Sitting of 29 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kilkenny, Castlecomer, and Athy Railway Bill,—Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 2nd August, considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Intelligence Department.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Director of Naval Intelligence was assisted by five assistant directors of naval intelligence, of whom four were executive officers and one a marine officer; and whether he can state how many assistant directors of naval intelligence have now been appointed under the recent re-organisation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part affects the details of the new organisation, the announcement of which it is undesirable to anticipate. It will be made known in due course.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state on what dates Captains Campbell and Hulbert took up their appointments of assistants to the Director of Naval Intelligence; and what was the last day on which they were employed at the office?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: These officers were appointed as Assistants to the Director of Naval Intelligence respectively on 25th August, 1906, and 27th March, 1909. The 7th August and the 1st July were the last days on which they were respectively on duty at the Admiralty.

  H.M.S. "Afridi" (Contract Speed).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the "Afridi" has yet been accepted by the Admiralty from the contractors; if so,
  1246
  what precedents are there for accepting a vessel which has not attained her contract speed; what was the reason for accepting this particular vessel; and what was the reason for allowing several months to elapse before coming to a decision on this question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Afridi" has been accepted. The most recent precedents for accepting a vessel which has not attained her contract speed are the cases of the "Arab" and the "Express." The vessel being required for His Majesty's Service, it was decided, after her full speed trial had been carried out, that she should be accepted, when complete, at the reduced sea-going speed then obtained, and the amount paid to the contractors reduced as provided by the contract. It is not the case that several months elapsed before a decision was arrived at. The vessel could not be definitely accepted and taken over from the contractors until the necessary work of opening up her machinery, and other work incidental to completion, was concluded.
  Captain FABER: May I ask whether the "Afridi" did not attain the necessary speed which was guaranteed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: She obtained a sea-going speed of 32¾ knots.
  Captain FABER: Under the contract speed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly. Her sea-going speed should be 33, and she attained 32¾ knots.
  Captain FABER: Did not the First Lord say she would be ready in June last?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know.

  Royal Marine Light Infantry (Colonel G. T. Onslow).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether Colonel G. T. Onslow has now been placed on the Reserved List of Colonels, Royal Marine Light Infantry; on what date the Order in Council was made; and to what date Colonel Onslow was antedated?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is in the affirmative. The Order in Council is dated August 10th, 1909, and has effect from the 1st April last. The placing of Colonel Onslow on the Reserved List of Colonels is dated 11th April, 1909.
  Captain FABER: How could Colonel Onslow be placed on the list on April 11th when the list was not created until August?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Reserve List was created under an Order in Council, which is dated 10th August. Colonel Onslow was dated back to 1st April, because that was the date at which he would have gone on the Retired List at the close of his commission.
  Captain FABER: This list did not exist in April, and how could he be placed on it when it did not exist?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Because the appointment was antedated.
  Captain FABER: It could not be antedated.

  Loss of Submarine C 11.
  Mr. CARLILE (for Mr. Fell)asked when the inquiry into the circumstance of the loss of submarine C 11 will take place; and if it will extend to the responsibility of a vessel cutting or breaking the line of a fleet when in motion?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A Court of Inquiry was held within a week of the sinking of the submarine by the "Eddystone," and the various questions arising out of the evidence given are under consideration.
  Mr. CARLILE: May I ask whether the latter part of the question can be replied to?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The inquiry could not go into those questions. The Court of Inquiry would deal exclusively with the conduct of the ship itself, but certainly the Admiralty would undoubtedly take into consideration all the questions affecting the running down. The point I want to make is that the Court of Inquiry could not make that inquiry.

  Importation of Spirits (West Africa).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the importation of spirits into West Africa will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Report is now being prepared for presentation to Parliament, and will be ready very shortly.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if any representations have been made by the Governor of South Nigeria to the authorities of Dahomey, French West Africa, with reference to raising the duty on imported spirits so as to check smuggling from French territory into British; and, if so, what reply has been returned by the French authorities?
  Colonel SEELY: The Governor of Southern Nigeria has not yet reported the result of the representations made by him to the Governor of Dahomey on the subject of an increase of the duties on spirits.
  Mr. WASON: Can he say whether any representations will be made to the French authorities?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question on that subject.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if a representation was made by the Governor of Southern Nigeria to the French representative in Dahomey concerning the raising of duty from British territory?
  Colonel SEELY: The representations, to which alone this question refers, are as to the question of smuggling. Raising the duties in one part would be of no use if the spirits come in over the boundary.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Argentine Government).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received to the communication recently addressed to the Argentine Government requesting detailed information as to the steps taken either by the federal or the provincial governments to deal with the suppression of foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, will he state the nature of such reply?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The reply has not yet been received.

  Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of an English company called the Peruvian Amazon Company; whether any report as to the alleged ill-treatment of British subjects from Barbados has been made by the English Consul at Iquitos; and whether he will call for a report on the doings of this company from the local English Consul at Iquitos?
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if his attention has been directed to the charges made against the Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company, Salisbury House, E.C.; if he has been urged by the British directors of the said company or by any of the British shareholders to inquire of His Majesty's Peruvian Consul with reference to the same; and if he has acceded to their request, if made?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I had not heard of the existence of the company, and have no information about it. I will ask for a report on the subject.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the American Consul has already made a report to his Government on this company, and whether he can see his way to get hold of that report?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I was not aware of that.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he has not received a request as to this company to inquire into the allegations?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is so.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether full publicity will be given in our dependencies in this part as to the proceedings of the inquiry?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the first step will be to obtain the report for which I have promised to ask.

  Corporal Punishment (National Schools, Ashford, Middlesex).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of the headmaster of the national schools at Ashford, under the Middlesex County Council, who was convicted by the magistrates at Feltham, on or about 6th September last, of assaulting a little boy of 10 years of age, one of the scholars under his charge, by flogging him with great and unreasonable severity, and fined £5, being the highest penalty which the magistrates were competent to impose; whether he is aware that during the hearing of the case the vice-chairman of the school managers stated that when he was chairman of the school attendance committee the boy's mother was summoned before them for not sending her children regularly to school,
  1250
  and alleged as the reason that it was impossible for her to do so owing to the headmaster's conduct towards them; whether he will take steps to ascertain the extent to which the infliction of corporal punishment in the elementary schools of England and Wales prevents regular attendance; and whether he will prohibit the use of flogging in all schools under the direct supervision and control of the Board of Education?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have communicated with the local authority with regard to this case and I am informed that it will come before a sub-committee on 18th October. I propose to postpone further consideration until a report from the local authority has been received. I know of no effective means of ascertaining whether the infliction of corporal punishment has any effect upon regularity of attendance, but I have no reason to suppose that the effect, if any, is appreciable. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  Mr. BYLES: Has the headmaster been dismissed, or will he be allowed to continue?

  General Lighthouse Fund.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the receipts of the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1909, show an approximate surplus of £31,000 over the expenditure; and, if so, whether, having regard to the fact that the accumulated balance to the credit of the fund is over £500,000, he will authorise a further reduction in the light dues?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second question, I have already taken steps to reduce the accumulated balance of the General Lighthouse Fund by making a further reduction of 10 per cent. for three years from 1st April last, which makes a total reduction of 30 per cent. below the dues authorised to be levied by the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898. For the five months ended 31st August, the additional 10 per cent. reduction has caused a reduction in the light dues collected of no less than £32,568 compared with the corresponding period last year. I do not at present see my way to authorise a further reduction.

  Central Unemployed Body (Persons Registered).
  Mr. C. DUNCAN (for Mr. Clynes)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he could state the number of persons who registered themselves for work during the first three days that the registers of the distress committees under the Central Unemployed Body were open; whether this number showed an increase in the number of persons driven to seek this form of assistance for employment; and whether he could state any additional provisions proposed by his Department for meeting the requirements of the approaching winter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The number of persons registered during the first three days that the registers were open was 5,508, showing an increase of 1,767 persons over the number registered during the first three days last year. The Central Unemployed Body are making every endeavour to find suitable work for applicants who may be referred to them, and I shall be pleased to further their efforts so far as I can do so.

  Poor Law (Expenditure).
  Mr. HADDOCKasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could state the total sum expended upon the administration of the Poor Law from 1834 to the latest date ascertainable?
  Mr. BURNS: The aggregate expenditure of boards of guardians and other local authorities in England and Wales, which is ordinarily classed as relating to the relief of the poor, during the period of 75 years ended at Lady-Day, 1909, was approximately £597,000,000.

  Unemployment (Oldham).
  Mr. C. DUNCAN (for Mr. Clynes)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been drawn to a report compiled from recent returns from trade unions and presented to the last meeting of the Oldham Trades Council, showing a high percentage of unemployed in the various trades, more than 1,500 persons being returned as out of work in the building and general trades alone; and whether, in such a case of exceptional unemployment, he was able to announce any adequate step to deal with it?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received from the Oldham and District Trades and Labour Council a newspaper cutting containing a copy of the report in question. I gather from it, not that there are more than 1,500 persons who are returned as out of work in the building and general trades, but that out of a total of 1,521 persons referred to as unemployed, 450 belong to the building and general trades. I am ready to consider any proposals I may receive from the Distress Committee for dealing with unemployment in the borough.

  Licence Duties (Evasion).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could state the number of detections for the evasion of Licence Duties reported by the officers of Inland Revenue, transferred by the Finance Act, 1908, Section 6, during the year ended 31st March, 1908; and whether he would give the amount paid in rewards for these detections to officers of the Inland Revenue in each of the following administrative areas, London, Manchester, and Birmingham?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): (1) The total number of cases in which proceedings were ordered upon detections made by Inland Revenue officers of evasions of these Licence Duties in England and Wales in the year ended 31st March, 1908, was 23,820. (2) The amounts of rewards paid to officers of Inland Revenue in the collections of London, Manchester, and Birmingham for detections made in the above period were as follows: London, £2,826; Manchester, £191 10s.; Birmingham, £171 5s.

  FINANCE BILL.

    DEATH DUTIES (ALLOWANCES FOR CHILDREN).
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to insert in the Finance Bill words making it clear that in no circumstances would allowances made by parents to their children be subject to Death Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer my hon. Friend to Clause 43 of the Finance Bill as amended in Committee, under which gifts which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been part of the normal annual expenditure of a deceased person, and to have been reasonable, having regard to the amount of his income or to the circumstances, or which do not exceed in the aggregate one hundred

    1253
    pounds in value or amount, shall not be charged with Estate Duty in connection with his death.
    Mr. REES: In view of the apprehension which exists, would it not be well to make the point clear by words in the Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is clear. The words given in my answer are an exact quotation from the Bill as amended.
    Mr. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that the words are not in all quarters accepted as sufficiently clear, and that those who will be affected still have some fear on the subject?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I really do not think there is room for apprehension, but I will mention the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    SPIRITS TAKEN OUT OF BOND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would state the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland respectively during the first three weeks of the present month and the amount of duty paid thereon; and whether he would give a similar Return for the corresponding period of last year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that the information desired is not yet available.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When shall we have the information as to this Whisky Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: When the information is available.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND TAX (MARKET GARDENS EXEMPTION).
    Mr. EVERETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposed to put down words exempting market gardens from Undeveloped Land Tax, as promised on 1st September?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has placed upon the Paper a proposed new clause exempting from Undeveloped Land Duty any agricultural land, occupied and cultivated by the owner, where the total value of such land, together with any other land belonging to the same owner, does not exceed £500. My hon. Friend will find, on reference to the Report of the Debate on the 1st instant, that my right hon. Friend did not make any promise to exempt market gardens as such.

  Bengal Education Code.
  Mr. LAIDLAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the new Education Code for Bengal, which was to be introduced in January next, had been definitely withdrawn or postponed; and if he was in a position to state what the Government of Bengal proposed to do in the matter.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State has no information as to any intention on the part of the Government of Bengal to withdraw or postpone the Code. So far as he is aware, they propose to bring it into force on 1st January next.

  Light Dues (Accumulated Balances).
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Departmental Committee on Light Dues, appointed in 1894, in their Report deprecated the accumulation of any balance exceeding £100,000, be could say why the balance standing to the credit of the General Lighthouse Fund had been allowed to grow until it amounted approximately to £529,000, instead of being applied to a reduction in the dues?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: With the object of reducing the accumulated balance the dues authorised to be levied by the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, were reduced by 12½ per cent. in 1903, and by a further reduction of 7½ per cent., making 20 per cent. in all, in 1907; but these reductions of dues were more than counterbalanced by the increase of shipping tonnage which took place and on which dues are paid. A further reduction of 10 per cent., making 30 per cent. altogether, came into operation for three years from 1st April last, and unless the tonnage of shipping increases at a more rapid rate than appears to be the case at present, it is anticipated that the effect of this reduction will be a large diminution in the amount of the accumulated balance.

  Great Southern and Western Railway (Heating of Third Class Carriages).
  Mr. P. J. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was now in a position to state the reply given by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland) to the complaint made by the travelling public that they make no provision for heating third class carriages on most of their trains, and prohibit their

  1255
  servants, without obtaining special leave, from supplying third class passengers with foot-warmers; and could he state the nature of the communication made to the railway company by the Board of Trade?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A copy of the hon. Member's previous question was sent to the Railway Company for their observations, and the Company replied that it was not usual to supply foot-warmers to passengers travelling third-class over their system. On receipt of that reply the Board of Trade wrote to the Company asking for fuller information, and when that information is received I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman again.
  Mr. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the company does not delay giving a definite answer until Parliament rises? Those of us who have to travel third class on this system suffer intensely.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Parliament is having an extended sitting this year, and I hope the reply will be received in time.

  Evicted Tenants (Bruen Estate, Wexford)
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would give the date of the application of Thomas Robinson to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in the farm on the Bruen estate, county Wexford, from which his mother was evicted in 1879; whether the special circumstance which led or induced the Commissioners to sanction an advance of public money to the extent of £2,350 to Thomas Robinson, who possessed over £3,000, consisted in the fact of his having been a land steward in the employment of Lady Kingston; and whether it was to be regarded as part of the policy of the Estates Commissioners, when they acquired untenanted lands, to provide for employés of the landlords by the use of public money which Parliament intended for other purposes?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The date of Thomas Robinson's application for reinstatement was 31st October, 1908. I have already stated that Robinson was one of nine persons who were allotted farms upon untenanted land purchased by the Estates Commissioners from the Countess of Kingston. Robinson, who was manager of the lands on the Kingston estate, in which the farm allotted to him is situate,
  1256
  was being partially deprived of his employment because of the sale of the estate under the Land Acts, and the Estates Commissioners, therefore, regarded him as having a special claim for consideration. He was fully qualified to receive an advance by reason of the fact that he was the representative of an evicted tenant. It is the practice of the Estates Commissioners to give special consideration to the claims of persons who lose their employment upon the sale of an estate, assuming that they are qualified to receive advances.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Kilkee Case).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the family of Mrs. Mary Kelly O'Donnell, of Kilkee, were evicted out of their holding near Milltown Malbay, on the estate of Mr. Stackpool, of Edenvale, Ennis, about 20 years ago, and that a claim in respect to this family was registered under the Evicted Tenants Act; and whether he will indicate what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners either to reinstate this family in their former holding or to provide them with an equivalent farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. O'Donnell's application for reinstatement was not lodged with the Estates Commissioners within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot be dealt with by them under that Act.
  An HON. MEMBER: Robinson's was.

  Raphoe Cathedral.
  Mr. CHARLES MacVEIGHasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the vestry of the Raphoe Cathedral, East Donegal, have asked the Local Government Board to inquire into the unsanitary condition of the graveyard in the cathedral grounds, situated in the centre of the town, and condemned as unsanitary 30 years ago, and though there is not an unoccupied space for a grave in it, burials are continually taking place; whether the health officer has recently advised an inquiry and reported the greater part of the graveyard congested and a menace to the health of the community; and whether, seeing the danger to the inhabitants and that the Local Government Board has either neglected or refused to hold an inquiry, he will at once take steps to have an inquiry held in this matter and thereby allay the fears of the people?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board received a representation on this subject from the select vestry in 1906. The medical officer of health has never made a report describing the condition of the graveyard as a menace to the health of the community. In his last report he stated that he could not condemn it as congested, save in so far as it was used by strangers, and added that there was room enough to bury those who had burial rights. In view of the opinions expressed by the responsible medical officer of health the Local Government Board do not think that any good would result from holding an inquiry.

  Police at Kinlea, West Clare.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he will give information as to the number of police stationed at Kinlea hut, West Clare; the average amount claimed by them for cycle riding and car hire; and the average extra expense per month to the ratepayers involved in this station?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Constabulary authorities that there are seven police stationed at Kinlea hut, three of whom are in excess of the fixed strength of free constables. The average claim for cycling at the station is £2 16s. per month, and no car hire is incurred. The charge to the county for the extra men is about £8 12s. per month—that is, about £2 17s. 4d. per man.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman hopes to be able to remove these police after the passing of the Irish Land Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, I hope; but I am sorry to say that my hopes cannot be expressed in language.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he considers the maintenance of the police station at Kinlea to be now necessary; whether he will state the grounds on which it is maintained; whether he is aware that protests against its continuance have been made in various forms by representative local men; that the irritation caused by the presence of the police tends to produce an effect contrary to the peace of the neighbourhood; and whether he will direct that the instructions establishing the police at Kinlea be rescinded?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the responsible police authorities that the retention of the police station at Kindea is necessary for the protection of Mr. James Griffin, who was fired at and wounded last year. I am not aware that protests have been made against the continuance or that the presence of the police is a cause of irritation to anyone. I am not prepared to direct their withdrawal.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman keep himself in touch with the state of feeling in Clare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes; I receive very frequent communications from county Clare, and generally from all parts of that neighbourhood.

  Knock Petty Sessions Case.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to proceedings at Knock Petty Sessions, which resulted in two men employed on the farm of Mr. James Griffin being fined for assault; whether he is aware that the men so fined were being escorted from the farm to their homes by three police officers, including Acting-Sergeant Thomas O'Neill, and that the acting-sergeant neglected to render assistance to the assaulted man, John Leary, who was seriously injured, but escorted home one of the defendants in the case; whether Leary asked the police to undertake a prosecution, but without result; and whether any action has been taken with regard to the conduct of the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that on the occasion of the assault for which the two men were fined Leary made a complaint to the police who were escorting the men. The police, after giving Leary every opportunity of identifying his assailants, saw the men home and then returned to his house to investigate the case further. Leary had not, so far as the police could see, received any wound or injury requiring their assistance. They were bound to protect the workmen, and the Inspector-General has no fault to find with their conduct.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has carefully read the evidence as given at the Knock Petty Sessions with regard to this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I cannot say that I have.

  Application for Reinstatement, Doonbeg.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he has had brought to his notice the case of Sinon M'Grath, of Carrowmore, near Doonbeg, who was evicted from a holding of 4½ acres, of a rental of £2 16s. 4d., on 24th July, 1900; and whether he will state what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate Sinon M'Grath, and when that event will take place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this man has applied for reinstatement in a holding on the Stacpoole estate. The Commissioners have decided not to take any action on his application until they are dealing with the estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Guisborough Sham Fight Fatality.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether there has been a military inquiry into the death of the Rev. Nigel Hodgson during the Territorial sham fight at Guisborough; if the inquiry located and identified the detachment from which the bullets came; if he is aware that seven bullets were fired from the same detachment; has any inquiry elicited how the seven loaded cartridges came to be given out to the men; and whether the result of any inquiry will be published in full?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): A court of inquiry has been held. Although there is no actual proof, it appears probable from the evidence that some ball ammunition was used by the troops occupying the South Edge of Far Moor plantation. The troops in this plantation consisted of detachments of the 5th and 8th battalions West Yorks Regiment. There is evidence to show that three rounds of ball ammunition were fired. The evidence shows that no ball ammunition was issued, and that all the usual precautions prescribed by the regulations were observed. The question is being considered whether any additional precautions can be devised. It is not usual to publish the reports of courts of inquiry, but I shall be glad to give any information in my power to the hon. Member.
  Mr. CARLILE: Is it not the custom to examine the pouches of the men before they go on manœuvres of this character, so that the presence of ball cartridge might be detected?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes, that is usual; and that was done in this case, and there was no ball cartridge there at the time.
  Captain FABER: May I use any information that the right hon. Gentleman gives me, because there is a great deal of feeling in the matter?
  Mr. HALDANE: I will see the hon. and gallant Member later on in the matter.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Is there any information as to how this ball ammunition came to be used?
  Mr. HALDANE: There is no information as to how the ball cartridge came to be used nor who it was that fired it.

  Special Reserve (Irish Horse).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state by what authority the body described in the Army List as Special Reserve, Irish Horse, has been raised and maintained; if by statute, what statute; and on what Army Vote are the charges for this body borne?
  Mr. HALDANE: This body was raised and is maintained under the Militia and Yeomanry Acts, 1901 and 1902, Part III. of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and subsequent amending Acts. The charges for it are borne on Vote 3.
  Mr. MOONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the Territorial Act is applied to Ireland?
  Mr. HALDANE: Part III. of the Territorial Army Act is the part that belongs to the Reserve Forces Act. The Act does two things. It also deals with the reorganisation of the Reserve Forces Act, and this Act applies to Ireland.
  Mr. MOONEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman that Section 34 of the Territorial Army Act repeals the Irish Volunteer Act of '75 and the Irish Yeomanry Act of '75?
  Mr. HALDANE: So far as the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act makes modifications in the Reserve Forces Act, and in the Yeomanry Act, it applies to Ireland.

  Citizen Soldier Badges.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have considered the suggestion of a badge to be worn by official order at all

  1261
  times in public by the different classes of citizen soldiers; and whether they propose to take any steps in this matter?
  Mr. HALDANE: The suggestion of my hon. Friend is an excellent one, and it has not been overlooked. The Army Council have under consideration the introduction of such a badge, and I hope before long to submit a suitable design for the King's approval.

  Post Offices in Country Towns (Closing).
  Mr. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether the concession recently granted in respect of closing post offices in country towns at 8 p.m., applies to the summer months or to the whole year?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): There is no rule on the subject. The course adopted in each case must depend on circumstances.

  National Telephone Company (Staff Reductions).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the National Telephone Company are reducing the staff employed on line work in Sunderland; that there is plenty of work to be done in this particular department; and, if so, can he state what action he is taking in order to see that the system is kept fully efficient up to the time of the taking over of the undertaking by the Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: The reduction of the National Telephone Company's staff at Sunderland had not before been brought to my notice. If he will give me specific information I will make inquiries. As regards the general difficulties of the telephone situation and the steps I am taking to meet them, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 30th ultimo to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, of which I am sending him a copy.

  Suffragettes in Prison (Supply of Food).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to put a question to the Home Secretary, of which I sent him private notice yesterday. It is whether he has received an application from a firm of solicitors, acting on behalf of certain of the women suffrage prisoners in Birmingham, for leave to visit their clients under the provisions of Section 6 of Rule 72 of the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1899, and whether the application has been refused, and, if so, on what grounds? May I ask at the same time whether there are any further reports this morning as to the
  1262
  state of health of the women prisoners, and whether forcible means are still being used to administer food?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I will also answer the question of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Claude Hay). It is: Whether the Secretary of State has received an application for permission for a solicitor to visit any of the female prisoners at present detained in the Birmingham Prison for the purpose of consulting with them as to their legal situation, and whether the Government have granted the application?
  It is the case that a firm of solicitors asked for permission to visit Birmingham Prison to interview the women prisoners who have been undergoing special medical treatment for self-starvation, and that permission was refused. I have received no application from these prisoners themselves; nor have I reason to think that this firm of solicitors is acting on their behalf. The ground for refusal of such applications is that all complaints about prison treatment have to be made to the visiting committee of the prison, who are specially charged by the Statutory Rules to hear and investigate them. I am advised that the objections of the prisoners' friends or associates to the medical treatment rendered necessary by their refusal to take food does not justify the assertion that any "legal business" exists within the meaning of Rule 72 (6) of the Statutory Rules for the government of local prisons. The visiting committee of the prison held a special meeting yesterday afternoon to hear the complaints of six of the prisoners who have refused to take food. All six were fully heard. They only made a protest against the fact that they were fed against their will. They all stated emphatically that they were treated by the wardresses and the prison officials with the utmost kindness.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Home Secretary aware that these ladies contemplate legal proceedings arising out of what has taken place in the gaol, and whether in these circumstances this rule does not apply? The rule refers to a barrister or solicitor conducting any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, in which a prisoner is a party or bonâ fide acting as legal adviser to the prisoner. This firm of solicitors was acting for the ladies when they went to prison, and as they intend to take legal proceedings they desire to interview their clients to take their instructions.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentle man appears to speak for these ladies. I do not know on what authority he speaks for them?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I speak on the authority of local agents referred to—
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a very different thing. I may be wrong as to the legal interpretation of the rule as regards people outside the prison who, of their own accord, desire to visit prisoners within. Proceedings can no doubt be taken on that point by those who wish to get leave. I only point out to the hon. Member, so far as I am concerned, the prisoners themselves made no application such as is conveyed by the hon. Member in his question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether a firm of solicitors are not allowed to make an application on behalf of their own clients, and whether that was not done in this case?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no knowledge of it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Do you doubt the word of the firm of solicitors?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I doubt the word of nobody, but I have no knowledge as a matter of fact that the prisoners are their clients. In any case it is quite obvious that if an outside firm of solicitors demand to see prisoners in prison on legal business it is absolutely essential that those responsible should satisfy themselves that the legal business is bonâ fide and within the meaning of the regulations.
  Mr. DENIS KILBRIDE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small commission in lunacy to inquire into the lunacy or sanity of those people?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: That comes badly from an Irishman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us what will be the course of business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which stage we hope to complete on Wednesday. On Thursday and Friday we propose to
1264
take the Report stage of the Development Bill. Perhaps I may inform the House we hope to-night to secure the passage of the Police Bill, which was by arrangement deferred last week.
Mr. BALFOUR: There is some doubt as to Friday in this week. Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the probable length of the sitting on that day?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope it will not be necessary to sit after the usual hour.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: May I ask when it is intended to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say yet, but it will not be next week.

