in the case of any house to which it applies, the landlord or the authority may, by written notice to the tenant or occupier, require such tenant or occupier, within a reasonable time, to comply with such conditions.
(5) If such notice is not complied with the landlord may at the expiration of the time specified in the notice do the work required to be done, and recover the expenses incurred by them in so doing from the tenant or occupier as a civil debt in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
(6)If the tenant or occupier fail to comply with the undertakings aforesaid, such tenant or occupier shall forfeit any remedy which he or she may,
124
have had against the landlord either at common law or otherwise arising out of the conditions implied on the part of the landlord.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the Committee would see that the policy which was suggested by the noble Earl in the Amendment was a considerable reversal of the policy expressed throughout the Bill. Under those circumstances the noble Earl could hardly expect that the Local Government Board would agree to insert the Amendment. If he might take only one part of it, he would refer to the last subsection, which stated that on a tenant failing to comply with an undertaking he should forfeit his remedy against the landlord at common law. This meant that in a great many cases tenants would be placed in a very unenviable and somewhat unfair position as regarded landlords.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH asked whether, if he omitted subsection (6), the Government would accept the other five subsections.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the spirit of the Amendment was such that the Local Government Board would be unwilling to accept it at all. The fact of the matter was, there were a certain number of provisions here none of which were harmful but the accumulative effect of which was very considerable. He thought it only right to point out that the general effect of the lengthy Amendment was entirely out of harmony with the principles of the Bill. Therefore the Government were unable to accept it.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN could understand some of the reasons of the noble Earl for not accepting the Amendment as it stood, but he thought the Government might agree to subsection (3) giving the right to the landlord or his agent to view a house at any reasonable time. Surely it was only fair that the landlord, who was made responsible by the Bill for the repair of the premises, should be able at any time he chose to see what condition they were in. He thought that His Majesty's Government might agree to that subsection or to something like it.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: If I limit it to subsection (3), will the Government accept it?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the one general argument which might be used is that the landlord is, as a rule, in a position where he would be able to insist in the form of a covenant on a great number of these provisions, whereas Clause 15 has been inserted in the Bill in the belief that there is a considerable class of tenants who are not in a position, either from poverty or ignorance, to make perfectly free contracts and to insist on provisions for their own protection. But, as the noble Earl has shown such an extraordinarily accommodating spirit, I may say that we will accept subsection (3) if he will not press the remainder.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH said he agreed most willingly to that.
On Question, subsection (3) of the Amendment agreed to.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ANGLO- FRENCH CONVENTION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

MARINE INSURANCE (GAMBLING POLICIES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.