BILL PRESENTED.
The following Bill was presented, and read the first time:—
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND)—Bill to make provision with respect to the application of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, to the county of Cork. (To be read a second time to-morrow.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[37th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.
  NEW CLAUSE (PROVISIONS AS TO INCREMENT VALUE DUTY).
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George) moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provisions as to Increment Value Duty and Reversion Duty in the Case of Minerals Worked or Leased.)
  (1) No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a mining lease, and no Increment Value Duty shall be charged on the occasion of the grant of a mining lease or in respect of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease, or are being worked, except as a duty payable annually in manner provided by this Act.
  (2) Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were, on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, being worked whether by the proprietor or by a lessee so

  1265
  long as the minerals are for the time worked: Provided that the exemption under this Section shall continue to apply in the case of any minerals, although they cease, for a temporary period, to be worked, so long as the period does not exceed twelve months.
  (3) Increment Value Duty in respect of the increment value of minerals which are Comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall where that duty is chargeable be charged annually, and the increment value shall, instead of being estimated as a capital sum, be taken to be the sum (if any) by which, in each year during which the tenancy under the lease continues or the minerals are being worked, as the case may be, the rental value on which Minerals Rights Duty is charged in respect of the right to work the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected, as the case may be; and the annual equivalent of any such capital value of the minerals shall be taken to be two twenty-fifth parts of that capital value.
  (4) Increment Value Duty payable annually under this Section shall, instead of being collected as provided by this Act in other cases, be recoverable in the same manner as Mineral Rights Duty, with the same right of deduction.
  (5) Any proprietor or lessor of any minerals who pays Increment Value Duty in pursuance of this provision shall be entitled to be relieved in any year from the payment of Mineral Rights Duty, as such proprietor or lessor, up to the amount paid by him in that year in respect of Increment Value Duty.
  For the purposes of this provision a deduction of any amount from the rent payable to the lessor on account of Mineral Rights Duty shall be deemed to be a payment of that duty, and the relief may be given either by allowance or repayment, or both of those means, as the occasion may require.
  (6) Where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked within the meaning of this Section, the capital value of the minerals at the time shall be specially ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the capital value as so ascertained shall be treated as the original capital value of the minerals.
  (7) Nothing in this Section shall apply to minerals which are exempt from Mineral Rights Duty under this Act.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: This Clause purports to apply the principle of increments to minerals, and it will no doubt raise large questions of policy as regards the advisability of proposing this further duty in addition to the Mineral Rights Duty, as to the capacity of trade to bear it, and as to its effects upon industries. I do not desire to go into large matters of policy of that kind, but as this duty is a wholly novel duty I wish mainly to call the attention of the Committee to its actual working and to the direct results which it will produce, because while I do not deny it may be possible, though I think it would be rather difficult, to apply the principle of the taxation of increment of which we heard so much to minerals, I submit to the Committee that this so-called duty on minerals has nothing to do with the principle of the taxation of increment as has been so often explained to the Committee and the House, but that it is an arbitrary tax founded upon no principle at all, which would act in a most capricious and arbitrary fashion.
  This duty is not concerned with minerals in current work. I therefore ask the Committee to take a case to which it would apply, which is the case of future leasing or working of minerals hitherto unworked. What tax will that impose upon a man letting or working his minerals? He has to pay an annual duty, which, roughly speaking, amounts to between the rent and two-twenty-fifths of the capital value. What will the duty be which the lessor of minerals will have to pay under this Clause? He will have first of all to start with the capital value of these minerals. It will be observed that in the addition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make to Clause 15 he proposes to enact that in preparing the 1909 register no value at all shall be attached to any minerals which are not returned and valued by the owner of the soil in which they are. What position will that put the owner of the land in, in which there are or are supposed to be minerals? He will be put in this dilemma, that he must either go on the off-chance that he will some day have an opportunity of letting these minerals—he must go to the expense of testing his land, and fighting the matter out with the Com-

  1267
  missioners—or else the land will stand with the minerals unvalued in the 1909 register. It is somewhat of a hardship to call upon him to take the first course and go through all the cost of valuing his minerals. If he does not take that course, how will this Increment Duty on working minerals affect him? What will he have to pay? In the first year he will, of course, pay no duty, because it is payable on the last year's working. In the second year he will have to pay the difference between the rent he received in the first year and two-twenty-fifths of the capital value. He will, therefore, have to pay increment value in the second year on the whole of the rent he received in the first year at the rate of 4s. in the £, and that will apply year by year. The effect of this tax is that whenever minerals are let for the first time the owner will have to pay four shillings in the £ on the mineral royalties he receives. That appears to me to be a gross injustice, and I really doubt whether this Committee desires to impose on one special kind of owners of property any such burden as that without any reason and without any principle whatever. This charge will have to be paid quite apart from the Increment Duty, whether there is any increment or not.
  I will now take the case of a mineral lease, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer took as an illustration when he moved this Resolution. He took a mineral lease with an assumed capital value of £12,500, which is a convenient sum to take. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the amazing difference which his proposal introduces between the burden upon a man who lets his minerals and the burden upon the man who sells them. It is a commonplace to say that a mining lease is nothing but a sale of minerals. It is really a sale of minerals piecemeal. A man who has a seam may sell it for a lump sum down or he may sell it on a lease under which the lessee may take the minerals to any extent he pleases, paying for them at so much per ton. That is really a sale. I will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's illustration and apply this Clause to it. How will it work? Supposing the man who owns a particular vein of minerals sells it out and out. I will assume there is an increment on the capital value of £2,500. The property has risen in value from £12,500 to £15,000, and it is sold at that price. The vendor will pay Increment Value Duty upon it—that is, he will pay one-fifth,
  1268
  amounting to £500. That is his position if he sells. Let us compare that with his position under this Clause, if instead of selling those minerals out and out he sells them piecemeal under a mining lease. I do not think "mining lease" is a good term to use. I will suppose he leases those minerals at £15,000, by which I mean he leases them at so much per ton as will bring in royalties by the time the mine is worked out to the amount of £15,000. What duty will he have to pay upon this income of £2,500, as compared with the £500 paid in the case of sale? That will all depend upon how soon his minerals are worked out, and it will not depend upon any question of increment at all. Supposing they are worked out in three years, and that the royalties work out at £5,000 in each year. What duty will have to be paid in that case? He will have to pay each year the difference between £5,000, the rent he received the year before, and £1,000, which is the annual equivalent of the capital value. He will have to pay £800. Therefore he will have to pay during the three years these minerals are being got, and during which time he is receiving £15,000, the sum of £2,400 in Increment Value Duty.
  Let us take a more extreme case. Let us suppose that the lessee is able to work out the whole sum in one year and pay his £15,000. The only difference between the two is that in the one case the man is called the purchaser and pays in a lump sum, whereas in the other case he is called a lessee and pays by instalments. In each case the owner receives £15,000 and the community causes an increment of £2,500. The duty which the owner will have to pay if the seam is worked out in one year is £2,800. These are matters to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can hardly believe that I have correctly read this Section, and I should be very glad to hear that I have not read it correctly. That is quite possible, because I can hardly conceive such a result would be intended. The two questions I address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are, in the first place, am I right in my reading of this Section; and, secondly, if I am right, are these conclusions really desired by the Committee? I will assume a case in which there is no increment. The only increment I can conceive in the case of a wasting property like some of those which are being worked is where the price of the commodity rises so fast as to more than counterbalance the abstraction from the corpus. That is the

  1269
  only possible increment I can understand as applying to a wasting estate. Take the case where there is no increment at all. During the whole time the lease is running the minerals are being worked, and there is no rise in the price of coal. I will take the capital value at £12,500. What is the Increment Value Duty—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the courage to call it—which will be paid by the lessor in that case? It depends not so much on the kind of work as upon the regularity with which the work is conducted. Now, £12,500 is the capital value, and £1,000 is the annual equivalent of the capital value. If that seam is worked out in 12½ years with regularity, so that the royalties paid are £1,000 a year, no duty will be paid at all. If the seam is worked out in five years with regularity, so that the annual payment of royalties is £2,500, then the duty will be £300 a year, or £1,500 in all. If the seam is worked out in one year, the duty will be £2,300. I will not say it makes no difference to the lessor. He gets his money sooner, of course, and he gets the interest the money earns, but that is a trifle compared with these enormous differences of duty. He pays in all these cases the same amount in Mineral Rights Duty. The faster his property is taken away, the faster he gets his purchase money, and the larger the Mineral Rights Duty he has to pay.
  I do hope some one will explain on what principle of reason or justice you are going to tax a lessor who leases his minerals at a given price nothing if it takes 12½ years to work them, and £2,300 if they are worked out in a year. It is quite obvious this is not a tax on increment at all. The case I have just put to the Committee is a case where there is no increment. It is not a tax upon increment; it is on the face of it a tax which has no connection with the price or the value of the coal. It applies equally whether the price rises or falls. It is a tax on irregularity of work, and on nothing else. If, in the case I last put, instead of the working during the 12 years being regular at £1,000 a year, it had been worked so that a small sum was obtained in one year and a large amount in the next, a large amount of duty would have been paid. If the working takes 12 years, and is regular, no duty is paid; but if the working is irregular a large amount of duty is paid, and the greater the irregularity the larger the amount of duty this
  1270
  extraordinary tax will impose upon the owner. That, as it appears to me, is the meaning of this Clause, and that is the irregular way in which it will work. I shall be very glad to hear if I am right in; my reading of the Section. If I am right, it appears to me, first of all, that this is not an increment tax at all, and that at has no relation to those theories, right or wrong, of an increased value accruing to a man's property for which he does not pay or work. It is a tax on the working of minerals, and it is a most arbitrary, fantastic, and unjust tax. I shall listen with great interest to hear what is to be said about it by the party opposite, and whether it is possible anything can be said for imposing upon the owners of a particular kind of property a tax so arbitrary and so absurd.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to rise at once or shortly to deal with the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, but I would put in an appeal on behalf of the lay Members of the Committee that on this occasion of the second reading of the Clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give us some general explanation of its working and of its principles, which I am sure would lead to a legitimate discussion of its provisions. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the draftsman, but everyone will agree that the difficulties are very great. I defy any man without very detailed and profound study to say exactly what it does and what exactly it is intended to do. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perform great service to the Committee if he would give us a general account of the principles underlying the Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not propose to reply now to the very detailed questions put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but I will do so later on. If I were to follow a detailed consideration, it might take me away from the general consideration of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman was not here when I explained the general summary of my view of what this Clause really means. I agree it is very complicated, but any clause dealing with mineral rights must necessarily be complicated. This is how it is proposed to work. In the case of a sale, it would be quite easy to charge on the capital amount of increment, but, in the case of a lease, it will be almost impossible. In the case of a lease with a royalty of sixpence per ton, and a dead

  1271
  rent of £1,000, no one can say at the time the lease is signed with any approach to accuracy what that really represents, be cause the amount depends exactly upon the yield of coal, and you cannot tell what the yield will be. There is, therefore, a difficulty in arriving at the increment on which you ought to impose the tax at the date the lease is signed. The Government consequently propose an Increment Duty in the shape of an annual tax. I will take the figure of £12,500, which is the very figure given by the hon. and learned gentleman. We first of all value all the minerals in England—
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I do not interrupt except for the purpose of getting information. According to Clause 15, and an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, minerals are not to be valued unless the owner declares. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean that all minerals which may exist in the country are at once to be valued. Value is only to be placed on what the owner declares.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is purely a method of valuation, and we shall come to that point later on. That is the method we propose to adopt in arriving at the valuation. It does not matter from the State point of view what the valuation is, because there is no charge of a ½d. in the £ upon it. We invite the owner to declare whether he has got minerals, and what value he places upon them. Let us assume he values them at £12,500. We divide that by 12½, because that is the number of years' purchase which you place upon a mining property. I am advised that 12½ years is the average. Therefore, a mining property of £12,500 capital value, is worth £1,000 a year. You reduce your £12,500 to an annual value of £1,000. Let us assume that the owner of that mineral property leases it. There is a royalty of 6d. per ton and a dead rent of £2,000. The first year he only gets his £2,000. The royalties do not come up to £2,000, and he therefore simply draws his dead rent. The Increment Duty will be calculated in this way: You take £1,000 from £2,000, and that represents the annual increment for that year, and you charge 20 per cent. upon it. The Government will take duty of one-fifth on that £1,000. Next year the royalties run up to £3,000. You still deduct the £1,000, your original equivalent of site value, and for the second year you have an increment of
  1272
  £2,000, and you take a fifth on that. If the royalties go up to £10,000 you still deduct the £1,000, and there is £9,000 on which you take a fifth. If the minerals peter out there is an end of the colliery and of the increment. Supposing the increment were in any year to fall below £1,000 there would be no Increment Duty. We are charging the Increment Duty year by year on the difference between the annual increment site value and the mineral rents of that particular year. We charge one-fifth upon the difference between the anual equivalent of the original site value and the rents and royalties. On that we charge 20 per cent., and that is the proposition which we are substituting for the valuation of the increment at the date of the lease. But suppose the owner sells his mineral property for £15,000. There will be an increment of £2,500. The original value was £12,500; the property is sold for £15,000. We take the increment on the difference. I hope I have made the point clear.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is there to be any subsequent occasion for valuation? Suppose the owner does not know he has got minerals on his land and does not consequently declare; but at some subsequent date he discovers the minerals. Will he have an opportunity of declaring the value later on?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): The declaration of value is as from 30th April, 1909. Should an owner think he has no minerals worth declaring, and subsequently discover that he has, then of course he will not get the benefit of the original capital value, which, in the case of minerals, is equivalent to the original site value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How long a period will be allowed him within which to declare the value as from April, 1909? He may not know he has minerals on his land. In such a case, will the Increment Value Duty be one-fifth of the entire rental?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The original capital value will be calculated. The number of these cases will be somewhat restricted. All minerals being worked on 30th April, 1909, will pay 5 per cent. duty. The Increment Value Duty does not apply to them at all. It is very important to keep that in mind, for then we shall see exactly the scope of the duty. The Increment Value Duty only applies to minerals which are not on 30th April being worked, and the expression "being worked" is defined

  1273
  very widely. It is assumed that minerals in the process of being worked are a waning, and not an improving, estate, and generally speaking that is true, although there may be some few exceptions where the increment is considerable. But you must proceed in these cases on general lines. The owner, however, must make up his mind to declare whenever the valuation is made as from 30th April, 1909.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There are two points which, in my opinion, do not agree. There is mention of a State valuation, which is to be all-embracing; and, again, the valuation is to be fixed except where the owner declares. These two do not seem to quite agree. We want to know whether there is to be a specific occasion, and, if so, when, when the State is to make an all-embracing valuation? Are the owners to approach the State in the first instance or is the State to approach the owner?
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather troubling about a difficulty which is not likely to arise in the working of the Act. Take the case of the owner who ignores minerals on his land and the case of the owner who thinks there are minerals and wishes to declare their value. In the case of the first owner he simply values the land, and if he chooses to make no separate valuation for minerals he gets no benefit from the original capital value when afterwards the minerals come to be developed. If he wishes to get his exemption he will declare the value of his minerals when the valuation comes to be made on 30th April, 1909. Of course, as to the date of that valuation one cannot describe it as an exact point of time; no doubt there will be some considerable time, and we have already discussed this matter on the antecedent clauses. Whenever that time comes he will either say he has mineral ground or he will say nothing about it. If he says nothing about minerals, then he does not secure himself the exemption if afterwards he discovers minerals and begins to work them. If he says, "I have minerals," then they will be taken into account, and for the purposes of valuation will be separately treated. The minerals will be treated as if they were a separate class, and they in each case will each take its own course. Of course, the interest of the mineral owner will be to declare minerals if he has them. He will be checked from putting on a very high original value by
  1274
  the Commissioners, but if he desires to have the original capital value fixed, of course he will move the Commissioners to that effect. If he does not desire to have the capital value fixed, having regard to the Death Duties, then the calculation will be made elsewhere.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: So far as I understand the case I think it is quite clear, and from what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said, as far as I am concerned, their intention is perfectly clear. The point I did not gather, and which I see now, is that this Clause is to be referred back to the original increment value clauses, and the value which is referred to here is part of the valuation which we have passed in Committee on the other clauses. I mean the general clauses deal with the general value of the land, and this is only a special method of valuation which refers back to the valuation on the Increment Value Duty at the beginning of the first part of this Bill. That is so, is it not?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes, as I have defined it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Then that clears up that point. I should like, if I may, to make one or two comments upon it. The learned Attorney-General tells us that it would only apply to a very small portion of the minerals, and that, I think, gives away the whole case for the tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman also told us that it would not apply to any minerals which were being worked, and as to them there will be an Amendment later, of which I have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice, which deals with that point, because it is quite obvious that the principle of Increment Value Duty cannot equitably apply to the lessor who has already parted with his rights before 30th April, 1909, to a lessee for a fixed sum. That does appear to me to be a principle which the Committee cannot equitably depart from. A man has parted with his property on definite terms already agreed to, the rate at which that property is going to be worked has entirely passed out of his hands, and he has no further control over it. The whole of that has been handed over to the existing lessee and it cannot increase in value to the lessor, and how can there be an increment to him when he has already sold his rights under a mineral lease? The word "lease" in the ordinary sense of the term does not apply to minerals

  1275
  at all. It is merely a popular phrase, and it is not a lease in any proper sense of the word; it is an absolute sale out-and-out over a period of years for the whole of the minerals in a certain area of land, and when a man grants a mining lease it is just as much a definite sale of minerals under that land as when a man sells a piece of land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, of the minerals qua minerals, although there are certain differences due to the character of the article. He may not get minerals, and if he does not that is his look-out. If he does not get minerals there is no duty, but so far as any minerals which the lessee does get the duty is to be paid out of them. Where minerals are got the duty is paid, and I am quite sure that it will not be maintained for a moment that, having regard to those minerals which are got, there has been anything but an absolute sale from the so-called lessor to the so-called lessee.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I think the hon. Member is quite wrong in that assumption. There may be cases where the owner may receive very large sums of money where no coal is got at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There might be a dead rent on minerals which are to be gotten, but I believe it is universal that where there is a dead rent overpaying the amount of minerals obtained the sum may be made up in subsequent years. If only £1,500 worth of minerals are got, and there is a dead rent of £2,000, the balance can be made up in subsequent years.
  Mr. MARKHAM: In South Wales the general practice is six years to recover, in the Midlands over the whole of the lease, in the North of England a short time, and in Scotland a shorter time.
  Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON: It is three years in South Wales in many cases.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is merely a detail; the point is this in regard to the whole question as to minerals to be sold and gotten that where there is a dead rent, and it is in excess of the minerals gotten, the amount can be made up under a fair bargain. Of course there are cases where the lessee or purchaser has made a bad bargain—nothing more nor less—and you may come upon any vendor or seller and tax him upon the ground that the lessee happens to make a bad bargain. That does not touch my argument one way or another. The point is this: that an
  1276
  actual sale has taken place of minerals, of course at the risk of the purchaser, from the vendors or their agents, and under the name of a lease the so-called lessee buys the minerals, and the lessor has parted with them, and has no interest in them whatever, and no power of saying how they shall be worked. How can there be increment in such a case?
  Mr. LUPTON: He has powers of regulating the working.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There are no doubt certain minor regulations which may be made, but at present it is in the interest of the vendor, as well as of the purchaser, that these minerals shall be worked as soon as possible. Will any hon. Member tell me of any condition inserted in a mining lease in which the lessee has been limited in the amount which he may work in the year? No one can tell me of such a case. What is going to happen under this tax, taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own case, is clearly that you are putting an immense handicap on the people who are going to take minerals in future, and the owner of those minerals is going to have an interest in asking that they should not work more rapidly than will enable him to avoid the payment of the Increment Value Duty. Another point will arise on that. Does the owner have the same interest as he had before in getting his minerals worked as rapidly as he can? What he will do and what it will be the owners' interest to do will be to say to the lessee, "The annual equivalent of these minerals is £1,000, so long as you do not work over that I shall have to pay no Increment Value Duty, and, if you do go over that, you will have to pay me some portion of that duty which I shall have to pay." I think when the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Mr. Markham) takes his next mineral lease, if this duty is passed, he will have to meet this. I do not say that the lessor will be able 60 extract the whole 20 per cent. from him, but he will be able to extract something, and that will depend upon the state of the market at the moment, how eager the vendor is to sell, and how eager the hon. Member is to buy, but there will be a tendency on the part of the owners or their agents to regulate the output so that the Increment Duty will not fall upon them. That is the view which is pressed upon me by one of the most capable men in the Kingdom in regard to these matters, and here the Government are giving a direct incentive

  1277
  —we do not put it higher than that—and making it to the interest of the vendor to take the course which I have suggested, and is that, I ask, to the advantage of the industry? Will that tend to the increase of the output of minerals, and will that increase labour? To my mind, it is a direct handicap and must act as such, and certainly those who are interested in minerals and who have negotiated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood that the Mineral Rights Duty was in substitution of all those fantastic duties which they could never understand. I do not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of bad faith for a moment, but that was the understanding in the minds of those who have been negotiating these Mineral Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in this House that he has given up the Reversion Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty. The Undeveloped Land Duty he could not collect from minerals because it is obviously impossible to value upon that basis.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not what I said. I said I would give up the Reversion Duty and the Increment Duty on existing mines.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Undeveloped Land Duty has been transferred into this duty but it has been doubled, and it has been doubled, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in consideration of his having given up the increment value on minerals now worked. There could never be any Reversion Duty upon an expiring mineral lease.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It by no means follows that when a mineral lease expires the minerals are all worked out. They may be left there with the machinery and valuable equipment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I can hardly suppose that the Attorney-General will suggest that the minerals in the mine can be worth more at the end of the lease, having been partly worked out, than at the beginning.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The question put was not whether they were worth more, but were worth enough to give a Reversion Duty.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Reversion Duty is on the difference in value between the property at the end of the lease and the property at the beginning of the lease, and in order to get the Reversion Duty the Treasury will have to show that the value
  1278
  of the minerals in the mine is greater at the end of the lease than at the beginning. I can imagine such a case, but it must amount to almost nothing. Surely the Treasury cannot attach much value to that. The giving up of Reversion Duty cannot surely be considered as a boon. In order to assume that, you have to assume that the lessee will take the minerals in the mine for such a short period and on such terms that he is going to leave a greater value of minerals in the mine, including the value of his plant and shaft, at the end of his lease than he has got out during the whole currency of his lease. That is really inconceivable. You cannot have a more businesslike, capable body of men than mining lessees, and I cannot imagine that any mining lessee will tell us that that is the principle on which he works a mining lease.
  Mr. J. S. AINSWORTH: It is often the case that, while you are working a mine, you go on and open it up, and at the end of your lease there is a much larger amount of minerals opened and ready for working than at the commencement, and that adds to the value of the mine. It is frequently the case that a mine is worth a great deal more at the end of the lease.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am certain the hon. Member's facts are accurate. The Reversion Duty, however, is on the lease, and not on the mine. In the particular case that the hon. Member states, the Reversion Duty will be charged not upon the value of the mine or the actual minerals which are discovered after the first lease has been worked, but on the value of the property actually the subject of the first lease. Does the hon. Member suggest that the particular minerals which were the subject of the first lease, having been worked out, would be worth more at the end of the lease than at the beginning, or does he suggest that if the other minerals were included in the lease the lessee would leave them there for the lessor?
  Mr. AINSWORTH: You can only work minerals at a certain rate, and it is very often the case that a larger extent of minerals is opened up and prepared for output at the end of a lease than at the commencement, and if a man spends money in opening up a colliery that is probably what will happen. Take the position of the lessor. He will have a largely developed mine which has been opened up

  1279
  well, which he can, of course, let on better terms for himself. He is in a much more satisfactory position for making a good bargain for himself at the end of the lease.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree with that, but I do not think it touches the point. The point was whether Reversion Duty would be payable, and in such a case as the hon. Member has suggested there would be no Reversion Duty.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: It is exactly the same case as that of a ground landlord who, at the end of the 50 or 60 years for which the land has been let on a building lease, finds himself the owner not only of the site but of the site with a house on it. So at the end of the first lease, instead of being the owner of an undeveloped royalty, the lessor is the owner of the developed mine.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That may be morally the case, but it would not be the fact. Reversion Duty would not be payable for this very simple reason, that in the first case what fell in for the landlord in the case of a house would be the actual subject of the original lease increased in value, therefore Reversion Duty would be payable upon this increased value at the end of the lease as compared with its value at the beginning. What falls in in the case of a mine is not the subject of the original lease. What was leased in the original lease is a certain proportion of the minerals in that mine, and in opening up those minerals other minerals are discovered, but they were not the subject of the lease. I agree that the position of the lessor would be greatly improved, but he would not have to pay Reversion Duty. It is my opinion that the Reversion Duty would at any rate be extremely small which has been given away, and the Increment Value Duty has been surrendered already on mines which are being worked, and it is now proposed to adopt this extremely complicated and difficult method of charging it only on mines which are to be opened up in the future. I think it is a very unnecessary proceeding. According to the Attorney-General it is going to produce very little.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have not said so.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman said there would be very few cases.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No, I was merely dealing with them in comparison with mines which are being worked.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If there are a great many cases it will be a very great hardship, and it will certainly act as a factor in preventing people from developing their minerals, and a very considerable factor. I do not say it will prevent a man who has very valuable minerals. He would naturally like to develop them, and receive a rental for them, but you cannot look upon this tax by itself. A man who is going to develop minerals will look over the whole field, and will ask himself what he is going to get by developing the minerals on the one hand, and what disability and liabilities he will incur on the other. On the one hand he will get his mineral rents, but he will have to pay upon them Death Duties, Income Tax, and this new Increment Value Duty, which will amount in itself to 4s. in the £. There must be a very large area of land where the owners are not at all sure they have minerals. If they only think they have minerals it will be a good number of years before they can be worked at all, and it lies under their own control whether these minerals are ever worked or not, and until they can see that they are really going to get some advantage out of it they will not have their property spoilt. If they declare the minerals they might have to pay heavy Death Duties upon sums which they have never received, and later on if they do declare them they will have to pay 4s. in the £ on whatever is received as Increment Value Duty. In addition to that they will be liable to Death Duties and to a 1s. 2d. or 1s. 8d. Income Tax, and on the whole, in a good many cases, the man who would develop minerals now will not develop minerals in future. It must act as a deterrent. When a man is considering whether he will work minerals or not his mind is on the balance, and he has certain considerations in one scale and certain considerations in the other. You are putting into the scale against the working of the minerals a very considerable weight which is going, to my mind, to do a great deal more to check the development of the mineral industry than it is going to bring to the Exchequer, and in that way it will lose the Exchequer more revenue. You cannot have all your taxes over and over again on the same money, and if, by putting this tax in one form, you are checking the industry, you are by that

  1281
  very means reducing the yield of other taxes which the profits of that industry would pay, and you are so injuring the Exchequer as well as the trade and industry of the country. I believe, from the point of view both of industry and of the Exchequer itself, the tax is a very unwise one, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very wise to drop it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is so very well informed about the development of agricultural land and building land—in fact, there is no Member in the House who knows more about it, and no one better entitled to speak on these subjects—that really I think the only excuse for the speech he has delivered on mineral royalties is that he knows absolutely nothing about mines and quarries, otherwise I cannot imagine an hon. Member of his ability and genius making some of the observations he has made. He has said this tax is going to prevent these people from developing their mines. Here you have property which for agricultural purposes, as a rule, is almost worthless. It is generally poor hill country in Wales at from 10s. to 12s. an acre. But let us assume that it is rich agricultural land worth £2 an acre. The owner will get for 1,000 acres of that land, let us say, about £2,000. If, on the other hand, it is in our part of the country, he gets something like £700 or £800. He has got minerals underneath, and someone comes and says, "I am prepared to spend a quarter of a million in opening up this property. I shall probably be able to raise coal which will give you £5,000, £10,000, or perhaps £60,000." But the landlord says, "I would rather have my £800 a year as an agricultural landlord than £48,000 a year because I have to pay something to the State." If the hon. and gallant Gentleman owned mineral properties I do not think that is the view he would take of their development. Let us take other cases, which show how really absurd the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is. He is a keen business man, and the proposition he puts is this: Supposing that you spread the production of the coal over 50 years, and if you say to a man that he must not put out more than 40,000 tons a year he escapes duty altogether. Who is going to do it? Is it the owner who is going to say to a man that he will give him a lease, but that he will not allow him to produce more than 40,000 tons a year? Can he find any man in the country who would be prepared to sink shafts, put up machinery, lay down
  1282
  railways, and incur the whole of the equipment cost, which might run to £250,000 or £500,000, and all for the privilege of raising at the outside 40,000 tons a year and not a grain beyond that? I think I have shown to the hon. and gallant Gentleman how grotesque an argument of that kind is.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's perpetual parodies of the arguments used on this side of the House? What I said was that if the royalties were more than £1,000 the landowner would have to pay in respect of Increment Value Duty, and from that point of view it would be his interest to limit the output of the minerals, but that from the general point of view it would be his interest to have a large output. That would induce him to take the action I suggested, and to say to the lessee, "If you put out more than 40,000 tons, you will have to pay something of the Increment Value Duty."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this tax will act as a factor to prevent the de-development of minerals properties. That is a point which he elaborated at great length and endeavoured to drive home. He said that if the lessee simply spread the output over 50 years, there would be nothing to pay. No one would take a mine on such a condition, for the simple reason that it would not pay him. What is the royalty? Sixpence. Is the lessee going to do what is suggested in order that the landowner may avoid a tax of one-fifth of sixpence? To produce only 40,000 tons would not pay the winding alone. Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know enough about minerals and royalties to discuss the economic effect of this tax. If he would pay a casual visit to the mining estates and ascertain the real facts, he would never embark in criticism of this ludicrously irrelevant kind. His proposal is one which no business man would say should carry the weight of a feather with anyone who is supporting the imposition of this duty.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reproached my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) for having a more limited acquaintance with mining than he has with urban land development and agriculture. That may be true. I am afraid that if my hon. and gallant Friend is ignorant, I am still more ignorant. I have not even the qualification which the right hon. Gentleman

  1283
  kindly attributed to my hon. and gallant Friend of being a business man. I am afraid I cannot claim any such title. I have listened to the Debate, and I must say frankly that I think the right hon. Gentleman has not met my hon. Friend's point. What he has done is to take the extreme case which was suggested, I admit, by my hon. Friend, and to say to him that the motive in that case for not raising minerals would not be sufficient. That really is the whole of his argument. It is no answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to answer are the two points which have been raised this afternoon. One was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman), and the other by my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Salter). An answer was promised by the right hon. Gentleman, but no answer has yet been given. The two points are: You are here imposing a tax which, in so far as it acts as a motive at all, win act as a motive against the rapid development of minerals, and will be a motive which will enable the lessor of minerals to throw part of the burden of the tax on the lessee, which I do not believe to be the object of the Government. My hon. Friend's argument was somewhat different. He pointed out that actually the same mine leased by the same lessees, and tinder the same conditions, would pay a totally different tax according as it was worked regularly or irregularly, fast or slow. Why should it pay an entirely different contribution to the Exchequer when worked in a different fashion by people who do not have to pay the tax? You might have said to the lessee, "If you choose to work the property in this way you must take the risk yourself." I think that would be a wise provision.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman lays down is that the contribution will be different according as the mine is worked regularly or irregularly. Will he explain how that arises?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid that my knowledge of the subject is not so intimate as that of others who have taken part in the Debate. My hon. Friend's argument was this: There is an Increment Duty charged on the difference between what a man gets from a mine as compared with some initial rent called the annual equivalent, which is arrived at by one of those
  1284
  hypothetical calculations with which we have become so extremely familiar in this Bill. There is a supposed annual equivalent of the value, and if in any year the value exceeds that data line it count's as increment on which taxation has to be paid. If the initial value was £1,000, and if nothing more than that sum was ever got, the owner of the mine would never pay the tax at all. Remember the property is precisely the same, and he ultimately gets the same value for it. It is a property for which the Government admit the owner will ultimately get the same value in cash. If the annual value does not reach £1,000 he pays no tax, but if in the second year he gets £3,000 he suddenly finds himself liable to a heavy tax, and if in the following year the value goes back to £1,000, he pays no tax. In this way you find that the sum paid for taxation on the same property would be different if it be worked regularly or irregularly, quickly or slowly. I never heard of a tax being laid on in this manner. Why should a man who has parted with his property be liable for a larger or a smaller tax because, having let that property, somebody else for his own purpose, or possibly by the hard necessity of his own position, works the mine sometimes slowly and sometimes fast, according as he chooses to work slowly or fast? That is the point which was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope I have made it clear. It is no reply, I venture to say, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the extreme case which was put by my hon. and gallant Friend and say that it is a case which cannot occur, because the motive of the lessee would prevent it from occurring, and to dismiss the whole argument with a few gibes of that description. The case is far more substantial than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think, and so far he has made no attempt to reply to it.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: I think the Leader of the Opposition lost sight of the Super-tax on incomes. You might as well say that it is not for a man's advantage to have £6,000 if by keeping his income under £5,000 a year he will be able to escape the Super-tax. The same argument applies in that case as in the case of the limited output of the mine. When it is said that a man's income is within his own control, I would point out that it is within the power of a landlord to say to a lessee, "You must work the minerals as rapidly as possible." In most mining leases there is a provision

  1285
  as to the way in which the minerals are to be worked.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure the hon. Member opposite knows far more than I do on the subject of mining. But surely, when coal is worked slowly, it is the same thing to the owner, except in so far as the loss of interest is concerned.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I think that in many cases the burden of the Increment Duty will fall upon the lessees, who will put it upon the general public. That will entirely depend on the feeling of the market at the particular moment. If several men have coal to sell, and if several people require it, the sellers will be able to make better conditions. The landlord may say to the lessee, "You must pay all the Lloyd-George taxes if you wish to get the mining lease, or to get an extension of your lease." That undoubtedly will be so. Whether the lessor will be able to get a higher price depends entirely on the state of the market, and it is very doubtful whether the landlord can get that extra amount. The hon. Member has stated that this Bill would tend to be a handicap on rapid working, and would be a hindrance to the trade. I can only speak for myself. I do not know a single case where any man would refuse to take a lease of minerals on account of a tax of a penny a ton. There is no case within my knowledge of where anyone has broken off a negotiation on account of a tax of a penny. The Bill provides that no Increment Duty shall be paid in the case of mines which were being worked on 30th April this year. There are no doubt many oases where mines or minerals were leased prior to 30th April, but which are not being worked. In those cases, according to the Bill as it at present stands, the lessor will have to pay the Increment Duties because those mines are not being worked. In the Definition Clause, which is a very curious Clause, certain mines within a radius of a certain rent, as far as I understand, are excluded, and will not pay the Increment Duty. There are many cases in this country where a mine has a large area, and in these large areas of coal there may be sandwiched in certain areas of coal which cannot be worked for 20 or 30 years. The value of those minerals is very small, but when they are reached the increment then will become a reality, and, of course, the landlord will then begin to receive large sums by way of royalties in respect of this coal, and increment will accrue. But under the Bill he does not pay duty, save
  1286
  on the mines which were worked prior to 30th April.
  The hon. Member seemed to think that the royalty would only be payable on coal worked. He is quite wrong in that. I gave the case of the Duke of Newcastle. What I said was that there was a very large mine on the Duke of Newcastle's estate, and the minimum rents in respect of that area amounted to £10,000 a year. A hundred thousand pounds represents the sum the landlord has received over and above what he would have been paid if the royalty had been taken on a poundage royalty. I do not know what the rent is in this particular case, but if you take it at 6d. a ton then the mineral rent is £10,000 a year, and they continue to pay an additional 6d. for every additional ton. I say that in this case the landlord has received £100,000 over and above what would be represented by the amount of coal raised. I think I am quite right in saying that 50 per cent. of all the mining leases in this country are overpaid in their royalty. In my experience of mining leases I do not know one case of a colliery owner with overpaid royalties who has not paid for more coal that he has actually been able to get, because the lease always reserves a higher rent. It reserves the maximum rackrent he is able to get.
  But the point I want to raise now is an entirely different one, and one which was not mentioned by the Chancellor. When a lease is taken it is in most cases taken for a particular seam. When that seam is worked out after the lease expires, the landlord has the shaft and the rights of purchasing the machinery, and there is a certain amount of Increment Value, not a very large one, which arises in respect of this. What I want to know now is what does "minerals" mean under this Bill? I do not want to be pulled up by the Chairman and to be told that it is a matter for the Definition Clause. But I wish to know, Does it mean all seams of coal or only one particular seam of coal comprised in a mining lease? Are all the others excluded? I do not know any case in my experience where there is not a number of seams. You will in all cases have several seams. All these secondary seams which are being worked to-day had no value 40 years ago; and it is only according as the seams above are worked out that the lower seams come into the market. When this valuation comes to be taken, am I to understand that in all the mines in England a valuation will have to be made for seams of all kinds in those mines which

  1287
  are not under leases, because I think it naturally follows that if the Chancellor does not do that he will lose a great deal of the tax? There are some cases, but not many, where the lessee has all the seams. In Wales it is a general practice to lease most of the seams, but in the whole of the Midlands, in Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Staffordshire, it is the specific seams which have to be leased. Perhaps a second seam is included in the lease. But all these other seams are excluded. In many cases there are as many as 10 and 15 seams of coal under the seam areas which have been let and are worked by the owners. Are all these cases to be valued—because it is impossible to put a value on any of these seams—and, if so, is each particular seam going to be valued?
  How can you value all these different seams when you do not know the distances? Will the owners of the minerals be entitled to say, "I am going to assume the value of the coal for a particular seam," because it must be for a particular seam? He will give a reason in many cases by saying, "There will be a seam of coal underlying my property which, according to mining experience and according to what I have been able to gather from adjoining proprietors, should have a certain amount of coal there." What I want to know is whether the owner of the minerals will be entitled to say, "For the purpose of my valuation I claim that there is a seam of coal lying 300 or 400 yards below the present seam and I want a valuation made?" Has the Government to value four or five different seams of coal below and put a certain specific value on each? And if any of those seams do not prove valuable, the landlord may say, "I will not put a valuation on it at all." But if he does, will he be taxed in respect of the particular seam of coal which he has valued and paid Death Duties on, which, if the seam does not prove to exist, he will have paid wrongly to the State? Because, if so, I do not think you have a right to tax a man on increment value on a seam of coal which does not prove. There are so many different seams of coal underlying all properties that I would like to know whether, after the passing of this Bill, all the seams in the United Kingdom are to have a valuation made of them except the ones under lease? It is a very important point, which perhaps the Chancellor will reply to when he has considered the matter. So far as the quantity of the minerals leased is concerned, I think there is a
  1288
  certain mistake about it. I was not in the House at the time, but I understand that there was a statement made that the bulk of the minerals of this country were leased. I do not think that of the various seams of coal 1 per cent. of the minerals of this country are leased; and probably 99 per cent. of the minerals of the country have yet to be leased, because only one seam out of 10 or 20 is comprised in the ordinary mining lease over the whole of the United Kingdom. I should be much obliged to the Chancellor if he would answer these points which I put to him in respect of the new valuation.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: I have some difficulty in replying to the hon. Member opposite, because my knowledge is only secondhand, but if the Committee will remember that the hon. Member only represents the coal mining industry in one part of the country, and that the practice differs in different parts of the country, they will not attach so much weight to his words as they otherwise would do. He says that the seams only are let in mining leases. With confidence I can say that in the counties of Durham and Northumberland all the coal is let in mining leases, and the remarks of the hon. Member must not be taken to apply in these counties, which produce a large quantity of the coal of this country. He said that most royalty owners paid more in royalties than they received in coal.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I did not say so.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I thought he did say that very often they did pay more than they received.
  Mr. MARKHAM: What I said was that I know of cases where the lessee has overpaid dead rents in respect of mining leases for more coal than was produced.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LAMBTON: In the counties of Durham and Northumberland the dead rents are always merged in the royalty, and it is quite the exception for the lessee to pay for more coal than he has got. We have also had remarks from hon. Friends on this side of the House about the working of coal which are hardly practicable. The output of coal does not depend upon working fast or upon working slow. The lessee takes into consideration in the working of his mine what shall be the output when the price of coal is low. The output depends upon that and other considerations, and it is on these considerations that depends whether a colliery is worked fast or

  1289
  slow. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General told us that all the minerals of the country were to be valued, and that it would be in the interests of the owners of minerals to return a high value. He said it did not matter about the Death Duties.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No, I did not say that.
  Mr. LAMBTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be to the advantage of the proprietor to return a high value for his minerals. I want to ask him about quarries. I have myself a property which I should return, if I valued it for minerals, as nil. There are some stone quarries which may be used, and I have myself occasionally used them, for the purpose of obtaining stone to build farmhouses or cottages on the estate. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether, when I open the quarry for the purpose of obtaining stone for the purpose of building these farmhouses and cottages, I shall have to pay 20 per cent. to the State for working the quarry? Under this Clause I am not sure that would not be the case. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and say that this tax will not be a hardship on anybody in this country would surely be a mistake. Twenty per cent. is taken by the State from the proprietor who chooses to work his own minerals.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Twenty per cent. on what?
  Mr. LAMBTON: Twenty per cent. on the value, I suppose. The proprietor who works his own minerals is not exempt under this Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he is in exactly the same position as the lessee, therefore any man who works a quarry or any other mineral, whether for sale or for the purpose of his own estate, will have 20 per cent. to pay to the State. That will be a handicap on the production and development of minerals in this country. I maintain that under this Increment Value Duty the man who works his own minerals, whether for sale or for the purposes of his estate, will have to pay 20 per cent. to the State.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions on matters which seem to be in doubt, especially that which relates to the Reversion Duty. As far as everybody understood his statement, the Reversion Duty was given up altogether; there was to be no charge for Reversion Duty in
  1290
  future in connection with this tax, unless, of course, Parliament decided otherwise. But on reading the report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech the other night, I saw that he said that it was only in respect of existing leases the Government had decided to eliminate the provision with regard to Reversion Duty. I only want it made quite clear whether the Reversion Duty has been given up entirely or whether it is intended to apply to leases which could be included in future or leases which have not been at present worked. It was generally understood that the Reversion Duty was entirely given up, and I would be glad to have an answer on that question. With reference to the much debated question of the annual equivalent value, I would like it to be made quite clear. It is a very difficult subject. Taking the case the learned Attorney-General gave us earlier in the day, supposing that the owner does not declare any value at the present time in connection with the valuation when a new lease is made, will the return of the annual value be nothing? It really is not generally understood that through all future leases the actual annual equivalent value, where no value has been put on minerals, shall be taken as nothing, and, therefore, be exempt from the one-fifth payment to the State. If that be so, I think that we will have to consider all those cases which were mentioned yesterday, because it is quite clear now, from the fact that the Government have excluded from Mineral Rights Duty certain minerals, that in other clauses they will be treated as minerals. The fact of stating an exclusion from one clause only means that they are included in other clauses dealing with minerals. Therefore we have the curious fact that whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives away at once on a present lease, say like chalk or the clay industry, which are imperilled by the tax, the one-twentieth, yet they do not admit that in future they imperil those industries by the tax of one-fifth. We were rather led astray by the illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman when he took £80,000; we have to take smaller cases, and not cases of such serious amount, and in regard to future leases we have to consider that one-fifth of the whole period of that lease will have to be given as tax to the State. In these circumstances I think many will consider in regard to future contracts to be arranged between the lessor and the lessee, that there will be a great fear in the industries concerned, especially those put

  1291
  forward last night, namely, that there will undoubtedly be a burden thrown on industries in connection with the tax that I mentioned of 20 per cent.
  I should like to get some assurance from the Government as to the exact meaning of "a mine being worked." I will take a case which is known to me in the county of Kent, where I live. Some people have doubt about the collieries in Kent. I am not going to give an opinion upon them, but undoubtedly the fact is that a very large amount of money has been spent in developing the new coalfield. That coalfield has not been worked in the sense that minerals have been got out of it at the present time, but development has been going on, the landlords for some years have made their bargains as to their rents, the whole machinery is being developed, and it may be only a month or two before coal is going to be got, and it seems to me rather a hard thing that you are to put this new tax upon these contracts already made. We should like to have an explanation as to bow far this provision carries us in connection with some of the cases I have mentioned, and it would be satisfactory to have it clearly laid down.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) in his interesting speech agree that the tax would fall on industry. He went on to say that in the case of coal it only amounted to 1d. The Debate, so far as it has gone, has been in terms of coal, but coal is not by any means the only mineral which has got to carry the burden of this tax. I myself would suggest that it would be of advantage, perhaps, to think about it in terms of iron ore, on which the burden would be very much more onerous, in consequence of the tax that may be imposed on royalties. As a steel manufacturer using a very large amount of coal, and raising both coal and iron ore, I find, calculating as well as I can, that the tax on my manufacture would be about eight times as much in respect of the iron ore as it is in respect of the coal that we use; so that you must multiply by about eight when dealing in terms of iron ore with the tax which that mineral will bear compared with that borne by coal. Clearly, the tax in the case of iron ore becomes very serious, because instead of being 1d. it may be very considerably more than 1d. On hematite ores in this country the royalty ranges from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a ton, and up to
  1292
  4s. and 5s., and even more, where the market price is very high. Therefore, we have to consider this question from the point of view of the burden which it imposes. I entirely agree with the Member for Mansfield in his suggestion that the lessee will have to pay, particularly in the case of new leases, and in that way it will be a burden, as the Royalty Tax must always be, in my opinion, upon industries. This particular form of tax seems to me to be very unsatisfactory in relation to the article of which I am speaking, iron ore. It is not like coal, which is found in seams, with considerable regularity, and a great amount of certainty, after boring operations have been conducted. Iron ore is found in veins and in pockets. It may very well be that after working a lean mine for a longish period you may come to a pocket of ore which will give an enormous return in a short period. That is the reward which the royalty owner and the lessee and those who are interested in the working of the mine occasionally get. But as against that there are long periods of lean working.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the outset of the discussion this afternoon took some trouble to make clear to us how the tax would operate. I think so far as he went he was clear. I quite understand that if there were an out and out sale of a property, say, of £12,500, for £15,000 as the capital value, it would show exactly what the increment value would be. But in the case of minerals, where the charge is spread over some years, I do not think that the method is satisfactory. Where you have a mineral such as I have been describing, and which is found perhaps in large quantities for a time, and then for a period in small quantities or even none at all, a considerable further expenditure of money is needed, so that this method of levying the tax—which is so burdensome so far as its amount is concerned—in certain cases, at any rate, is not a good system, and almost amounts to a gamble as to what will have to be paid, or what the burden may be in any given year. I have arbitrarily put down for my own satisfaction a set of figures as to possible payments over a period of 12 years. Take the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at £1,000 a year, which he bases on the site value. Supposing that next year you had £2,000, then another £2,000, then another £1,000, you get £500; then you get nothing at all, then it only carries £500 up to £2,000, then £2,000 and £1,000, taking the figures arbitrarily like that it might be rendered so that in the increment years you would

  1293
  have paid on an increment of £5,000, when you really should have only paid, if you had taken it over an average of years on £3,000, that is 20 per cent. of excess, taking as the basis the period of your lease, more than you should have paid. That arises owing to the system by which the tax is levied, and you have to pay £400 which you would not have paid except by reason of this particular method of taxation. Therefore, I think the system is not a good one, but it is perhaps capable of being rectified. If the same system were adopted in reference to the collection of this tax as is adopted in the payment of dead rent where a royalty merged into dead rent is recoverable by the working of what is called "shorts" in an absolute period. If the Government could make it that a person paying for a period of 12½ years only paid at the end of the 12½ years on the average increment spread over that there might be some alleviation, at any rate, of the hardship based on these figures. I think it is quite clear, owing to the method in which this tax is levied, it may very well be the case that the lessee will have paid more royalty than the terms that the Government have laid down prescribed. That is to say, he will have paid on more increment than he has really been entitled to pay on, and he ought in all fairness to have some consideration in that respect. With regard to where this extra burden will go, that is with me a very strong point. I feel very strongly that it must find its way to the backs of the worker. I object strongly to the tax, but I think that in these respects it might be improved, and I hope that the Government will see, in these respects if not in others, their way to meet the request I put before them.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I wish to ask a question as to a point which is not clear to a good many people interested in minerals outside the House, and which, I think, is not clear to a good many Members in the House. Sub-section (2) states, "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were on 30th day of April, 1909, being worked, whether by the proprietor…" and Sub-section (3) provides "Increment Value Duty in respect of the increment value of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked. …" The point I want to put is this, where there are a number of properties lumped together in order to form a mineral area, and where working is being done on one
  1294
  property, does it mean only that property on which the actual working is taking place should be exempted from Mineral Duty because the working was being done before the 30th April in this year, or does it apply to all the various properties which are included in the mining lease. I would point out, unless it is guaranteed to the people who work the minerals, whether the properties are large or small, that they will find it will not pay them to sink the cash and develop the minerals.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think, on the whole, the Government may congratulate itself that the criticisms which have been directed against this somewhat novel tax, and somewhat novel machinery, have been such as meet with no great difficulty. The points put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, though ingenious points, I think have already been answered in substance—indeed, if I may say so, with great respect to him, the answer to them was fairly obvious to those who followed the speech. He complained that the lessor would have to pay this tax according to the regularity of the working on behalf of the lessee. He said the lessor has parted with his property and he cannot control the working, that it is another person who controls the working, but that this tax is made dependent on the working, and therefore this burden is made dependant on the acts of a person over whom he has no control. That seemed to be a plausible objection, until one considers the case of the Income Tax which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham). Every person whose income depends on investments he has made in commercial companies has put his money where he has no immediate or individual control. His income depends upon the vigilance and skill and good fortune with which other persons use his capital in order that they may pay from dividends, and he pays his Income Tax upon the regularity or irregularity, on the skill or stupidity, upon the good or ill-fortune of the persons to whom he has entrusted the use of his property. That is exactly the same case. There is nothing at all abnormal about it. It differs only in this respect, that the owner of the royalty has a much more effective and much more direct control over the lessee to whom he has permitted the use of his property than the ordinary investor has over the director to whom he has entrusted his money.
  The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said that we now made it the interest

  1295
  of the lessor in some cases to limit the output in order to make his annual profit small. That I venture to say is an inconceivable case in practice, though it is not an inconceivable case in argument. It is like so many of the cases which seem powerful in debate, but which are never heard of again once the debate closes. It is a case which would be very unwelcome to the lessee. No lessee would endure such restriction of working, and certainly it would not be profitable to the lessor. He would be a very foolish person indeed if he said to the lessee, "I do not want you to work the property to its utmost capacity. I do not want you to utilise your means of output and production as economically and as thoroughly as you ought, because it would give me too much this year, and I would have an income in excess of my original capital value, and therefore I would have to pay Increment Duty. Do not work it this year; work it, maybe, five or ten years hence." What a foolish speculation on the part of the lessor! He not only sterilises a large part of the lessee's efforts, but he puts himself at the mercy of the market. Of course, there is a chance that the market may go up, and that the trade may be more profitable ten years hence, but that is a chance, while there is the certainty on the other hand of the year under consideration. He will certainly prefer to have the coal sold when he knows there is a demand than to keep it back on a very speculative chance, and for a time when there might be a less amount. So that the case, though controversially good, is a case which in practice need be scarcely considered at all. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division (Mr. Laurence Hardy) asked whether the Reversion Duty was absolutely given up. One can only refer to the words which are within the Clause, and which are unconditional. They are, "No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a mining lease."
  There was a good deal of discussion as to whether we have really given up any thing in giving up Reversion Duty. It was pointed out in the case of a mineral property, if it is worked to the very best of its use, or if the lessee is thoroughly capable and tries to get out all the coal, that therefore there is very little chance of Increment Duty. But there might very well arise a case where that would not be so. Mineral leases, as the hon. Member knows well, run generally for a period of about 60 years. There were many mineral leases
  1296
  granted 60 years ago, and granted before the property was developed at all. The value actually then would be a small value; but take what happened in the South Wales coalfield within my own recollection. In the South Wales coalfields the best seam, and, I think, the uppermost seam, seemed to be No. 3 seam. I am speaking now of Merthyr district. It was the purest coal, an admirable steam coal, and thought at that time to be the best, but afterwards the 4-foot seam was discovered, and was found to be of the greatest possible value, so that South Wales coal rose in estimation all over the world, and there was a big demand for it for naval purposes. Those lower seams, which originally were not worth much, rose enormously in value. You may, therefore, very well have a lease which 60 years ago was of small value, but which may now be of very much more value, and with the coal not completely worked out, because there are many good seams yet to be developed, and with all the equipment standing there. Reversion Duty in a case like that would be a very valuable duty. So that I do not think in giving up Reversion Duty we are giving up nothing. We have in the case of the Royalty Duty put on a substantial burden, but in putting that duty on we are entitled to have it remembered that we have exempted the mineral royalty-owner from Reversion Duty, which falls upon surface owners when they deal with their property in a particular way. So I think the House ought not to take as quite correct the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are to be thanked for nothing when we have given up the Reversion Duty. The next point put by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. L. Hardy) was whether, when no value has been put upon the minerals originally, is the Increment Tax all through the lease to be calculated as from zero. I think I dealt with that sufficiently at the beginning of the Debate.
  A good deal has turned during the Debate upon the proper definition of the expression "being worked." I do not myself regard that expression as a highly satisfactory one, but I do not think we can entirely avoid its use in some cases. We might substitute for it the expression "comprised in a mining lease" when we are dealing with lessees, but we could not avoid the expression when dealing with collieries which are being worked by the owners themselves. But it is well worth consideration, especially when we look at the Amendments on the Paper, whether we

  1297
  might not amend Sub-section (2) in the way I will now read. Unless it should be thought that I am making a spontaneous suggestion, I may say that the matter has been carefully though out. Undoubtedly, in adopting the phraseology which I am about to suggest, we may be giving up something, though not much, in the way of the tax in certain rather rare cases, but we are gaining a great deal in simplicity of statement. If the Sub-section is amended in the way I suggest, it would read "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were on the 30th day of April, 1909, either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor …" The somewhat vague expression "being worked" would then be confined to the one case in which we cannot avoid it, that is to say, the case of minerals being worked by the proprietor.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Has the Attorney-General's attention been called to the description of this particular matter in the new Definition Clause in connection with the mineral provisions?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am, of course, quite familiar with that. I wish, however, to make this clear. It will be seen that I am using in regard to a large majority of cases a phraseology which is much easier for the purposes of administration. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) has on the Paper several Amendments, nearly all of which would in substance be met by the changed phraseology. We will deal with that, however, when we come to consider the Amendments. This alteration will leave the definition of the somewhat vague phrase "being worked" applicable to a smaller number of cases in which it is much easier to apply. The moment you have to apply the test whether the minerals are comprised in a mining lease you avoid many difficulties. The hon. Member for Mansfield referred to certain difficulties in regard to the under seam, and so forth. All these difficulties are practically swept aside by the plain expression "comprised in a mining lease." If the hon. Member thinks not, we will deal with the point later on.
  The hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir J. Randles) said it would be difficult to apply the tax to minerals irregularly worked. I do not think there is any difficulty in such cases. The hon. Member may be of opinion that there is some unfairness in applying the tax in those cases, because no allowance is made for decree-
  1298
  ment. That is a matter for argument, but there is no administrative difficulty. The hardship which arises in these cases arises also in the case of Income Tax, where the State does not trouble itself about the years during which the struggling subject is perhaps making no income at all.
  Sir J. RANDLES: There is the three years' average.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I mean apart from the three years' average, which, after all, by no means meets the whole of the difficulty. The State only takes its tax on the profits. It makes no allowance except in the three years' average. The whole matter was fought out when we were dealing with the question of land values on the surface, and we declined in regard to the Increment Value Duty to make any allowance for decrement.
  Sir J. RANDLES: It is the irregularity of working the minerals which differentiates this case from others, and is a reason why minerals should not be treated in the same way as land.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am sure the hon. Member has some good reason for his argument, though I confess I do not see it very clearly. A man sometimes makes a profit; then the State comes upon him. He sometimes makes no profit, and the State ignores him. He sometimes makes a loss, and the State pays no attention to it. The State is a fair-weather friend; it only visits a man when he is prosperous, and I do not think you can alter its habits in this regard. The duty is not one which can be said to be incapable of application by reason of the irregularity of working, although that irregularity may give rise to argument under other heads. The hon. Member for South-East Durham (Mr. Lambton) put the case of an owner who uses for the purpose of building cottages stone which he finds on his own property. He said, "There is an Owner who suddenly develops his mineral property: is he to pay 20 per cent. on the value of that stone?" Let us take the case exactly as it would work out in practice. The Committee must remember that the Bill does not put a tax on stone. We are not now, in the strict sense, taxing minerals; we are taxing the rental value of mineral rights. What would the owner have to pay in such a case as that put by the hon. Member? He has some stone on his property. No one will give him a penny for the privilege of working it. If it really has a rental value, if

  1299
  there is a market consisting of persons who are willing to give the owner a certain amount of money per annum for the privilege of working that stone, the owner will, of course, pay the tax on that rental value; but if there is no such market—and I think in the case put by the hon. Member one may assume that there would be no such market—the owner has merely taken out the stone; he has not really developed the mineral, he has not given the stone any particular rental value, and in all probability he will pay nothing at all.
  Mr. LAMBTON: There is no certainty.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I cannot promise absolute certainty. I have given certainty in regard to chalk, limestone, and a few other commodities, but stone is rather beyond the limits of our generosity. The particular case put may be one of extreme hardship, but I do not think the hon. Member need trouble much about it. I do not promise in regard to this tax or any other that it will not fall on some persons or in some circumstances with hardship. That would be disingenuous. But I contend that in a tax of this kind you have fewer cases of hardship than in the general run of taxes. You have a tax on an increment which is at the moment unvalued by the owner of the property. He can declare the present value of his mineral rights, and that present value is exempt from the taxation of this part of the Bill. It is only the increment upon that value that comes under taxation. Therefore one cannot say that a tax of this kind is likely to involve much hardship. It may involve some cases of inequality, like any other tax, and it may fall on one person under circumstances not very different from those of another person who may claim exemption; but do not let us confuse a few cases of possible inequality with any very general sense of hardship. It is a tax which will take its place among taxes as imposing less hardship upon the subject than almost any other tax.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Will the Attorney-General answer my question with regard to the lower seams of mines which are not being worked?
  Sir W. ROBSON: If I understood the hon. Member rightly, he said that lower seams, if they are not comprised in a lease, and are not being worked, would not come under the provisions as to Increment Value Duty, but under the provision as to the 5 per cent. on royalties. That
  1300
  would be so I think. If they are not comprised in a mining lease, and if they are not being worked, they would come under other provisions of the Bill. I think that should make the hon. Member a little more favourable to the expression which I am proposing to put into the Clause, namely, "comprised in a mining lease." I think the Clause, when amended, will remove my hon. Friend's difficulty about mining leases. You have, in most cases, one or two seams which are being worked; the other seams are waiting their working. They would still, I think, be exempt from the Increment Value Duty under the definition we have already got of the words "being worked," which is as follows:—
  "Where any minerals are at any time being worked by means of any colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, all the minerals which belong to the same proprietor, if the minerals are being worked by the proprietor, or which the lessee has power to work if the minerals are being worked by a lessee, and which would, in the ordinary course of events, be worked by the same colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked at that date."
  So that on the Bill as it stands an under-seam would probably come under the expression, "being worked by the proprietor, or which the lessee has power to work if the minerals are being worked by a lessee, and which would in the ordinary course of events be worked by the same colliery." The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "Oh, well, the cases are different." I am afraid they are. Our system of valuation both in regard to minerals and the surface is no doubt quite safeguarded by the fact that sometimes the subject must come to an end, and then valuation is made, which, of course, operates as a check on the valuation which a man may have made during his life. But if he has not leased either seam, and is not working them, then, of course, he stands by the Increment Value Duty from the excess over their value from the 30th April, 1909. I think now the position of the Bill has been made fairly clear. It looks complicated at first sight, but I believe the House will find when they come to consider its provisions in detail that it presents a simple working scheme. So far as the justice of the tax is concerned, that, of course, is a matter of argument.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answering my hon. Friend beside me laid down a new canon. He spoke of my hon. Friend professing to speak on this subject without knowing as much about it as he does of other subjects. If that rule were to be applied to us all our Debates would be very much shorter. I am perfectly certain that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would have taken a much smaller part in the discussions of this Finance Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General congratulated himself that the criticisms which have been made on the Bill were not so vigorous as he expected. I am bound to say, however, from the little study I have made of the matter, and from what I can make out of his speech, that he has great reason to congratulate himself on the fact that the number of persons acquainted with this particular trade on the critical side of the House is extremely limited, and that we are all too jaded to take the trouble which under ordinary circumstances we do take to come into contact with people who can give us the information we desire. I myself am convinced that this particular Clause, instead of being a simple and a workable scheme, is the most fantastic proposal ever presented to the House of Commons. It only needs to be examined by experts to have its follies laid bare to the Government. There is one example of what I mean in the reply given by the Attorney-General as to what is to be done with all the under-seams in all the collieries which are being worked now. So far as I can judge, the Government have never thought of them. I judge that by the answer of the Attorney-General.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Have I said anything to show that the Government have never thought of the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman said that the alteration now made in the Clause met all the objections which had been put by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), when it was perfectly obvious to anyone that they did not meet those objections in the least.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I did not say all objections.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, main objections. It comes to the same thing. They do not meet them in the least. I only repeat, that what we want in regard to
  1302
  this measure is what we are not able to get—that is, expert examination. But we can touch the subject as laymen. The hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with two arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He was good enough to say in regard to these arguments that there seemed to be something plausible in them. No one who heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's, reply would be able to say that the answer that he gave was even plausible. He absolutely failed to meet the case put by my right hon. Friend. The case was this: "Here you have the same kind of tax put on exactly similar products. If the coal is worked out at one rate in the one colliery, you put on no tax at all; if it is worked out at a quicker rate in the adjoining colliery, you put on a very heavy Increment Duty." How, asked the right hon. Gentleman, can that be justified? The hon. and learned Gentleman in reply said: "Everyone who invests in stocks and shares makes an income which he does not control, and he pays Income Tax on that income." Does it not occur to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, taking the whole life of a mine, the amount of income which the lessor gets is precisely the same in the one case as the other; while in the one case he pays a very heavy Increment Tax, and in the other case none. Obviously, that argument is no answer to that part of the case. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth pointed out the obvious unfairness of the application of the tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman replied to the hon. Member, "that is what you do with income, you charge it similarly." It is not. You take an average of years, so that your bad year is averaged by your good year. There is another reason which differentiates this even from the case he gives. He said the same subject had been, debated in regard to ordinary Land Tax. But it is not the same subject at all. The point raised was, if a man made a profit on one transaction and a loss on another, the two are to be equalised. Here it is the same transaction throughout, and it is simply a question of the rate at which you are working. Surely in common fairness you ought to take an average of years, and estimate the real and not the imaginary profit? The next point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the tendency of this tax would be to prevent the coal being worked out in a rapid manner. The hon. and learned Gentleman replies that it is absurd to suppose that a man will work out the coal in 50 years when he

  1303
  can do it in 20. But nobody claims to put an extreme case like that. I do not pro fess to have any special knowledge of this industry, but I am bound to say this, to put it to the Attorney-General, or hon. Gentlemen opposite, must there not be many cases of mineral leases where the total amount of coal is known very accurately, or pretty accurately—must there not be cases of that kind where the rate at which it is taken out does not affect the case to any very great extent? In other words—possibly I am putting an absolutely wrong case—but is it not the case that there might be coal in a mine, which in any case is limited, and which could be taken out in 10 years, but which might be taken out in 20 years? And the cost of taking it out between the two periods is a matter of calculation, and might not be very large. Of course it depends upon many things. It depends upon the market. There obviously that is simply—
  Sir W. ROBSON: It would be much larger than any royalty.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that follows.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No, it does not.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not profess to understand the coal industry as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to, but I have been connected with people all my life who know a great deal about it, and it is quite a common thing when the market is not good to work three days instead of six by agreement. It is quite a common thing to work short time, and I have always been told—
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I would like the hon. Gentleman to give the House one case where by agreement the men have worked three days in the week.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the hon. Member mean to say that it is not so?
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Not by agreement, Sir.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: What difference does that make? The point that I make is this: That the amount of coal to be taken out is limited, and that in this industry it is certainly not true to the same extent as other industries that the rate at which you take out the coal regulates the cost of taking it out.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: More than in any other industry.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, in spite of what the hon. Member says, I believe I am right. There is nothing like the same amount of cost and capital expenditure and machinery as there is in many other industries with which I am acquainted. For that reason it certainly is the case that it might be a matter of calculation. Given a limit to the amount of coal, if you have this heavy tax it would pay a man better to take the coal in 10 years instead of 20 years. The real point of this has to be considered, I think, from two points of view. The one is on whom is this burden going to fall? I am not going into that aspect of the question at all, because it practically amounts to the same kind of arguments as were applied yesterday to the point. I am quite willing to take the statement of the hon. Member for Mansfield. He said few coalmasters, in his experience, taking a mine on a lease, would allow the lease to fall through for the sake of 1d. a ton. That, so far as he is concerned, is giving the whole case away which I wish to make, which is that the thing will be settled by ordinary market transactions—by the ordinary buying and selling. In some cases the tax will be borne by the lessor, in some by the lessee, and to some extent part of the tax will become a burden upon the coal, and will be added to the price. The other aspect of the case which I wish to direct attention to was the argument put by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me: that this will tend to some extent to prevent coal being worked. Here again the Chancellor of the Exchequer scoffed at the idea. He said it is inconceivable that a man willing to take £60,000 over and above what he is receiving now would decline to take it because he had to pay £12,000 to the State. Of course, that is an extreme case. In that case any man would refuse to work the coal, and it is not the only way, in my opinion, that this tax is going to prevent the rapid development of the coal. If you look at the other side of the picture, if you look at a man who is putting his capital in coal, and going to work it, what will be the effect of the Government's proposal? The proposal is this: the business is a risky one in itself, if a man sinks a lot of money in it and finds he has made a loss, as often happens, he bears the loss entirely himself. If, on the other hand, he makes a big profit, the State immediately steps in

  1305
  and takes a twentieth part of the profit. I should like to give an actual example given to me by a gentleman who was a Member of this House in the last Parliament, and which occurred in his own experience. There was a colliery in Wansbech, near which he had a piece of land. All the experts advised him that there was plenty of coal there, and it was simply a calculation of how much it was worth. Acting upon that advice, he spent £60,000 in opening up that colliery, and when he had opened it up he never got back a single penny of his money.
  The next case is a different one, also occurring in the same districts and to the same gentleman. He was told in this instance that the coal was probably unworkable, because water was coming into the pit. He had bought a large colliery, so far as the mineral rights were concerned, for £20 an acre, which, as everyone knows, was almost for nothing. He sank a shaft, found the experts were all wrong, and that this was an exceedingly valuable colliery. In this case the Government would step in and say, "Where you made a mistake we do not help you, but where you have made a profit we will take a very large percentage." Does anyone pretend that the effect of that will not be to make the coal industry enterprise one that is less attractive to the capitalists than if you had not adopted that course? It is not only in that way you are going to interfere with the man who develops coal; you make it apply not only to the owners of the lease of the coal, but also to the coal-master, and I think you make it apply in an extremely harsh way. Take the case given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the mineral property was worth £12,500. Supposing if it is valued at that figure that it is sold to a coal-master for £15,000, I understand the principle upon which you take the increment upon the £2,500, but it does not stop there. You say to the man who has bought the property and risked his money, and his industry, and his energy, you say to him, that as you develop the coal and find it gives a greater annual return the Government will step in and charge on the profit. I put it to anyone, is it not inevitable that the Government in that way putting this tax annually upon the man, not the man who originally had the mine, but the man who bought it, and is going to work it, that that tax would tend to make the coal industry less profitable, and tend to make people invest less of their money in it?
  Mr. JOHN JOHNSON: I listened very patiently to this Debate, and the drift of the Debate from the point of view of those who oppose this tax is that this additional penny or so is going to ruin the whole industry. There seems to me to be great misapprehension as to what is meant by the working of a mine. We are told that the lessor is going to put some proportion of the tax upon the lessee, and on the men who work the mine, and that no man is going to take a lease under conditions like that. When you talk about working a mine and about the produce of a mine you are talking about something that is very different from work upon the surface. People talk as if a man could come down and lock up a mine as you would lock up a factory. I may know very little about the meaning of leases and lessees, but I do know what it is to work coal. I have had the advantage of 30 years' experience in the coal-pit. A man may have a large area of coal for which he pays so much royalty. If there is nothing to interfere with the working of the mine all is well, but there are questions of slack trade, there are questions of difficulties in the mine itself, and there is the question of water getting in. A man may come across a rough seam in a mine, which may cost a large amount of money to cut through, or he may have to consider the set of the roof, and it may be that for one cause or another that seam in the mine may have to be abandoned two or three months, and, indeed, possibly it may never be worked again.
  I remember our strike in Durham in 1892. For many months after that strike, and indeed to this day, I believe some of the seams in the mines have not been opened up, because the water got in where you have a soft sandy floor through which the water percolates and undermines the timber, and down comes the roof. Therefore, it is not within the caprice of the lessee to work his mine when he likes and to shut it up when he likes until he has worked it out. If, as I said, it was a factory in which you could turn the key for a few months and come back and renew operations, it would be quite a different thing altogether. I had an explanation the other day from an expert authority who stated that the fact that a pit which he knew had lain idle for some time increased the cost by a sum of 3d. per ton. The lessee of a mine has such considerations as wayleaves, mining royalties, engines to be looked after,

  1307
  ponies to be maintained, and many other considerations to induce him to keep his mine open.
  To talk about working the coal out in 10 or 20 years is beside the question altogether. Such talk may be suitable as a piece of dialectics in debate, butt it is not practical common-sense, and if anything is going to contribute to legislation for the benefit of this country it is the exercise of a little common-sense. The business of this House is not to be carried on on a display of dialectics, or as if the House of Commons was a mere debating society, but it is to be carried on by the exercise of practical knowledge on the part of men who understand what they are talking about. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said this was going to be a very terrifying thing, because, besides crippling industry and ruining industry, he said the ultimate cost will be thrown upon the worker. I am glad to think that the Government are making as strenuous an effort as possible in order to limit this to the lessor; and as to the statement that the industry is going to be ruined because of an extra cost which amounts to about 1d. in the £ on the royalty, I think all practical miners can go to bed and sleep easy with the knowledge that there is not much to fear. I am entirely in favour of this tax. I may not clearly understand what the Attorney-General's Amendment means, his legal mind is better adapted to that than mine, and I do not question the legality of the form in which he puts this Clause; but I say that the statements made by some hon. Members about irregular working, and things of that kind, ought not to influence the Committee at all, and I hope the Government will adhere to their Clause.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: People in the mining world and others besides, when they read the startling declarations which we have heard made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) will have a smile brought to their faces to think that such statements could be made upon the floor of this House. For any man at this date to assume that a colliery may be worked successfully and at the same profit in 20 years as it could be in 10 years, or that the amount of coal turned out in 20 years could be turned out in 10 years without any loss to the estate, is to show that he has no knowledge whatever of mining life. It is essential, after all, that there should be some people in this House who
  1308
  know what they are talking about, and have some practical experience of this question when it comes up for consideration. Hon. Members may be interested to know that there are such things as roofs and floors to be looked after, that water inundations have to be coped with and prevented, and that other great difficulties arise. People in mines might be living in the broad, bright sunlight of heaven and doing their work under such conditions for all some people appear to know. Any man who has gone into a mine and who has worked there knows that there is no day in the year but grave difficulties may arise which cause large expenditure to the management, and very often loss of wages to the working man, and which generally interferes with the profits. The hon. Member for Dulwich says it makes no difference whether a colliery is worked out in 10 years or in 20 years. The hon. Member for Gateshead has made a very clear and well-defined statement as to this absurdity. The startling statement has also been made that this proposal will retard trade and in some inconceivable way prevent the development of mines. In other words, we are told that a pit which could be worked out in 50 years is going to last 100 years. What lessees would agree to an arrangement of that kind with regard to the working of their mines? Any of those employers of labour in mines who have had practical experience will tell you that if a colliery works only three days per week instead of six it will put up the cost of production. The reason is that there are standing charges to be taken into account, and unless the coal is worked out quickly it must put up the cost of production. I think it would have been well if the hon. Member for Dulwich had consulted some experts before making his statement. Any colliery which is worked regularly can produce coal at a lower price per ton than if it were only working two or three days per week. Those who have read the evidence given before the Royal Commission which inquired into this question will be aware that the Report stated that we have coal enough in this country at our present rate of production to last over 500 years. That is to say, if we go on producing annually 260,000,000 tons of coal per annum we have a sufficient stock of known coal to last us 500 years. Of course, there is coal which is not known. I know a district where they have been working the top seam for a good many years, in fact they have been working it the whole of my life, and it is only now

  1309
  getting nearly exhausted. I know there are five other seams under that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Are they in the same lease?
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: That is what I want to know.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I want to know whether the other seams have been actually leased, and whether they are leased to the same person who works the top seam?
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: No, they are not leased, and I want to know how these other scams which remain are going to be valued? Is it within the wit of man to declare what is the Valuation of those seams? That is all I want to know. One of those seams has lasted the whole of my lifetime, and the others may last five more lifetimes. How is it possible to put a value on those seams. They vary in thickness and in other respects, and if there is a value surely it will be a fictitious one. I am bound to say that I cannot for the life of me see how any man can put a real value on that which is not known. That is a point that I want cleared up. How can you value these seams that are not proved? Those are the points upon which I want some information. With regard to the taxes in general I support them whole-heartedly, because I believe royalties have been too long neglected, and, in my opinion, they ought to contribute to the State. I think this is a source of taxation that will prove of value not only to this Parliament, but to Parliaments yet to come.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: We have had a frank and outspoken statement from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. John Johnson). He saw very clearly the difficulties which arise in the working of coal mines, and how they may arise in future. The whole point of the argument is that the value is entirely unknown and you can only arrive at anything like a fair valuation by taking a number of years together, and not by taking isolated years. If a fair average of years is not taken, not
  only will an injustice be done, but the business will get on the rocks in the bad years. It is argued in this matter that you have to consider the profits and not the losses, but you ought to take a wider view of this business, and if you do not, as the hon. Member for Dulwich has already pointed out, you will add to the already large army of unemployed in the country.
  Mr. LUPTON: I think this Debate has shown how ingenuity and cleverness can make a great deal of very little. This is only, after all, a very trifling tax, and yet hon. Members have been trying to show that it will have a great effect in impairing the working of mines. The only doubt in my mind is whether there will be much to tax at all, because under the Clause the owner of the mine is entitled to deduct capital expenditure, and when that has been deducted there will in a great many case be very little to tax. I think it is rather premature at the present time to discuss whether this tax will amount to one penny per ton or one-fifth part of a penny per ton on the average. There are many points in the definition which makes it doubtful whether existing mines will be taxed with Increment Duty at all. Perhaps other Amendments will be brought in to make this point clear. A good deal has been said to the effect that there was no value in the Reversion Duty which has been given up, but in the days when the Cornish mines flourished it was constantly the practice when a lease' fell in and a renewal was sought to pay a substantial fine for granting the renewal of the lease upon the same terms as before. That was not a case of discovering a new mine, but it was simply the granting of a further lease for a short period. I think we ought to understand that this tax is so trifling that no person would think of altering his mode of working on account of it, and no lessor would try to place any conditions on the lessee which would prove onerous.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 81.

  Division No. 746.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Agnew, George William

  Barker, Sir John

  Boland, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnes, G. N.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brigg, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bright, J. A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jenkins, J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Byles, Wm. Pollard

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Richardson, A.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Clough, William

  Keating, M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leomister)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Lambert, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Crossley, Wiliam J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lupton, Arnold

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Snowden, P.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Summerbell, T.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Middlebrook, William

  Tomkinson, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Toulmin, George

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mond, A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morse, L. L.

  Verney, F. W.

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wardle, George J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hall, Frederick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Partington, Oswald

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Winfrey, R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

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

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Reddy, M.

  NOES.

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Fletcher, J. E.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Harrison-Broadley, H, B.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  1312

  1313

  Hills, J. W.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stanier, Seville

  Mope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Starkey, John R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Staveley-Hill Henry (Staffordshire)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Keswick, William

  Nicholson, wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Michell-(Lanark)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Oddy, John James

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Renwick, George

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

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Younger, George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J. Randles and Mr. Clavell Salter.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "nine" ["thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine"], to insert the words "either comprised in a mining lease or."
  Mr. MARKHAM: I did not move my Amendment because these words very well meet the suggestion, but I would like to ask what would happen if a mining lease expires and a new lease is entered into. Would this Clause cover any continuation of a lease? All minerals comprised in a mining lease entered into prior to 30th April are excluded from the operations of the Bill so far as Increment Value Duty is concerned, but, assuming there is a lease which expires, say, in five years' time, and which the present lessee renews, would the minerals in that case come under the operations of the Clause, Sub-section (1) or remain under Sub-section (2)?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I understand the hon. Member to put to me is this: Supposing a lease of 60 years granted before the date of the Act expires in three or four years and there is a renewal, would it be taken as if it was worked or in working? It would certainly be excepted.
  Sir E. CARSON: It is very difficult to follow the alteration. Might we have the words of the Amendment again?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Will you read the words of the next Amendment also?
  The CHAIRMAN: I will read the Subsection as it is proposed to be altered:
  "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were, on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor, so long as the minerals are for the time either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor."
  That, I think, comprises the whole of the alteration.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: In iron ore mining it is customary to have tack-notes for three and sometimes five and seven years. A tack-note is really a licence, to be followed by a lease, if it is asked for. Would that be included?
  Sir W. ROBSON: If I understand, the document would have the same effect as a lease and give the lessee the right to work minerals for some years—
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: It gives him a right to call or ask for a lease at the end of a fixed period. He searches during a period of, say, three years, and then at the end he has a right to ask for a lease of 21 years.
  Sir W. ROBSON: If it is an agreement for a lease it would be included.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: It is not quite the same thing as an agreement for a lease; it is an option for a lease. The lessee has a right to explore for a certain time, and then, if he likes, at the end of that time he can get a lease. I do not think a tack-note is an agreement for a lease.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The Attorney-General, I think, was out of the House when I addressed a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a point which is considered of very great importance to the Mining Association of Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered my question in the affirmative. His intention may be right, but I do not think, reading the Clause as a layman, that he is quite correct in the answer he gave. The question I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this: There are mines which are at present comprised in a mining lease. That mining lease expires. Will Increment Value Duty then become payable on those mines, and will they be treated as being comprised in a lease entered into after April, 1909? That is a question to which the Mining Association of Great Britain attach great importance, and I have been asked to mention it because their solicitors

  1315
  are of opinion that it is not covered by the Clause as it now reads, and that some other words are necessary to make it quite clear that any lease of the same mineral entered into after the expiration of a lease, although made after 30th April of this year, should be exempt.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The words of the Clause are that Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were on the given date either comprised in a mining lease or being worked. That is an absolute exemption of all minerals which are comprised in the mining lease on that date, no matter whether the mining lease subsequently expires. If the lease subsequently expires and it is renewed they will still have the benefit of the exemption.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: Are they not limited by the later words of the Sub-section?
  Sir W. ROBSON: That relates rather to a different case. It relates to the case where the minerals now being worked cease to be worked for 12 months. Of course, if they are taken out of a mining lease altogether so that no royalty is paid upon them at all, then in that case they come under a different footing. They are either worked by the proprietor or not worked at all. If they are not worked at all he escapes Royalty Duty, but he does not escape the possibility of Increment Value Duty if he chooses not to work them.
  Sir E. CARSON: I find a good deal of difficulty in following the point put by the Attorney-General. It is not easy to understand unless you have the whole of the words before you. As I understand the point put by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), it is this: If a lease expires three or four years after the date of the Act and a new lease is made, will the minerals then be exempt? I understood the Attorney-General to say they would be. I do not think, on a construction of the Sub-section that would follow. This was only meant to relate to existing leases. The moment a lease expires and the reversioner becomes entitled to the minerals, they are no longer included in the lease. The freehold intervenes, and the words of the Section could not possibly apply to such a case. I do not know anything about the merits or the demerits of the matter; but, on the point of construction, I venture to take an entirely different view from that of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. LUPTON: There is another Clause which bears upon this definition. It says: "Where any minerals are at any time being worked by means of any colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, all the minerals which belong to the same proprietor, if the minerals are being worked by the proprietor, or which the lessee has power to work if the minerals are being worked by a lessee, and which would, in the ordinary course of events, be worked by the same colliery, mine; quarry, or open working, shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked at that date." It appears as if all the minerals connected with that colliery were deemed to be minerals if worked at that date. Will the Attorney-General tell us how far that affects the matter we are now discussing?
  Mr. J. S. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I put this case to the Committee? When a mining lease expires, the tenant has not worked out the whole of the coal for which he has paid. The landlord says you may work up to the royalty which you have paid without paying me any more royalty. The State will have got its full Increment Duty on the whole of the royalty. What will happen? Again, what would happen in the case of a sub-lease? The position of the original lessor and lessee is clear, but what will happen if there is a sub-lease?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I was very glad to hear the construction put upon the Sub-section by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not know how it will read with Sub-section (6). I understood the Attorney-General to say that, when minerals were included in the lease, they would be exempt, but Sub-section (6) says that when they cease to be comprised in a mining lease then the capital value is to be taken. It is rather difficult to follow the words, but I think the words read were "so long as the minerals are comprised in a mining lease or for the time worked." If those are the words, does it mean the alternative is given, or do the words "for the time worked" apply to the proprietor? If that is so, he seems to be under a disadvantage compared with the lessee. The lessee may stop working for a time, and yet be under no penalty, whereas the proprietor must always continuously work if those words are put in.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is quite clear, and I do not think there is any difficulty and complication at all. "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in the case of any minerals which were on the 30th day of April, 1909, either comprised in

  1317
  a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor." Then it goes on to say: "So long as the minerals are for the time worked: Provided that the exemption under this Section shall continue to apply in the case of any minerals, although they cease, for a temporary period, to be worked, so long as the period does not exceed twelve months." Here we have an entirely new position. Sub-section (6) refers to cases of that kind. It says: "Where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked within the meaning of this Section the capital value of the minerals at the time shall be specially ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the capital value as so ascertained shall be treated as the original capital of the minerals." It becomes a new lease, and, therefore, in order to calculate the increment value, instead of going back to April this year, you simply say you ascertain what the value is at a particular date.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: It is quite obvious the point raised by my right hon. Friend is one of the most important, and it ought to be clearly dealt with. Probably this is one of the few occasions on which the much despised lawyer may, for the moment, be of some use to the House. I confess I feel very strongly on the point taken by my right hon. Friend below me, and I have no doubt that the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer see that the matter is by no means clear. The Section does not end where the Chancellor stopped a moment ago. This duty is not to be paid on minerals comprised in the mining lease on a certain date. The Section goes on to say that so long as they "are comprised in a mining lease." It is only so long that they are so comprised, and no one will deny that where there is an interval between the lease, be it for a moment or a month, there is a period during which these minerals are not comprised in any lease. Now these minerals under the Clause as it stands will lose this exemption.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the words at the end, which are intended especially to cover cases of this kind. I quite agree it is very important you should not, merely because a lease is not signed for three days after the expiration of the original lease, deprive it of the benefit of this Section.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: Those words do not cover the case at all. They are intended merely to cover minerals which are being worked after the expiration of the lease. Even if a new lease is signed before the old lease expires there must be a moment of time when there is no lease. The matter can be very easily put right, and I rose for the purpose of making a practical suggestion. I would suggest it might be practical to enact that no break which does not amount to a year should involve exemption. Why should we not enact that minerals subject to a current lease may continue? Let it be provided there shall not be a break for more than 12 months. We cannot be satisfied with this Clause as it stands. The intention of the Government is the same as our own. They desire to have complete permanent protection for the working of the lease, and I say that in order to get that in a proper manner they must add some words which will protect minerals now in a current lease when they come under a subsequent lease.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member has not explained to the Committee why the words I have quoted do not cover the case. They certainly are intended to cover it. They are as follows: "Where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked within the meaning of this Section, the capital value of the minerals at the time shall be specially ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the capital value as so ascertained shall be treated as the original capital value of the minerals." This is the interval between the expiry of the old lease and the granting of the new lease. You work under the old lease until the new lease is granted. If it is worked under a new lease, it is subject to a mining lease, and, if it is worked under the old terms, it is under the old lease. If it is worked under the old lease or the new lease, it is subject to a lease. I should like to know whether these words do not meet the case, and merely saying they do not is not enough. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me where it fails, I shall be very glad to consider the matter.
  Sir E. CARSON: I admit that I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. What is the point which he has just made? He says minerals must be continued to be worked under the old lease or under the new, and, therefore, the definition applies. But, supposing

  1319
  the lessor, when the lease falls in himself works them, he is not working under any lease at all and the minerals have gone out of leases, and that is why I think the proposal does not carry out what was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sub-section (6) deals with cases "where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease," and, therefore, it is possible for minerals to cease to be comprised in a mining lease quite apart from the question of working. In what case could that be applied except to the case under Sub-section (2)? When the lease falls in the minerals cease to be any longer applied to by a mining lease.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the alternative. If he looks at the Clause, he will see that is given in the alternative. They must either be comprised in a mining lease or they must be worked under the terms of such a lease although the lease has expired. The case is made specifically in words which can be understood by anybody.
  Mr. MARKHAM: This Amendment has rather been sprung upon us, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to insert these words "comprised in a mining lease." Will he give the matter his consideration and deal with it, if necessary, on Report, because when a distinguished Law Officer of the Crown and another eminent barrister have a different opinion we should be careful.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the Committee would prefer that the words should not be moved now, I will undertake to put down a fresh Amendment on the Report stage.
  Sir J. RANDLES: I quite understand the Chancellor's intention is to free all existing leases. I am not a lawyer, but I wish to put a question to him about the restriction of working. There are certain mines which are closed down not for twelve months, but for two, three, four, or five years, such as the lead or plumbago mines in Cumberland, which supply a particular quality of lead used for pencils. How will they be affected? These mines only work at spasmodic intervals, because the supply of lead will last a considerable number of years.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is the lease.
  Sir J. RANDLES: No, they take it up and work out the lease, and it is not taken
  1320
  up again until more lead is wanted. I admit that it is an exceptional case, but these exceptional cases do arise.
  Mr. LAMBTON: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an Amendment drawn up by a distinguished person, and standing in my name. It runs, "or are comprised in any mining lease held by the proprietor or lessee of such colliery, mine, quarry, or open working." Would not the words "held by the proprietor or lessee" meet my hon. Friend's objection?
  Sir W. ROBSON: There is only the difficulty which has been suggested in the course of the discussion. We are dealing with two cases. One is the case of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease which would mean all mines except those worked by the proprietor, and the other is the case where the mine is worked by the proprietor. If they come under a mining lease they are exempted from the duty. That is the effect of Sub-section (2) and it is proposed further to provide that "Minerals shall be deemed to be comprised in a mining lease if the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, or if the minerals are being worked under the terms of such a lease, although the lease has expired." In case any objection should be left it would be met completely by the wording of the proviso as amended, "Provided that the exemption under this Section shall continue to apply in the case of any minerals, although they cease for a temporary period, either to be comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor, so long as the period does not exceed 12 months."
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "worked" ["minerals are for the time worked"], and to insert instead thereof the words "either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "period" ["although they cease for a temporary period"], to insert the words "to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked by the proprietor."
  Sir E. CARSON: I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered the effect of putting in these words value fixed upon it of which the annual

  1321
  myself, but you are limiting the Clause, and if the minerals are not leased within 12 months the owner loses the benefit of the exemption and will become liable to the duty. The Amendment of the Attorney-General is really a limiting and not a widening.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: I am inclined to think that if these words are inserted it would have the effect that if the mine were to cease for 12 months the proprietors would lose the benefit of the Sub-section and of the exemption.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider that point.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words "or such further period as the Commissioners may consider reasonable."—[Mr. Laurence Hardy.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not so sure there ought not to be some possibility of extending the period, but these words will put the Commissioners in a very awkward position. This really confers upon the Commissioners a power of exempting for all time the landowners of certain collieries from a very considerable tax. I do not think the Commissioners ought to be quite put in that position. I will, however, consider the point put by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I know a colliery in Yorkshire which has been on strike for three years. What would happen in that case?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should hardly have thought that that would be considered as coming within the exemption.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I only wanted that there should be a little elasticity and that we should not be bound absolutely by a statutory limit of 12 months.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "capital value of the minerals on the last," and to insert instead thereof the words "highest rental value of any."
  The point of this Amendment is this, That in calculating the Increment Duty upon such minerals as will have to pay Increment Duty it is obvious that only
  1322
  minerals which are being worked to-day are to be exempt, and that is only for a certain limited period and under limited conditions. There are, of course, outside these existing workings, a vast quantity of minerals in this country to which the Increment Duty would still apply, and the Increment Duty is to be applied under the Sub-section that we are now considering. I have read this Clause and have submitted it to a number of others who have had far more experience than I have had, and we all differ as to the precise meaning of it. But if I understand the Clause aright it amounts to this, that there is to be an Increment Duty in respect of these other minerals paid every year, and it has got to be the amount by which the rental actually received during the current year exceeds one or other of two things, either the original site value or the last payment. If I have understood the meaning of the Clause the suggestion is this, that instead of that being a fair way to impose this duty, what you ought to do is to take the analogy of the other Land Taxes, and when you have got in some previous years a high rental, upon which duty has actually been paid, you only ought in subsequent years to take the amount by which your new rental exceeds that highest point. What we did on the Land Clauses was this: Where property which is not mineral property has got up to a certain price on an occasion when it pays Increment Duty, on no subsequent occasion can it be asked for further Increment Duty until it has got to a higher point than the point upon which, on some previous occasion, it paid duty. What I want to do in my Amendment is to apply the same principle to this annual assessment of duty in the case of minerals, and wherever you have reached a point upon which the highest duty has been paid you have paid your duty up to that point, and you ought not to be asked for duty again until your rental exceeds the highest point upon which you previously paid duty. I certainly understood when the right hon. Gentleman himself was explaining the meaning of the Clause originally that that was what he intended to do, and that Increment Duty is only to be charged and paid in so far as it has not been paid before. What I mean is this. Here is a little property. It is not exempted under the Clauses we have got to so far. It is going to pay Increment Duty if and when it is opened up. That property, we will say, had an original value fixed upon it of which the annual

  1323
  equivalent, taken on the basis provided for in this Clause, would be £1,000 a year. Now we understand the position in regard to the initial stage. Supposing in the first year that the property is actually worked you get £1,200 a year. I take it £200 for that year will be the increment, and it would have to pay duty. Supposing the next year you would have £1,400. I want to know whether the duty is on £200 or whether it has then to pay upon £400. Then supposing in the third year the royalty went down to £500, and subsequently became £1,500. The suggestion in my Amendment is that it should never pay Increment Duty again unless the figure it has to pay upon is upwards of £1,400. I do not think that is the effect of the Clause as it stands.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We could not possibly accept the Amendment. The hon. Member has treated the annual value as if it were the capital value. Supposing a colliery worked up gradually from £10,000 to £60,000 a year. The effect of the Amendment is that when it got to £20,000 you would only pay duty on the difference between £10,000 and £20,000. Having got to £20,000, you take that as the starting point, and pay on the difference between £20,000 and £40,000. I am not going to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman to do that, because it means that he treats the annual value as if it were the capital value. We have treated 12½ years' purchase as the value of mineral property, so that your original value is £12,500. If the colliery is worked up to £60,000, the capital value is £750,000. The real increment there is not the difference between £1,000 and £60,000, but between £12,500 and £750,000, so that the capital increment is an increment of £740,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman says if he pays on £60,000 he has discharged the whole of his obligations. We could not possibly accept that. It would put the Increment Duty for mines on a totally different basis from the Increment Duty on any other property.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Am I right, on the interpretation of the Clause, in saying that if the rental value for the purpose of paying the duty does not exceed what was paid last year there is no increment?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. You refer back always to the original site value, or, if you are paying on capital, to
  1324
  the last occasion on which you paid capital Increment Duty. Supposing you own a mine of the value of £100,000, and someone buys it and pays a capital sum for it. From that date onward the £100,000 will be the figure from which you will compute your increment value. If the royalty amounted to £10,000, Increment Duty would only be paid on £2,000. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman follow me?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No, I cannot understand it at all. The Clause reads in this way: "The increment value shall, instead of being estimated as a capital sum, be taken to be the sum (if any) by which, in each year during which the tenancy under the lease continues or the minerals are being worked, as the case may be, the rental value on which Mineral Eights Duty is charged in respect of the right to work the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected, as the case may be; and the annual equivalent of any such capital value of the minerals shall be taken to be two twenty-fifth parts of that capital value." From that it appears to me that what you have to pay upon in 1912 is one or other of two things. It is either the amount which, in the year 1912, the rental exceeds the original site value, or exceeds what has been paid upon in 1911, and in order to ascertain what that annual value is, as compared with the capital value on the last preceding occasion, it is stated that you have to take the rental value at two twenty-fifth parts of that capital value.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can see where the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone wrong. I can see where he has branched off. He treats the annual increment value as if it were an occasion for Increment Tax. The occasions for Increment Tax are mentioned in Clause 1. They are sale, lease, or death. If you have a sale, or a death, and if Increment Value Duty is collected, then the capital value is the amount paid on the sale or the valuation at death. That is an occasion, and you refer back to that in order to ascertain the increment value. The last occasion must be one of the occasions mentioned in Clause 1, where there is a capital sum paid, or, in case of death, where there is a capital valuation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In asking to withdraw the Amendment, I would

  1325
  ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in all seriousness to believe that I did not read the Clause in the way he says it is capable of being read. Gentlemen who are paid fees to read Clauses of this kind and to give opinions as to what they mean have read this Clause in different ways, and none of them agree either with me or with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I think the moving of this Amendment has been useful in eliciting from the ment has been useful in eliciting from the matter. Whether the Clause is clear to the right hon. Gentleman or not, it is capable of being read in different ways by a considerable number of other people.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would say at once, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has some confusion in his mind as to the meaning of the Sub-section, and as he thinks it is desirable to look at the matter from the drafting point of view, that I will see whether it is necessary to introduce words to make it still clearer. The hon. and learned Gentleman sees that it is clear what the intention of the Sub-section is.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: What I understand is that the occasion referred to in line 22 ["on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected"] refers back to the first Clause of the Bill, and that it is not one of those occasions referred to in the Clause at all.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE indicated assent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "be" ["as the case may be"], to insert the words "provided that where Increment Value Duty has been paid under this Section, and where in any subsequent year the rental value is a sum less than the annual equivalent; of the capital value of the minerals, the amount of such difference shall be added to the capital value and so on from year to year, and no Increment Value Duty shall be charged unless or until the rental value exceeds the annual equivalent of the capital value of the minerals as so amended."
  I think the Government should devise some means by which we should be enabled to meet the question of what is called "shorts." I will give an illustration of what I mean. Supposing that in the first year of a lease, as is very probable, there is a short, there would be only, say, £600 paid to the royalty owner.
  1326
  In subsequent years, when there was a larger output, the royalty would go up above the level of the annual equivalent of the capital value. I think there should be some means of setting off against that the amount which was paid below that amount during the other years of the lease. It is a difficult matter to frame an Amendment to meet the ease, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot accept my words to devise some Amendment by which the royalty owner will not be called upon to pay on what he has not received.
  Sir W. ROBSON: This appears to be our not unfamiliar friend detriment appearing in a somewhat new guise in connection with the Mineral Rights Duty. Whatever might be done in order to give some relief to the mineral royalty owner where he is not receiving what in other circumstances he would receive, I am sure this particular Amendment could scarcely be adopted. What the hon. Member proposes is that when there is a year where the royalty owner has made a loss we should allow him to add what loss to the original capital value—in other words, to raise the data line above that upon which Increment Value Duty can be charged.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I am willing to admit that my words may not be satisfactory, but I think my meaning is quite clear.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the plan the hon. Member is suggesting, as far as I can follow the matter, which is very complicated, is asking a great deal too much. If I understood his suggestion, he would allow the shortage on a particular year to be added to the capital value until the whole of it was made up by deductions of duly.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Not deductions of duty, but the amount duty is taken upon.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not know how he proposes to do it. We cannot possibly accept this Amendment. We shall have to adopt in this case the principle we have adopted in other cases, of not making allowances for decrement when putting a tax on increment.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "two twenty-fifth parts" ["value of the minerals shall be taken to be two twenty-fifth parts"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one equal tenth part."
  I do not think you can take the same number of years' purchase for coalfields which are not developed as you take in respect of existing rich coalfields. I am told by some valuers in the North of England that if they had to value coalfields which are not seams of good coal, and where the coal is not easily got at, they would adopt 10 years' purchase, and not 12½ years. I think there is a strong probability that many of the new mines to be opened up will be less rich than the existing mines, and there ought to be some deduction made in regard to capital value. I am told that 10 years' purchase would be a fair valuation. In South Yorkshire, if these valuers had to value coalfields, they would not put them at 12½ years' purchase, but at 10 years' purchase, because of the chances of wash-outs and faults.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has taken the opinion of some experts as to what would be the fair average number of years for valuing unworked minerals. I think they have given rather a low figure in saying that they would put it at 10 years' purchase. Remember, there is no rental value at all. In all the great mineral districts of England the royalties are taken on a much greater number of years' purchase than the profits, and 12½ years is nearer a fair average than 10 years' purchase. A reduction would mean a substantial difference, and the Government cannot agree with it.
  Mr. LAMBTON: The learned Attorney-General talks about these coalfields which have been opened out fetching a much higher rate than 10 years' purchase. What I referred to is future leases of mines. In these rich coalfields all the coal is already let. Can the right hon. Gentleman point out any place in Northumberland and Durham where the coal is not let? Only poor coalfields which are difficult to get at will be opened up in the future, and in those cases the possible capital value will be 10 years, and not 12½.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have been told earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) that only 2 per cent. of the coal minerals of this country were under lease. I was very
  1328
  much astonished at the statement, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Lambton) tells me that all the coalfields in England worth working are leased. It may be that only 2 percent. of the minerals of this country will count as minerals which were being worked under the definition of the Bill, and that the vast majority of the minerals are future minerals which would come under the new scheme. I very much question that, and I should like to know whether the Government have got any views themselves—I do not mean precise figures—as to the amount of mineral wealth of the country which is to come under Mineral Duty? It is an important point, because the Exchequer will be helped in a very different manner if there is a great deal of mineral wealth unleased in this country or very little. I would like to ask also whether the Government have quite made up their minds as to whether it is fair to work on an average? They have chosen an average, after consultation with their experts, of 12½ years' purchase on which to base the annual equivalent value of a mine. I should have thought I confess that the annual equivalent of a mine should be decided in respect of each mine separately. How it is accurate to deal with mines which can only be leased on a 10 years' basis as if they were leased on a 12½ years' basis I do not know, nor do I see that the individual injustice is got over by the statement that an average of 12½ years' purchase is just. It may be just, but we are not dealing with averages, but with individual owners of individual mines. It may be the best that the Government can do, but nobody can persuade me that it is equitable. It may be as near equity as with the imperfection of this imperfect world we can get, but manifestly it cannot be right to deal with a great many different individuals on an average for property whose value depends on each individual case. No answer, so far as I know, has been given to that. What my hon. Friend (Mr. Lambton) proposes is to substitute what he thinks is a better average; but still, it is only an average, and I cannot think it is the right way to deal with it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This figure is really not an average. It is much nearer a minimum than an average. There are many parts of the country where 20 years and even a larger number of years' purchase of the mineral profits would be the rule. I would not like to say what the

  1329
  maximum would be, but I am perfectly certain you would get a higher figure throughout the country than 12½ years' purchase. I should be very much astonished to hear of any case where you could get less than 12½ years' purchase for mineral property. This is for the advantage of the taxpayers, because it puts the basis of the figure much higher than it otherwise would be, and I am perfectly certain that, so far from being an injustice to the owner, we have on the whole really taken the lowest possible figure rather than an average. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me a case, or can anyone give me a number of cases from any district showing that the years' purchase have been 10 or 11? Therefore, really we have taken the lowest figure to meet the justice of the case. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a great deal of controversy on the subject of the unleased minerals which may be available in this country in future. All I hope is that the estimate of my hon. Friend (Mr. Markham) is the correct one. Of course, if it is, there is untold wealth for some future Chancellor of the Exchequer in this new tax which we are setting up. If there is only 2 per cent. leased now, 40 times that would be £320,000,000, and 20 per cent. of that would be £64,000,000, and that would be a magnificent revenue for some Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hardly like to controvert it—it is so much better to believe it—but I am afraid that my faith is scarcely equal to that. I think what my hon. Friend has in his mind is rather the quantity of coal which is unworked. But probably the best of these coalfields have been let.
  Of course, we cannot tell, but they may discover very valuable coalfields where we know nothing about them now. Undoubtedly in the last few years there have been some very remarkable discoveries. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) is not responsible for a remarkable discovery himself in a district which was not worked before. Then there is the case of the Dudley Collieries, where, although the expert advice was that there was no coal at all, the owner insisted on making investigations, and he found a most valuable coalfield. And what may actually happen is that coalfields will be found in places where they are not suspected now. It is not so long ago since they discovered gold in Wales. I think most of that gold was really brought from the City of London. I think there was more gold cast into those mines than gold extracted from them, on
  1330
  a balance; but no one can tell, but if a mine had been discovered it would be paying its way. But until there is better evidence I cannot accept the theory of my hon. Friend that 2 per cent. represents the actual mines leased at the present moment; and we do not know the amount of the coal not yet discovered, yet alone leased. Take the coalfields in Wales. There is a great deal of coal there which is difficult to get at, and it cannot be worked at the present moment until the present mines are exhausted, because it would not pay working, and it will not pay until the coal becomes much more expensive than it is, as I have no doubt it will the moment all these mines are exhausted. The steam coal now being worked brings a cheaper price compared with what it would bring once you get from the leased end of the valley to the other end of the valley, which must then be worked, and at that moment we shall be deriving our 20 per cent. at the other end of the valley. I do not know when, but no doubt some future Chancellor of the Exchequer will bless the work which we are doing to-night, and derive considerable revenue from it.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite understands the meaning of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is, that whether there are new discoveries of coal made or not, the general tendency is that all coal discovered must necessarily lie deeper and be found only in conditions which make it more difficult and more expensive to work.
  Mr. LAMBTON: The right hon. Gentleman has said just now that coal in Wales, which is not at present worked, would in future be more expensive to get at and to work and give less in the royalties.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That I agree would make a difference in taxable value, but why it should make a difference in number of years' purchase I cannot understand. You might pin your faith on £50,000 for the capital value of mineral rights which you know perfectly well are worth leasing, but you would not give £5,000 for mineral rights on a property where it is very speculative and very doubtful whether it would pay. The circumstances referred to would simply reduce the capital value, but they would make no difference in the estimate at all.
  Mr. LUPTON: In putting it down here as 8 per cent. the Chancellor of the

  1331
  Exchequer has been very liberal. I have been able myself to negotiate 5 per cent., which is a very much higher price. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Lambton), of course, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, that has to do with valuation, but has nothing whatever to do with the rate which is proposed and is part of the capital value. With regard to the amount of coal in the country, it
  may interest the Chancellor to know that the amount of coal is as nearly as possible 330,000 million tons, and at the rate of 300 million tons a year that supply would last over a thousand years. The exact figures are not very important, except to show we have practically inexhaustible resources.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 62.

  Division No. 747.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Agnew, George William

  Hall, Frederick

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, M.

  Bennett, E. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rees, J. D.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Richardson, A.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brigg, John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Byles, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Clough, William

  Keating, M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cross, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, T.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lupton, Arnold

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Elibank Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Essex, R. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meagher, Michael

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Middlebrook, William

  Wardle, George J.

  Falconer, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mond, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Winfrey, H.

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  NOES.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Mildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Lambton and Mr. Newdegate.

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Mr. NEWDEGATE Mr. NEWDEGATE moved to insert, after Sub-section (4): "(5) Where Increment Value Duty has been paid under this Section and thereafter the capital value of the minerals is diminished or destroyed from any cause other than the working or getting of the minerals the capital value of the minerals shall be forthwith specially ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the proprietor of the minerals, where the proprietor is working the minerals, or the immediate lessor of the working lessee, as the case may be (or, where any mining lease has been granted subsequent to the first ascertainment of the original capital value of the minerals, in such proportions, respectively, as the Commissioners think fit), shall be entitled to recover from the Commissioners the sums paid for Increment Value Duty under this Section, so, however, that no greater sum shall be recoverable from the Commissioners than the difference between the original capital value of the minerals and the capital value of the minerals specially ascertained as aforesaid."
  The object of this Amendment is that where somebody has paid Increment Duty on a value that for some cause or other does not exist, he should be reimbursed the money which he ought not to have paid. Supposing that a property is originally valued at £12,500. A mine is then opened, and the value of the property becomes £25,000, so that Increment Duty has to be paid on £12,500. The vendor then leases his property, and for the first three years he will receive £500 in mine rents,
  1334
  on which he will pay Mineral Duty. The next three years he may receive £2,000 in royalties. He has thus paid Increment Duty on a £1,000 per annum—that is, £3,000 for three years—and the duty which he pays will be £600. Then, owing to "faults" which cannot be got over, or fires, or floods, or what is called the act of God, the mine is closed down. The owner would only in that time have received £7,500, whilst all the time he has been paying the duty on £12,500 increment on the original value. What I ask is that if, owing to any "fault" or misfortune of the kind I have described the mine ceases to work, the owner of the minerals who has paid Increment Duty on more than he has received at the time when the mine ceased to work, should be reimbursed to that extent. I think it is only fair and just that he should be reimbursed. The valuation is to be taken in a somewhat arbitrary manner under this Bill, and when it is found out that it is not correct and that through no fault of the owner the mine has come to grief, and he has paid in Increment Duty a sum which he has not received, then I think that the owner ought to be recouped the sum he has overpaid. I hope I have made my meaning clear. It is rather a complicated question, but I do trust that the Attorney-General will see his way to give relief in this case, because otherwise I think a very great injustice will be done. I have put this Amendment down at the request of those who are interested in mines in this country.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am sorry that the Government cannot accept this Amend-

  1335
  ment. The hon. Gentleman who has moved it made perfectly clear its object, and he stated the case as forcibly as it could be stated. He has given us the case of the royalty owner who has come under Increment Value Duty by reason of some great increase of royalty he has got over and above the original capital value of the mine. Then by some misfortune he ceases to receive that increment. Under these circumstances he would, of course, cease to pay, because the increment is collected in each year. The hon. Member would go rather further than was suggested in the case of surface value, and would entitle the mine owner in that case to recover the increment that he might have paid during the preceding year, even although he had received that increment before the Exchequer had got duty thereon. That would be going much further than was suggested in the case of surface value. We have endeavoured to make mineral rights as nearly analogous to surface value as we can, but instead of capital value we have made the comparison between annual value, so that the owner pays on annual value whenever there is an increment, and he ceases to pay whenever there is a decrement or no increment. But to ask us to allow the owner to recover sums by way of duty on increment which he has actually pocketed is going much further than was suggested in the other case, and much further than the Government feel inclined to go.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I would like to call the attention of the Government to one point, and that is whether the mining owner who works his own mine should not be treated with more consideration than in the case of a mine which is leased and worked.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): That question does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: With all respect, may I say, I see the words "where the proprietor is working the mineral."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: How does that bring in the other question?
  Mr. AINSWORTH: If I am out of order I will say no more except to hope that the Government will give the matter some attention.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (5) to leave out the word "the" ["payable to the lessor"], and insert instead thereof the word "a."—[Mr. Newdegate.]
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to leave out Sub-section (6).
  What the Sub-section says is this: "Where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease, or to be worked within the meaning of this section, the capital value of the minerals at the time shall be specially ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the capital value as so ascertained shall be treated as the original capital value of the minerals." I know we have had before to-day explanation as to the meaning of some of these Clauses. The meaning of this Sub-section which suggested itself to me was this, that this original capital value that is to be arrived at at the end of the lease was really for the purpose of making the next lease. I cannot conceive any possible reason why, at the end of a lease, you should then start to get at the original capital value unless that original capital value was to lead to a new transaction and then it is intelligible. There is no other possible explanation of the Sub-section. Neither myself nor two or three others who have interested ourselves in this have been able to make out any reason at all for the insertion of this Sub-section, unless it has got some hidden meaning of the kind I have suggested. I do not wish seriously to ask that this Subsection should be absolutely omitted if it means anything, or if it has got any raison d'être. I think I am entitled, until I hear some good reason to the contrary, to ask that it should be omitted from this very complicated Clause, which is quite sufficiently complicated without it.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member that the Sub-section is necessary. He has not suggested in what respects it could very well be improved. Sub-section (2) of this Clause deals, as has been so often pointed out, with the two cases of minerals comprised in mining leases and where minerals are being worked, and it gives those two cases certain exemptions. We have to contemplate the cases of minerals ceasing to be comprised in mining leases or ceasing to be worked. They have a period of 12 months' grace in either of those two events. I think the hon. Member was quite wrong in supposing that the Subsection means that there must be at the end of the lease an original valuation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It says so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Not necessarily. What happens if there is no fresh lease, if they cease to be comprised in any lease? The owner, if he choose, may either go on working or lease afresh. If he goes on working or leases afresh, then the exemption, such as it is, is continued in his favour. If he leaves it alone, and neither leases it nor goes on working it, then, at the end of the twelvemonth, the Subsection comes into operation. We must have something dealing with that case, and that is why the Sub-section is necessary.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I understand, but what happens then?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Under those circumstances the exemption ceases to apply. We have got to the limits of the exemption, and the Sub-section says you are then to ascertain the capital value of the minerals at that time, because he, then having lost the benefit of the exemption, comes under the ordinary Increment Value Duty, and you have therefore to ascertain the original capital value at that time. I do not think he is likely to pay much increment in the ease supposed, because we are dealing with a wayleave estate; but that is why the Sub-section is there, and I think it is intelligible.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is no doubt that the explanation of the Attorney-General is satisfactory up to a point. We understood that whether property was comprised in a lease or not at the present moment it was to be valued now. But if all the present collieries that are being worked and all the minerals comprised in existing leases are to be exempted from the valuation of 1910, and if that valuation is not to be made until the period when it comes within Sub-section (6) in the manner the Attorney-General has explained, that would be an answer to the Amendment. If, however, they had to be valued now, the Sub-section would be absolutely unnecessary, because we should have the original capital value. I shall certainly press my Amendment unless it can be shown in the Bill that all existing mines and minerals, if they are actually being worked, are not to be valued at once.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The valuation next year, in any event, is to be in the interest of the taxpayer. The hon. Member has
  1338
  not pointed out where working mines are put under the necessity for that valuation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Everything is to be valued.
  Sir W. ROBSON: That is a wider question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Surely the Attorney-General knows whether or not existing mines are to be valued. He has treated it as a question which is still sub judice.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Unless the Attorney-General can point to something in the Bill which has escaped our attention, there can be no doubt whatever that all existing mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, are to be valued. If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, that valuation for the purposes of this taxation is not to come into force as long as these properties are being worked; but when they cease to be in a lease or to be worked, and they become liable to the duty, there is to be a new valuation. That is the valuation referred to in Sub-section (6), and the valuation so ascertained is to be treated as the original capital value of the minerals. If that is so, I am glad to know it. It will be a great boon to mine-owners as regards Increment Value Duty, because, instead of their being started on a datum line comparatively low, they will be started on a datum line at a considerably higher point of development. If, on the other hand, the minerals have been entirely or nearly worked out, it will provide a new basis of duty, and be an advantage in that respect. In any case when I see a Clause of this kind which is quite contradictory to the general run of the other provisions of the Bill, I think I am justified in asking for an explanation. If I am right in the conclusions I have come to, I should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Nothing can be more pertinent to the Bill than that we should know whether or not all existing mines are to be valued. I understood the Attorney-General just now to suggest that that was a question of little moment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I did not say so. I merely wished to refrain from going into matters beyond the scope of the Amendment. If the hon. Member will look at Clauses 1 and 17 he will see the scope of the valuation. The question does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: There is a strong reason for the existence of this Sub-section. Coal is not always worked out year by year in accordance with what may be the theoretical annual value. There are large mineral properties which in their working do not keep pace with what may be held to be the annual value of the lease. When the lease is determined it often happens that very large values have been overpaid. It may be that the lessor refuses to let the lessee work up his "shorts," and tens of thousands of pounds may be overpaid by the lessee in consequence of the practical working not keeping pace with the actual rent paid. When the lessor puts an end to the lease there is often still a very great value which, if it is due to anybody at all, is really due to the working colliery owner. In those cases it is necessary in the interests of equity that the State should take a new valuation, because in the womb of the earth there are comprised values for which the lessor has been paid but for which the lessee has not got a real equivalent. If every year the working was in exact proportion to the rent, there would be little reason for this Sub-section. But the facts are quite otherwise, and it is necessary that there should be a new valuation in order that the State may get its rights. That is the reason for this Sub-section, so far as I can see, and so far as I am able to understand. There is a reason for this Sub-section, notwithstanding the original valuation, because the working does not keep pace with the yearly rent. When that is the case it is necessary that a later valuation should take place in order to determine the interest of the State and of
  the lessor. I feel strongly that this Subsection should be retained.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I understand during the time I was out of the House yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain remarks I made with regard to the leased portion of the coal of this country. I should like to say that when I stated incidentally that only 1 per cent. of the minerals in this country were leased, I was not speaking perhaps so carefully as I ought to have done. What I meant to say was that only a very very small proportion of it was. I do not think certainly that 95 per cent. of the minerals—the total coal supplies—of this country are comprised in mining leases. In my calculation I estimated that the time mining leases in this country would run was on an average of about 30 years. The Report of the Royal Commission on our Coal Supplies was not worth the paper it was written on, because, to my knowledge, innumerable seams of coal were not taken into account. Further, in my opinion, there are enormous areas where coal is likely to be found which were not even scheduled by the Royal Commission in their Report. Let me give an instance: A coalfield in Warwickshire where, after two years' boring, I proved that in that one coalfield alone there were 60,000,000 tons of coal. Of this the Royal Commission have not put clown a single ton.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 44.

  Division No. 748.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 p.m.

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

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, R. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Agnew, George William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Byles, William Pollard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crossley, William J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cullinan, J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hall, Frederick

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, A.

  Snowden, P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morse, L. L.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hodge, John

  Muldoon, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Myer, Horatio

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jenkins, J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Toulmin, George

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Keating, M.

  Partington, Oswald

  Vivian, Henry

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wardle, George J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lamont, Norman

  Reddy, M.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  Middlebrock, William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  NOES.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Colliding, Edward Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hills, J. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. R. Duncan.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Definitions for Purpose of Mineral Provisions.)
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved the following Clause:—
  For the purpose of the provisions of this Act as to minerals—
  The expression "proprietor" means the person for the time being beneficially entitled to any freehold estate in possession in the minerals, including a mortgagor in possession, and a person entitled to the possession of land comprised in a lease for any long term of years to which Section sixty-five of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, applies;
  The expression "rent" includes yearly or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation by the acre, the ton, or otherwise, and includes any fine, premium, or forfeit, and any payment, consideration, or benefit in the nature of a fine, premium, or foregift;
  Where any rent is paid or rendered otherwise than in money or money's worth, the amount of the rent shall be taken to be such sum as the Commissioners consider to be the value thereof;
  The expression "mining lease" means a mining lease as defined by paragraph (xi.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or

  1343
  an agreement for such lease, or any tenancy for mining purposes, and the expressions "lessor" and "lessee" shall be construed accordingly;
  The expression "working lessee" means as respects the right to work minerals the lessee who is actually working the minerals, or would have the right actually to work the minerals if the minerals were worked, and as respects mineral wayleaves the lessee who is in actual enjoyment of the wayleave, and the expression "immediate lessor" shall be construed accordingly;
  The expression "working year" means the year ending the thirtieth day of September, or such other day as may in any case be approved by the Commissioners; and the expression "last working year" means the working year completed immediately before the first day of January in any financial year for which the duty is paid;
  The expression "mineral wayleave" means any wayleave, airleave, or waterleave granted to or enjoyed by a working lessee for the purpose of access to or the conveyance of the minerals or the ventilation or drainage of his mine or otherwise in connection with the working of the minerals.
  Where any minerals are at any time being worked by means of any colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, all the minerals which belong to the same proprietor, if the minerals are being worked by the proprietor, or which the lessee has power to work if the minerals are being worked by a lessee, and which would, in the ordinary course of events, be worked by the same colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked at that date;
  Minerals shall be deemed to be comprised in a mining lease if the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, or if the minerals are being worked under the terms of such a lease, although the lease has expired.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, after the word "applies" at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words "but does not include a mortgagee."
  This Amendment is of very considerable importance in connection with the definition of the expression proprietor for the
  1344
  purpose of making a person pay duty under this Bill. The proprietor is the individual who is responsible, and then we come to the definition of the word proprietor—that is, all persons in respect of any estate who is to be obliged to pay this tax. We are told that it means "the person for the time being beneficially entitled to any freehold estate, including a mortgagor in possession and a person entitled to the possession of land comprised and leased for any long term of years to which Section 65 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881 applies." Now, each of the individuals mentioned there would undoubtedly very properly come under the designation of being a proprietor, and it will be seen that the mortgagor in possession is referred to, and, therefore, a state of affairs where there is a mortgage is clearly contemplated. Where the mortgagor is still in possession of his property, which has not been taken possession of by the mortgagee, it is made clear by the Clause that the mortgagor is the person liable to the tax. I want to make it clear that the mortgagee is not the person liable to pay this tax, and I do that for several important reasons.
  An immense amount of money has been advanced on mortgage of real estate in this country, and a very large proportion of that money has been advanced by trustees. The real estate market, therefore, has had the advantage, especially in the last 15 or 16 years, of enormous sums of trust money being made available. It would be a very great pity to unhinge the minds of the mortgagees of this country or to cause them to feel disquieted in regard to the position of being mortgagees or any doubt about the security. If the mortgagee is not contemplated as the person to be made responsible under this Clause—and I do not believe the Government intend to make him responsible, except in the case of his having foreclosed and becoming the owner—then I think it would be wise on the part of the Government, and it certainly would be wise in the interest of the real estate market in the country and the enormous sums of money which is invested, to make it clear that since the mortgagee, as mortgagee, is not to be liable to the incidence of the tax in regard to minerals. On behalf of mortgagees I made a special appeal to the Government in the case of the Increment and other Land Taxes, and the Government met me very fairly, and inserted a Clause with

  1345
  regard to that tax, which practically amounted to this: That unless a mortgagee had taken possession or foreclosed he was not to be responsible; and then as regards the property in his own hands there was a whole sub-section inserted in another place making it clear that as regards property of which he had taken possession or foreclosed that he was not to be liable to the tax until he first paid off the principal and interest to the parties.
  I think that was a very reasonable concession, which in all the circles in England which have so much to do with investing this money was received with very great satisfaction, and I appeal to the Government to do the same thing with regard to the Mineral Tax for mortgagees. I do not know whether the simple way provided in my Amendment is absolutely the right way to do it. What I suggest to the Attorney-General is this: that he should consider this point with the object of placing the mortgagee in as good a position as the mortgagee on surface property, having regard to what he has already done, and if he will consider that point with a view of having protection given on the Report stage I would not, under these circumstances, press this particular form of words. I appeal to the Government to take the same view of that matter in regard to this particular tax as they took in regard to the other taxes.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the object of the hon. Gentleman and those of the Government are practically the same. Of course, a mortgagee not in possession would not be included in this Clause, but the hon. Member has raised a further point, namely, that if he is included under this Clause he should be at least in the same position as a mortgagee on the surface. I think that is a very fair matter for consideration. I am not sure whether the clause can be inserted which was inserted in regard to the other tax, as I am not sure whether the position of the mortgagee generally would apply or not to minerals. It is a matter that the Government will be very glad to consider.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Attorney-General, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARKHAM Mr. MARKHAM moved, in the second paragraph, after the word "foregift" ["or benefit in the nature of a fine, premium, or foregift"], to insert the words "and any
  1346
  payment or consideration in respect to surface lands damaged by the workings of a lessee where the payment or consideration in respect to such damage exceeds the market value of such surface lands."
  I move this Amendment to meet cases which are very common in many parts of the country where the lessor, after having received the full value of the minerals, commences to extract money from the workers of the coal out of all proportion to the damage done to the surface lands. As is well known, you cannot take coal out of the earth without lowering the surface, and under the system prevailing extensively in this country it is impossible to extract minerals without letting down the surface. I have known cases where a landlord has put a peg in the earth and made a survey, and if the surface has dropped a few inches he has caused a claim to be made against the tenant because he says his landscape has been damaged by the surface being dropped. Where no physical damage has been occasioned by the working of the mine, any payment in respect of the mere lowering of the surface can only be made in the form of an extortionate rent. There are many cases where land worth from £20 to £30 an acre under mining leases has had to make a payment of not less than £80 per acre for all damage done to the land in course of mining by the working of the coal. That is very little short of extortion, in fact, highway robbery is a more appropriate term. Where a mining lessor, after having been paid the full value of his coal, wants to extract money, keeping the land, and charging to the extent of three, four, five, and sometimes six times the damage done—and I have known a case where the charge was nearly ten times the value of the land—it is simply a form of monstrous highway robbery, which the State ought to tax. As far as I can see under the Clause as it is drawn the Government will get nothing on these transactions.
  9.0 P.M.
  May I give an illustration which happened in the case of the Staveley Coal Mine Company. At the time my father was managing director the landlord said to him, "I want some money, will you advance it?" My father said, "Yes, and I will take the right to work the minerals from all your seams of coal." The company could not work the minerals at first, but at the expiration of their lease 30 or 40 years after the company were in a position to work the coal. They had paid in royalties an immense sum to oblige the landlord, but the landlord then came, and

  1347
  said, "If you let down the surface of these lands we shall claim that this £30,000 or £40,000 has been illegally paid, and we shall want you to pay over again for the coal." The case was taken into the courts, and the landlord was beaten. The landlords are constantly coming to the lessees in respect of letting down the surface, and in all cases the Government ought to have their pound of flesh. There can be no justification for a landlord, because the surface has been let down, being entitled to charge large sums for damage altogether cut of proportion to the damage done. I know we cannot deal with this question effectively under this Bill, but in respect of these demands which lessors make out of all consideration for the damage done we can provide that the State shall get a fair proportion. Say the land is worth £30 or £40 an acre. Under my proposal you allow the landlord to keep his land. You give him the £30 or the £40 per acre, which is the full value, and allow him to retain the land, and after he has had that and been paid for all the minerals extracted, surely that is a reasonable payment, and if any premium in the form of three, four, or five times the value of the land goes into the landlord's pocket, the State ought to have a share, and this is provided for under this Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not wish to say a word in justification of the cases of extortion which my hon. Friend has made before the Committee. I neither suggest that there are such cases, nor would I attempt to deny their existence. And yet I must ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, for a very simple and practical reason. My reason is that it goes beyond the scope of this Bill as originally framed. It proposes a tax not strictly on mineral rights, or, strictly speaking, in respect of mineral rights, but a tax on some amounts which by damage the landlord is able to exact from the tenant in excess of the true damage actually suffered. Where the damage has been fixed by an arbitrator, if the amount is unjust, then it is the fault of the arbitrator. The hon. Member has mentioned some very hard and inequitable acts, which may very properly be made a subject of legislation. I do not, however, think it is advisable to put into this Bill any more cases of that class. I must ask the hon. Member to observe that we have already opened up a good many sources of conflict, and there still remains some
  1348
  remedy this Session. I suggest that some of them should be left over to be dealt with in the future.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. and learned Gentleman has opened a new line of argument in saying there are limits to the extent to which this Bill can go. We on this side of the House have not found these limits, and it is very well that we should at last have been informed by one of those defending the Bill that he sees there are points to which the Bill cannot go. He refuses to be a partaker in this blackmail, but that difficulty has not attended previous clauses in the Bill. We have heard of blackmail before. It was not the first time we were told that extortions by landlords were in the shape of blackmail. They, however, were condoned by a share of that blackmail being taken by the State. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) fairly and reasonably thinks the same principle might be carried out now, and that a share might be got for the State so long as this blackmail continues. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, is not prepared this time to share in the dirty spoils which might come to him. It is hard on his supporter that he should not have this concession given to him on the parallel followed out in all previous clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member has perhaps shown more sound and valid reasons for the State sharing in this particular form of blackmail than in any other blackmail of which we have heard so much in Limehouse, and which was so much denied in speeches which followed. The hon. and learned Member, however, is not prepared to take a share of this blackmail, and I suppose his follower must be disappointed in the check he hoped to place upon this iniquitous habit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARKHAM Mr. MARKHAM moved, in the sixth paragraph, after the second word "wayleave" ["the expression 'mineral wayleave' means any wayleave"], to insert the words "shaft rent."
  There are cases within my knowledge where, in order to escape what landlords thought would be the future legislation, they have not called a shaft rent a wayleave, but a shaft rent. Although the shafts in 99 cases out of 100 have been sunk by working lessees, the lessor has said to the lessee, "You are bringing minerals up my shaft which are not comprised in my lease to you."
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: That is blackmail.
  Mr. MARKHAM: That is what is termed foreign minerals comprised in other leases, and, in respect of this coal belonging to other proprietors carried up the shaft, I know of cases where a charge of 1d. or 2d. per ton is made for shaft rent alone. I have consulted counsel on this question, and I am informed that the words "shaft rent" are not covered.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think shaft rent would certainly be included within the word "wayleave," but, anyhow, I will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MARKHAM Mr. MARKHAM moved, in the sixth paragraph, after the word "wayleave" ["the expression 'mineral wayleave' means any wayleave"], to insert the words "above or under ground."
  This Amendment is moved by reason of what was said last night. It was not made quite clear whether the expression "wayleave" applied to wayleaves above ground. If this Amendment is accepted it will be quite clear that the expression "wayleave" applies to the top and bottom.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): It will hardly do to put in the words "shaft rent," and then the words "above or underground." Of course, a portion of the shaft might be above ground.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We will consider the Clause again to see whether we have the words right.
  Mr. MARKHAM (for Mr. Lambton)Mr. MARKHAM (for Mr. Lambton) moved, in the seventh paragraph, after the word "worked," ["where any minerals are at any time being worked"] to insert the words "or being won for the purpose of being immediately worked." I understand the Attorney-General will give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think this would make any difference. The hon. Member seems to speak of it as if it were some important concession, but that is not the way it strikes me We have said that where any minerals are at any time being worked they shall be deemed to be minerals being worked so as to come within the exemption. There are some minerals which are in process of being won, but are
  1350
  not actually being worked. It is proposed that those should be treated as minerals being worked. I think that is fair, and I propose to try and meet the case by inserting after the word "date" ["minerals which are being worked at that date"] words to this effect: "minerals which are being won for the purpose of being immediately worked shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked." If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment I will move that Amendment later.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARKHAM Mr. MARKHAM moved, in the seventh paragraph, after the words "ordinary course of events," to insert the following words: "(except where exceptional mining difficulties have arisen in the course of working or developing the minerals due to wash-outs, faults, water, fire, or any other exceptional mining difficulties)."
  As far as I understand it, the meaning of this Clause is this: If the lessee has acquired an area of minerals there may be within that area sublets of coal, and in the ordinary course of events a shaft may be sunk. I take it that the object of the draftsman in bringing in these words which would, "in the ordinary course of events, be worked by the same colliery, mine, quarry, or open working, shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked at that date," means that where there is interlocked coal brought to the shaft it would be free from the Increment Duty. My Amendment is rather difficult to explain. These interlocked minerals which would, in the ordinary course of events, be carried to particular shafts would, I take it, by this Clause be exempt from paying Increment Tax. That is the meaning of the words. I feel quite sure that the reason of the draftsman in putting these words into the Bill—and I have had no indication from anyone in authority on the point—I feel sure that the object and intention of the Clause is that where certain mines are comprised in the lease that these particular mines shall form part of the whole area though they belong to different landlords. As a result of an Amendment moved by the Attorney-General earlier in the afternoon the effect of this definition Clause is altered. We have the words in paragraph 8 that all "minerals shall be deemed to be comprised in a mining lease if the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, or if the minerals are being worked under the terms of such a lease,

  1351
  although the lease has expired." They may not be let to-day—they may not come into course of working, perhaps, for 50, 100, or 200 years. I know a case where minerals are not likely to be worked for the next 300 years, and yet, in the ordinary course of events, unless a shaft is sunk, they will escape all duty. I think it is very important that these minerals should not escape the duty, and therefore I have put down this Amendment, that "except where exceptional mining difficulties have arisen in the course of working or developing the minerals, due to wash-outs, faults, water, fire, or any other exceptional mining difficulty." The object of that is clear. The Government have moved an Amendment which perhaps renders it unnecessary in some degree. Take the case of the Kent Collieries, which have been already referred to this afternoon. In that case enormous sums of money have been spent. The public have found large sums of money, and they have had to face exceptional mining difficulties. Under this Clause as it stands I believe some hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on this particular colliery. I believe the lessees have actually acquired mineral rights on which they will have to pay Increment Duty. But there are other cases where, owing to financial and other difficulties, certain mines have had to be closed for a time. I want to see justice done to the landlords. I can cite a case with which I was connected. I told the landlord I wanted to put the shaft in some other position, in order to avoid water. The landlord said, "You can move the shaft, if you think fit to do so." I did it, but instead of escaping the water I got a great deal more than I anticipated, and I am engaged in operations in order to get over the difficulty. Meanwhile the minerals cannot be worked. The landlord might be put to very serious disadvantage because I made a mistake in putting the shaft on the edge of the property, and thereby got more water than I anticipated. I think it is very hard indeed that in a case of that kind the landlord should have to pay Increment Duty on minerals which cannot be worked. Hence my Amendment with regard to exceptional mining difficulties. I could give another case in the county of Nottingham—the Mansfield Colliery. There there is an enormous tract of land covering something like 40,000 acres, and only one colliery has been sunk on the whole of that great estate. I think that the estate should only pay increment value
  1352
  as a whole. But unless my Amendment is accepted by the Government the minerals which are dealt with under one mining lease will escape this duty. Am I to understand from that that the whole of this great estate of 40,000 acres, on which only one mine has been sunk, and which would take at least eight large collieries—am I to understand that this vast estate, covering so many square miles, is to escape the duty? I think that the mine actually sunk on this great estate of the Duke of Newcastle's ought to be free, because that has been opened out, but that is only one portion of the estate, and the rest of it, 36,000 acres, will also be free.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Is it comprised in a mining lease?
  Mr. MARKHAM: It is a very exceptional case and the lease was acquired under very exceptional circumstances—circumstances originally of fraud, because, unfortunately for the Duke of Newcastle, his solicitor and mining agent at that time entered into an agreement by which they were to take a certain proportion of the profits under the lease, and the lawyer went to prison. It was a very unfortunate transaction for the Duke. The present owners had nothing to do with the circumstances I have mentioned; they acquired it from another man, who acquired it from the Duke's lawyer. These are the exceptional circumstances under which the Duke is going to escape scot free on 36,000 acres of minerals, by reason of the introduction of this Amendment, which has been moved this afternoon from another point of view. I think it wants the attention of the Government, although it is an exceptional case, upon the Report stage, and I implore the Attorney-General—so far as all those unlet seams are concerned—to look into the matter, else these duties are gone forever. Unless you have this Clause limited, the duty from the whole of these seams on that estate goes, and, in my opinion, in the next 20 years it would produce an enormous sum of money. I do not press my Amendment, and I am afraid I have gone outside it in order to explain this point, to which I do hope the Attorney-General will give consideration.
  Sir W. ROBSON: My hon. Friend has dealt with two cases, both of which he has very properly described as exceptional. The first one goes beyond the scope of the Amendment, and it is of a very great area

  1353
  of land which is comprised in a mineral lease, and therefore, although it would be exempt from Mineral Rights Duty, would fall only under the 5 per cent. duty. My hon. Friend said it would be exempt, but he means only exempt from this Mineral Rights Duty. It is an extraordinarily large quantity of land and minerals to be comprised in a single instrument, and it is a highly exceptional case, and it is indeed so phenomenal that it appears to have resulted in the lawyer being sent to gaol. We could scarcely legislate for such an exceptional case as that, but I have no doubt that the Duke of Newcastle and his agents will do their best to develop that great area, and as soon as they do they will come under the proviso. Up to the present I think the hon. Member has mainly spoken in the interests of the lessee, but I think in the other case he is speaking for the landlord, whom he thinks may be unjustly treated. We have exempted from the Increment Value Duty mines which are now comprised in mineral leases or which are being worked by the proprietor, and under these circumstances we have to define the words "being worked." Those words apply only to the proprietor, and they have much less scope than they had before I inserted the words "comprised in a mining lease." We are, therefore, dealing with the definition of those words, and we have said that where minerals would in the ordinary course of events be brought from the same shaft they should pay duty as minerals which are being worked by the proprietor, and therefore within the exemption which is under consideration. Now, my hon. Friend points to an exceptional case. He says you may have wash-outs, or accidents, water, fire, or exceptional mining conditions which may lead to a piece of land within the ordinary scope or range of the shaft which has been sunk, but which is, so to speak, cut off from it by this accident, so that it cannot be worked from that shaft, but from some other, and the hon. Member says that ought to be treated in the landlord's interest as being a mineral area which is within the words "being worked." I think, however, we have gone far enough. I do not think the case is a common one, but a very unusual one, and we should not attempt to treat every little case, especially a hypothetical case. We must keep our definitions as broad as we can, and I think we do so without including within the scope of our tax any case of that kind. I am afraid we cannot go further than we have done.
  Mr. LUPTON: I am afraid I am not impressed with the speech of the Attorney-General. He seems to be very clear that wherever there is a colliery, as long as it contains minerals, all the minerals, whether they are now being worked or not, will be exempt. I think, however, if there is a mine working on a difficult seam the seams above and below will be exempt, and when it is a question of the mine being worked by the proprietor it will also be exempt. Then comes the question as to the meaning of the word "colliery." The word "mine" has, I think, a legal meaning, but the word "colliery," I think, has not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The word "colliery" is not in this Amendment.
  Mr. LUPTON: But the effect of the Amendment is, in my opinion, to limit the meaning of the word "colliery," because the Amendment refers to shafts and things of that sort. A colliery may have a great number of shafts, and the colliery may be extended over a very large area.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in the eighth paragraph, after the word "date" ["minerals which are being worked at that date"], to insert the words "minerals which are being won for the purpose of being immediately worked shall be deemed to be minerals which are being worked."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Mr. MARKHAM: I want to know where we stand about this Amendment? Does this Clause mean that where a shaft is sunk all the minerals, whether they be upper or lower seams, in relation to any particular seam of coal which may be exempt from Increment Duty under this tax, will pay duty or will they escape?
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is in each case a question of fact. If the lessee takes an area of coal comprising three or four seams and he sinks a shaft with the intention of working one or all of those seams, the Commissioners have to say whether all the seams are being won for the purpose of being immediately worked. If they are not being won for the purpose of being worked, if, for instance, the lessee has only got to a single seam, the others are not being won, and they will come under Increment Value Duty. If he is sinking a shaft to an upper seam with the intention of working the lower seam later they will be minerals in process of being won, and will come within the words "being worked."
  Mr. MARKHAM: That case is a very remarkable one. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that a man might take a particular seam and work that and afterwards proceed to sink a shaft and work the other minerals. But what amount of time is going to be allowed between the two processes? The time of working out the upper seam might be 30 or 40 years.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I really thought we were meeting the purpose of the hon. Member's Amendment, which was "being sunk to or developed." We choose words a little less wide than that.
  Mr. MARKHAM: But the words the Attorney-General has put in are far wider than the words I wanted, only my words were to meet the case of mines which have been delayed from reaching the coal owing to water or other difficulties. There is a mine in Durham which has been worked for 17 years, and coal is not reached yet. Surely in a case like that it would be very unfair that a man should have to pay Increment Duty. My Amendment only referred to mines which were being sunk or developed prior to 30th April. If a shaft has been sunk and one particular seam has been let, and others are not let, and were not comprised in the mining lease prior to 30th April, I want to know whether all these other seams of coal, which would in the ordinary course of events perhaps, 100 or 200 years hence be worked, would escape Increment Duty or not?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think the hon. Member has quite grasped the scope of the Clause as it is proposed to be amended. In the case he has put, the under seams will undoubtedly be comprised in the mining lease. If they are not comprised in the mining lease, they will be taxed, and they will come under the Increment Value Duty. If they are comprised in the lease they will come under the Mineral Rights Duties, and not under the increment value. The expression "being worked" relates now, after the Amendment is made, only to the seams which are being worked by the landowner.
  Mr. LUPTON: Sub-section (2) of Clause 13 says Increment Duty shall not be charged where a mine is being worked. Now we come to the definition, and we find that a mine which is being worked includes the minerals which would in the ordinary course of events be worked by the same colliery or mine. In the ordinary course
  1356
  of events you work first the best seam if it is within reasonable reach, and then afterwards you go to seams which are less valuable or more difficult to get at, but they will all in the ordinary course be worked, and under this Clause they will be exempted.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: The Attorney-General has explained that his Amendment will cover the case of successive seams in the same lease which were won one after the other by means of the same shaft. In these circumstances is not the word "immediately" very misleading? Might it not be misinterpreted by the Court?
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I understand that if the lease is in operation all the mines contained within that lease are then and there exempted from Mineral Rights Duty.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No; they are subject to Mineral Rights Duty but exempted from Increment Value Duty. I was afraid the rather wide language used, perhaps inadvertently, by some hon. Members might mislead in that respect. They are not exempted from all duty but from that particular form of duty. We do not get Increment Value Duty from mines which are being worked because they are a wasting asset, and it is not worth while troubling about it, but we do get Mineral Rights Duty. It is a very narrow point that is now under consideration. The only point is whether particular pieces of coal should be treated as being worked or not. So far as the lessee is concerned, the exemption extends to the coal comprised in the mining lease, but where there is no mining lease, and the landlord is working the mine himself, the question is how much coal can be said to be in process of working. The Clause says that he might be treated as working all the coal which would in the natural course of events be brought from that colliery. It is suggested by my hon. Friend and others that where a shaft is in actual process of being sunk in a case where the proprietor works the mine you ought to treat the coal which is then in process of getting as coal which is being worked by him. I do not know whether the point has any application at all to any existing state of things. I should doubt it. There are not many proprietors in the kingdom who work their own coal, and there are still fewer who happen to be sinking shafts.
  Mr. WALSH: The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly satisfactory.
  Mr. R. DUNCAN: In order to decide whether minerals are being worked or not we would require to know whether the same shaft could be extended to seams below that from which coal is being taken. That would involve an enormous amount of surveying throughout the kingdom, the cost of which we cannot calculate at all.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  (POSTPONED) CLAUSE 15.—(Application of Provisions as to Total and Site Value to Minerals.)
  (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the total value of minerals means the amount which the fee simple of the minerals if sold in the open market by a willing seller in their then condition might be expected to realise, and the capital value of minerals means the total value, after allowing such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners may allow for any sums which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been spent on boring or other operations carried out by the owner or his predecessor in title for the purpose of bringing the minerals into working, or where the minerals have been partly worked, such part of those sums as is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, proportionate to the amount of minerals ungotten.
  (2) Except where the context otherwise requires, any references in this Part of this Act to the site value of land shall, in cases where the land consists solely of minerals, or comprises minerals, include a reference to the capital value of the minerals.—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sold" ["fee simple of the minerals if sold in the open market"], to insert the words "at the time of valuation."
  The object of moving this Amendment is to obtain from the Government some idea when the valuation is to take place, otherwise we shall be left very much in the dark. If the valuation is taken a long time before it is wanted for the purpose of this Clause, it would not in any way represent the actual value if sold in the open market by a willing seller.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it is necessary to insert these words. The Clause itself is sufficiently explicit in its terms. It does not fix the time at which the valuation is to be made. No doubt the valuer will consider what is the value at the time he takes the valuation.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out from the word "realise" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof:—
  "calculated on the basis of the present worth of the royalty value thereof, regard being had to the period within which the minerals could reasonably be expected to be worked.
  (2) For the purposes of this part of this Act the capital value of minerals means the total value of minerals subject to the following deductions which shall be allowed by the Commissioners:—

  (a) Any sums which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be reasonable in respect of water, faults, wash-outs, or other physical defects or disadvantages to which the minerals comprised in the area, the subject of valuation, are or are likely to be exposed;

  (b) Any sums which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been spent on boring or other operations carried out for the purpose of bringing the minerals into working, or where the minerals have been partly worked, such part of those sums as is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be proportionate to the amount of minerals ungotten.

  (3) For the purposes both of total value and capital value of minerals there shall be excluded from valuation:—

  (a) Any area in respect of which by reason of its not being adjoining or contiguous to an open mine or for any other cause, no reliable basis of computation is available at the time of valuation with regard to the existence and character of minerals (if any) comprised in such area, including their depth, thickness, and quality;

  (b) Any unworked minerals situate at a depth from the surface exceeding eight hundred yards;

  1359

  (c) Any minerals which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be commercially unworkable at the time of valuation;

  (d) Any minerals which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be unworkable at the time of valuation by reason of being required in connection with the working of other mines, as barriers against water, or fire, or other contingency, or by reason of the owner being under a legal obligation to afford support to the superjacent or adjacent surface or mines."

  This Amendment comes with the authority of very experienced persons in connection with the valuation of such property, and I only submit it to the Government with the view to its being considered. There is no doubt that the Clause, as it stood, was not at all satisfactory, and I do not think that the Clause, as amended by the, Chancellor of the Exchequer, goes far enough in connection with the questions which are to be considered by the Commissioners. The words I propose to insert represent the custom in connection with the valuation of minerals, and, therefore, I think the Government ought to consider carefully whether they should not incorporate such provisions in a Clause dealing with valuation.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think all these considerations are really taken at the market value. I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the second "any" ["may allow for any sums which are proved"] to the word "for" ["or his predecessor in title for"], and to insert instead thereof the words "works executed or expenditure of a capital nature incurred bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the minerals."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. LUPTON: I consider this a most interesting Amendment. The effect of it, I think, will be to include not only expenditure by the lessor but expenditure by the lessee. In that case it is fair if the expenditure by the lessor is to be considered in this relation that the expenditure by the lessee should also be con-
  1360
  sidered in this relation, but I think if the total expenditure on other mines has been deducted there will be very little increment left.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): These words are really in the interests of the owners of royalties. The expenditure was confined to money which has been proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be spent on boring or other operations carried out by the owner or his predecessors in title. These words were too limited, and, therefore, we propose to leave them out, and insert words which would permit the Commissioners, in arriving at the valuation, to allow for "works executed or expenditure of a capital nature incurred bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the minerals."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "part of those sums" ["such part of those sums"], and to insert instead thereof the word "deduction."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners."
  This is a question of fact, and not one for the opinion of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General took me to task earlier in the evening for having given too much power to the Commissioners, but in this case their opinion is not needed.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We are now dealing with the case where part of the minerals is gotten and part remains ungotten, and though it is a question of fact in a sense, it is hardly such a question of fact as is as easy to determine as that two and two are four. It is not a matter that can be deducible with mathematical accuracy. We must have a mode of estimating it, and therefore we insert words enabling the Commissioners to deal with the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1), to leave out the word "ungotten," and to insert instead thereof the words "which have not been worked."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at end of Sub-section (1), to insert "(2) For the purposes of valuation under this Part of this Act all minerals shall be treated as a

  1361
  separate parcel of land, but where the minerals are not comprised in a mining lease or being worked, they shall be treated as having no value as minerals, unless the owner of the land in which they are comprised, in his return furnished to the Commissioners, specifies the nature of the minerals and his estimate of their capital value.
  "Minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be treated as a separate parcel of land, not only for the purposes of valuation, but also for the purpose of the assessment of duty under this Part of this Act."
  Mr. LAMBTON: The words "parcel of land" are here used, I think, for the first time. Minerals are to be treated as a parcel of land. How is the valuation to be made? Is it to be compulsory for all owners to return valuations for parcels of land, or is it to be done by a Government valuer? It seems a new proviso, and we should have some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member (Mr. Lambton) carries his memory back to the days long ago, when we were at Clause 12, he will remember that we cut out from Clause 12 the first part of this Amendment, and the other portion is taken from Clause 16, at the request of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy). We thought it better that all should come together. "Separate parcel of land," I think, is to make it perfectly clear on the register. The idea is you cannot get the increment unless in valuing the mineral rights you treat them as a separate entity for the purpose of valuation and for the purpose of comparison afterwards.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the evening that there would be no compulsion on owners of land to return the value. Is he sure that, as a matter of drafting, the Land Clauses which compel the owner to make a return under a severe penalty will not apply in the case under consideration?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What would happen in that case would be that the man would declare the value of his land. He would declare not merely the value of the surface, but everything down to the centre of the earth and right up to the clouds, it may be, now that we have aviation. A man has got to declare the whole value. If he makes no return, then it will be re-
  1362
  garded as having no value for the purpose of Increment Duty.
  Mr. HILLS: This matter is not so clear as is apparently thought. Take a case where you cannot value the minerals and the surface in separate parcels. Assume that the surface has upon it a valuable residence, and assume that the minerals cannot be worked without letting down that residence. How are you to value those two separate parcels? Do you take the value of the house first of all, as though the minerals were always there, as before the house was built upon the surface, and then do you take the separate value of the minerals as though you could let clown the house? If you do that the total value is far more than the joint land. I think that you cannot separate the surface and the minerals. The two are valued as one, and yet the value of the two halves is more than the value of the whole.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If a man values the land on the basis of the minerals which are required for support, it is perfectly obvious if you take the market value of those minerals that it is nil. If you require them for the support of a house or the protection of other parts of the working, by reason of having a pillar, it is perfectly obvious that the minerals in that pillar have no value at all, because if you wanted to sell them in the market they could not be worked owing to the necessity of leaving them, and therefore it is perfectly obvious there can be no valuation of them at all.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: This is really the only part of the Clause on which we have an opportunity of knowing what is the valuation of minerals. On reading the Clause it does seem as if the Government in the case of minerals had gone back from the principle they have adopted in connection with other parts of this Bill. Whereas with reference to land they have distinctly taken upon themselves the onus of valuation, they have in this Sub-section thrown back upon the owner of land the initiative in connection with the valuation of minerals. It was very strongly objected to in the case of land that the owners should have to take the first step and put down the value of their land, and do it within a certain limit of time. So far as the valuation of minerals is concerned you call upon the owner to make a return for the Commissioners, and by that means you compel him to take the initiative. You put every mineral owner throughout the country to the expense of immediately—

  1363
  for I observe that no date is mentioned, and therefore I presume it means immediately—of valuing their minerals and considering whether it is necessary to put any estimate on their capital value. The objection to this new Sub-section introduced by the Government is that they have gone back to the principle which they have adopted in other parts of the Bill, so far as minerals are concerned. Secondly, I have some difficulty in understanding what is the use of a valuation of all the mineral properties in the country which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been constantly alluding to, and how it is to take place. Is it to take place under Clause 16 as amended, in which it is provided that the Commissioners shall cause a valuation to be made of all the lands in the United Kingdom, showing their total value, because minerals are part of the land? Everybody understood in connection with Clause 16 that it only meant minerals in connection with the surface, and as one valuation. Is there to be a separate valuation of all the mineral properties in the country? It does not seem to me to be dealt with by any Clause in the Bill, and it certainly is not mentioned in this new Sub-section; so that we are in complete doubt how this valuation is to be carried out, when it is to be carried out, and by whom it is to be carried out. I would like to ask who is going to undertake it, and under what Clause of the Bill it is going to be undertaken.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I want to know what the return is which is to be furnished to the Commissioners and in what Clause of the Bill is to be found any definition of the return. It speaks vaguely of a return to the Commissioners, but we do not know what the return is, and what lapse of time there is to be before it is made. We really ought to have some explanation.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: This new Clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put landowners in very great difficulties. I am alluding to the cases where there are large undeveloped lands such as those on each side of the Midland coal seam, where you have hundreds of square miles under which the Royal Commission of 1895 declared that coal existed. Those landowners will not know whether the coal exists at all, but under this Clause they would have to adopt one of two courses. They will either have to say as a speculative thing what the price of the
  1364
  minerals may be, and if they value the minerals at a large sum they would be liable to be charged Death Duty, or they may adopt the other course, and say that they did not know whether there were any minerals or not. If they do that they will be caught for the Increment Duty. I am afraid this will affect a large number of owners in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. There are about 1,700 square miles in Lincolnshire, where, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, coal probably exists. I am afraid those gentlemen will be placed in a most critical position.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not think there is any difficulty. Either those mineral properties have a value or they have not. It is purely a question whether in the market you would get a higher value for the property because of the presence of minerals than if you were to sell it as agricultural land. That is thoroughly well known in the market where it is. I am quite sure in Lincolnshire you would not get very much. I doubt if you would get more for your land in Lincolnshire merely because there was a suspicion that there is coal somewhere between that and the centre of the earth. It is a question of market value. If you go anywhere near the coalfields in South Wales, you will know exactly whether the land is on the seam, and you will get a considerable sum over and above the agricultural value of the land. It may be possible to work the coal, and therefore it has an appreciable market value; and, as I am reminded, the minerals are reserved constantly, and if any of the owners had died the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would assess them upon the special value of the undeveloped. There is a very considerable addition from the farms which sell there. They are worth twice or three times the agricultural value, purely and simply because of the presence of the minerals underneath the surface. I do not think there is any real difficulty in those cases in estimating the value. The owner is so fortunate as to get a sum of two or three thousand pounds. I do not think it is very hard on him to pay this tax. I do not think there is any real hardship in that. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Lambton) asked as to the returns. He will find all the particulars in Clause 16, which gives the general sort of information we require. The hon. Member for Ashford seems to complain because the method of valuation is different. The

  1365
  reason is that by far the greater part of the land of the country has no minerals under it at all. It would be no use our making this valuation in parts of the country where there are no minerals; therefore, this method is much more applicable in this case. I do not think it is any hardship on the owner at all. All he has to do is to reveal the presence of minerals.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I hope when the right hon. Gentleman appoints his valuers he will send them round to the edge of coalfields at present being worked, and rope in all those gentlemen who are daily letting coal by reason of this Bill. This valuation ought to be made at once. The sooner the valuation is made on the edge of existing coalfields the more revenue will the right hon. Gentleman get.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: 30th April, 1909, is the dividing day.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman apparently has a different view from mine on this matter; but every mining engineer will confirm my statement that people have not paid Death Duties on coal except to an infinitesimal proportion of its value.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "include" ["include a reference"], and to insert instead thereof the words "be construed so far as respects the minerals as."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Small Houses and Properties in Owner's Occupation.)
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
  (1) Increment Value Duty shall not be charged on the increment value of any land, being the site of a dwelling-house, where immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected the house was, and had been for twelve months previously, used by the owner thereof as his residence, and the annual value of the house, as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, does not exceed—

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

  1366

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

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

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

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

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

  (4) Any Increment Value Duty which would, but for this section, be charged shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of the duty, be deemed to have been paid."
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Are we not to have an explanation of the Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have explained it several times already. I do not think there is a Clause to which I have referred oftener, but if there is any particular part which the Noble Lord does not understand I shall be glad to assist him.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I should like to have some explanation as to the principle on which the Government exempt pro-

  1367
  perties because they are small. Let us, for the take of argument, accept the view that the Government put forward of the investigation they have made into these different kinds of property. Having determined in their own mind to specially tax them, why do they make this exception? I think the right hon. Gentleman, in some of his earlier speeches, said that the tax was hardly worth collecting on small properties, or that the cost of collecting was beyond any gain to the Exchequer which might result from its imposition. But in respect of all these taxes the ratio between what the Exchequer gets and what it costs the Exchequer is not a matter that affects the Government. Therefore, that cannot be the real meaning of their action. I am most anxious to know what the real meaning is. I believe there are uninstructed persons in the country who say that in the one case—in the case of the owners of the larger plots—it is that they are rich, and that these others are poor. Of course that is not, as everybody knows, the real reason, and, indeed, we cannot get at the real reason, because a man may be the owner in law and a subject open to taxation—who will tome under taxation—but who has got practically no property at all. He may have mortgaged the property beyond its value. He may be worth nothing or less than nothing; nevertheless he has to pay the tax. I understand the Government have expressed their full views as regards valuation, partly in the Increment Tax and partly in the Death Duties. We are reduced for the ground of the taxation to the character of the property—whether the property a man is holding is £500 and under or £500 and over. Therefore if that be the sole ground on which the taxation is levied, I should very much like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he makes this special exception? I am pleased that anybody is exempted from the tax, which, it seems to me, is quite arbitrary in its character. Still, as a theorist in these subjects—one who takes an interest in the principles of taxation—I should very much like to know what is the theory, the principle, upon which the Government are putting on the tax and then making exemptions from it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is one of those concessions which have been clamoured for night after night, and have been made the burden of every song, but which the moment it is conceded is con-
  1368
  trary to every principle that was ever advanced and to every canon of taxation. I remember perfectly well the first few nights of the discussion in Committee of this Bill that we were always told, "Well, now is not the case of the poor small holder hard, that he should be worried in this way?" It was all very well for the large holder. There was no sympathy for him. He could afford it. He had agents, surveyors, architects, and they could always furnish valuations—in fact, they had them already. But what about the poor man? After hon. Gentlemen opposite had gone on this way for a fortnight or three weeks my hard heart was softened by the tearful entreaties of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, and I have given in to his supplications on the understanding that it was the poor, humble, little man he was thinking about. Having given way in a weak moment, I am told now I am trampling upon every canon of taxation. Verily they cannot have it both ways. Is it contrary to every canon of taxation, as the Leader of the Opposition said?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was asking—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is not. Take the House Duty. There you put a tax not upon persons, but upon houses, and although a small house is a house and a large house is a house, and although both are made of bricks and mortar, or stone and mortar, and are built upon land, still you draw a distinction between a house under £20 and a house over £20, and you draw a distinction when it is over £50 and over £100. That is really the principle of the taxation upon which we are proceeding here. It has its precedents, which you will find if you look at New Zealand and Australia, where you will find exemption of small holdings. Here we exempt the small holdings, and we have exempted the small men, and the right hon. Gentleman set the reasons out very fairly. They are, as he said, the enormous trouble, the great expenditure to the Exchequer, and in the vast majority of cases the sum collected would be very trivial. He tells we are acting on the hypothesis that £500,000 is the total sum we are going to get out of these Land Taxes. That is not the amount we are going to get out of these taxes. It is simply the beginning of great things. The right hon. Gentleman has prophesied that we should get something like £65,000,000 out of minerals alone. I never contemplated that, but I agree we are going to get a

  1369
  very considerable sum. The same thing will apply to increment, which is going to be a very fruitful source of revenue, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman himself will some day be proud to make use of the millions of money derived from these taxes. I have no doubt be will be very proud of these sources of revenue. The Undeveloped Land Duty, I agree, will be more or less stationary, and will not swell as the others will. But all we do here is to follow the precedents of the Colonies and that set by our predecessors in the case of the House Duty. I think on the whole we are following a very wise course.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the zeal with which he now defends arguments which he opposed so vigorously when this Bill was first introduced. It is so long since this Bill was introduced that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten its original form. These considerations are so obvious and govern his policy so much that I think he would have saved a great deal of time, and his own credit, as well as the credit of the Government, if he had in the first instance introduced the Bill in its present form. I think that in all the right hon. Gentleman has said it is clear that the real cause of these alterations in favour of the small owners, both of agricultural land and of houses, is due to the action of the Opposition in pointing out all these defects, and in pointing out all those hardships. If I have taken any small part in softening the heart of the right hon. Gentleman I am extremely glad, and I am pleased that these small owners have escaped. I do not think that the burden upon the large owners will be heavier in consequence of this exemption, and the only possible objection there can be to it is that when you impose a tax of this character upon a few people only the question of the justice of the tax will always be merged in its expediency, because you will get a few people paying the tax and a large number benefiting. The danger is that it will be gradually imposed upon a few people, and the temptation of the State will be to constantly exhaust this source of revenue, because it can be done at the expense of losing comparatively a few votes. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] There can be no doubt about that. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is considering new taxation or the increase of the old taxes, is bound to consider its political effect. ["No, no."] Does anyone suggest
  1370
  that that consideration would not be present in the mind of any Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is, therefore, obvious that a tax of this character, which may be largely increased or added to with comparatively little political danger to the party in power, is likely to be used not only to the detriment of the persons who pay the tax, but also to the detriment of the State which will be tempted to dry up this source of revenue in order to avoid a political difficulty. With regard to the concession to small owners I am glad that we have had a part in it. The change has been made not at the instance of the Government—although it has been so ably defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but it is due to the action of the Opposition.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has made one statement which, I think, ought to be corrected. He said that the Opposition presented a very strong case—and I was glad to hear him say so—on behalf of the small owners; and he alluded especially to the great burden of the valuation and the cost it would have been to owners of that description. It will still be a hardship, and will cause a great deal of justifiable discontent, because the burden has not been removed, and it will remain as strong as ever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to think that in this Clause he has freed the small owner from the grievance of the valuation, but that is not so. That valuation remains as part of the scheme, and every small owner will be valued under the same conditions except one, as when the Bill was introduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is to be a State valuation."] Yes, that is the one point. The returns will have to be made, and the inquisition will go on. I do not see that, as far as the valuation is concerned, the small owner is in any better position than he was when the Bill was introduced. You have, by freeing him and rendering him still liable to valuation, one of the greatest anomalies of the whole scheme of taxation you have presented.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not, for one moment, wish to oppose this Clause, because I am only too glad to see anybody exempted from what I regard as an unjust and unfair tax; and it seems to me obvious from the fact that the Government have found it necessary to exempt the small owner and those who have votes to express their disapproval that the tax is unjust and unfair. Why is it, however, a

  1371
  man who owns and cultivates a small plot of land is to be exempt, and not the man who owns and lets a small plot of land? The two people may be in exactly the same position as regards wealth or the absence of it. I cannot for the life of me see why the exemption should not apply to people who own a small plot of land and let it out. I do not understand the last Subsection, nor what the situation would be in a case where a small plot of land is sold by a small owner to a larger owner.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The cultivating small owner is in quite a different category, and that is the reason we want to exempt him. His case was presented, not merely by the party opposite, but also by hon. Members on this side of the House. The Noble Lord says it makes no difference at all now the small owner does not pay the tax or for valuation. That is a most extraordinary statement.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It does make a difference.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: There appears to be some difficulty about this valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer first of all told us that one of the great objections of this side of the House was that the tax would fall especially hard upon the small man, because he would have to make a valuation of his property. It was not so hard upon the large owner, because his agent or architect would make the valuation. I am bound to say that I took that line. It would naturally be more expensive to the small man, who would not have any expert adviser in his ordinary employ, to take up a valuation and satisfy the demand of the Government, than to the large owner. I understand the Government have now provided that the valuation is to be made by the State. The whole of that argument therefore falls to the ground. Like other speakers, I should be only too glad to be exempt from the Increment Duty. But if the tax is a right tax, why exempt one man and not another? Why do you not say plainly you wish to tax a man because he is a rich man; it should not matter whether a man has a large or a small estate. If you are introducing in this Land Tax the principle that you are taxing a man because he is rich, then why not propose at once a Super-tax upon the wealthy?
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I do not think we ought to allow to pass unchallenged the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
  1372
  chequer that the small man will be exempt from all trouble and cost of valuation. The State has the first shot, and I think it will be found that the beginning of the trouble will come when the valuation made comes to be discussed.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "for" ["for twelve months previously"], and to insert instead thereof the words "substantially during the."
  I have other Amendments prior to this down in my own name which I do not propose to move. The Amendment I wish to move provides that instead of the house being used by the owner "for twelve months previously," it shall, to obtain the exemption, be used "substantially during the twelve months." This is an exemption in favour of the small owner, and I think it would be a very great pity if, because a man entitled to the exemption under the Clause happened to have been away for a fortnight during the twelve months, he should lose his right to the exemption of this duty. What I wish to make clear is that if he has substantially during the twelve months occupied it, this must not be construed strictly, and that he must be in occupation for the whole twelve months without residing anywhere else. I think that is a reasonable suggestion, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like in this Clause to deprive any small-holder of the exemption which it gives because he happens to be away for a few days. Supposing he were a Member of Parliament and obliged to have been at Westminster for the last eight months almost without intermission, and supposing his house happened to be in Scotland or somewhere of that kind and he could not get home, it would be perfectly clear that he had not used the house "for" twelve months. I think that illustration as to Parliament ought to soften the hard heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think some limit is necessary in order to secure that there should be bonâ fide occupation or user, and, therefore, we must have some definite term. A definite term is not a vague term like "substantially during the twelve months." That would bring in what is the meaning of the word "substantially." You have twelve months prescribed, and that period may be too long or too short, or the right period, but

  1373
  I do ask the Committee to say that it is right that a definite period should be prescribed, and it would not be a wise thing to change a definite period for a vague period represented by the word "substantially." The hon. Member referred to the case of a man who is away—a Member of Parliament—who occupied or used a house Under £500 in value. He clearly would not lose the benefit of the exemption, if there is such a person, by reason of being away. He would still use or occupy the house.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "not" ["the exemption under this provision shall not apply"].
  The way I want this proviso to read is this:—
  "Provided that the exemption under this provision shall apply to any land occupied together with a dwelling-house the annual value of which, as adopted for Income Tax under Schedule A, exceeds thirty pounds."
  It is very important to put a clause of that kind in the affirmative, and to make the exception an affirmative exception.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This is really like the case of the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, only that in this particular case tweedledum is better than tweedledee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the following paragraph:—
  "(c) A house shall be deemed to be used by the owner, and agricultural land with a dwelling-house shall be deemed to be occupied by the owner, if such owner usually resides there, and notwithstanding that a part may be sublet, or that some trade, business, or profession is carried on there, or that the whole house has been sublet for not exceeding two months out of the twelve months."
  This new Clause contains a very valuable concession to small owners. It is intended to meet the case which was put to the Chancellor from this and other sides of the House, and which he promised to consider. But the benefits of this exemption from taxation are restricted to the strict wording of the Clause, and they are that in the case of a dwelling-house it must be absolutely occupied by the man
  1374
  himself, and in the case of agricultural land it must be occupied and cultivated by the man himself. The consequence is that if a tenant should sublet a part of the premises, even for a few weeks, so that they will cease to be in his own occupation, or if a fanner should let his house for a few weeks in the middle of the summer, he is deprived of the advantage of the exemption. It would be a very great pity if, because he should happen to let a small outhouse, or should happen to carry on on the premises, as is very customary in the rural districts, the business of butcher or some other trade, he did not come within the scope of this exemption. I submit that it would be hard if in each or any of the cases I have mentioned a man should be made liable to this tax. Take the case of two homesteads adjoining each other. One man has an outhouse and he sublets it, and the other man has no outhouse to let. Simply because of having let the outhouse, and the entire premises not being in his own occupation, one of the men would be cut out of the benefit of the Clause. In those circumstances I think I have made out a case for appealing to the Government to favourably consider, if not the exact words of this Amendment, something of the sort. My object is to include in the benefit of the Clause a considerable number of cases which I know of myself, and which would be shut out if the Government does not see its way to an Amendment in this or some other shape.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I agree entirely with the hon. Member that if even in the cases which he has quoted the owner of a small dwelling-house or of a small plot of land would be deprived of exemption it would be a hard case which ought to be met. But on further consideration he will agree with me that the subletting of part of a house or carrying on business in any part of the house, or the subletting of part of the land for portion of the twelve months would not take the case of the owner outside the exemption. The house would none the less be used as a residence of the owner of the house because he sublets portion of it. If the words suggested were accepted you would limit the period to two months, during which the subletting may take place, whereas as the Clause now stands, even if the owner in addition to subletting for, say, July and August, also sublet for, say, portion of June and September, he would still be entitled to exemption. If I thought that in any of the cases put to me or in any

  1375
  analogous case exemption would not be allowed, I would have words inserted to meet it, but I assure the hon. Member that the exemption would still apply in the cases he has mentioned.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The argument of the hon. Gentleman is not that he does not agree with my object, but that the words suggested would be so much surplusage because the whole of the cases referred to are provided for by the words of the Section. I do not agree with that view. I am afraid that the Clause will lead to the difficulties that I have described. If the Government wished to put the matter beyond all question they would adopt the words suggested, but as I have made my protest, if the Government do not see their way to do anything, I will not waste the time of the Committee by carrying the matter further.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE moved to insert after Clause 6 the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption for Agricultural Land.)
  Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to see this new Clause inserted in the Bill as far as agricultural land is concerned, but unless the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clavell Salter) is accepted, it is quite clear that agricultural land will not really be exempted from Increment Value Duty. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is to the effect that increment value shall not be charged on agricultural land "unless such land is situate within the boundary of a city, borough, or urban district, or within one mile of such boundary." I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: As far as I know that matter has been settled on Clause 2, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) moved an Amendment to exempt land which had only an agricultural value. I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) raises the same point.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: As regards the Reversion Duty, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to charge the duty in cases where land is very often leased for 14 or even 21 years.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On the point of Order. At the time my Amendment was moved to Clause 2 the principle on which Increment Value Duty was to be levied had not been settled. It was then under discussion, and it was subsequently, as far as I recollect, that this new Clause was promised to exempt agricultural land entirely. It has been repeated all over the country that agricultural land is to be entirely exempt from Increment Value Duty. That statement was made subsequently to the Amendment which I moved, and which was rejected. I think there was no doubt about the intention of the Government not to place this tax on agricultural land. Apparently, they thought they had done so, but it became evident that they had put a tax on agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then why is this new Clause proposed?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved to Clause 2 raised, I think, exactly the same point as the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and, if so, the matter is settled and cannot be reopened.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In answer to the question of the Noble Lord opposite, if he refers to Clause 8 of the Bill he will find that there is no Reversion Duty on leases of 14 and 21 years.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: That would cover twenty-one year leases of agricultural land?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I will say nothing now about the Amendment in my name, but I hope it may not be found out of order. This new Clause was eagerly anticipated by the agricultural community. I am not suggesting for a moment that there was any bargain or any promise as to the extent of the exemption which would be given to agriculture, but certainly there was the hope, and I think the expectation, that agriculture would be found to have been really and practically exempted from the burdens of these new taxes on land. We heard a very great deal about the mischiefs they would cause,

  1377
  but we were assured again and again that the Government had the most benevolent intentions towards agriculture, and had no desire whatever that agriculture should suffer in any way by reason of the burden of this new taxation. I look at this new Clause and it appears to me, from the point of view of agriculture, very, very disappointing. I express gratitude for such exemption as there is, but it appears to go but a very short way. In the first place, there is the exemption from Increment Duty, but there is no exemption from Reversion Duty. I think the Committee will agree, and we are pretty familiar with these matters now, that if agricultural value has any incremental value, any increased selling value, it certainly has an increased letting value. That follows. Now Reversion Duty is not omitted, and, therefore, the whole of the increment will have to be paid. Reversion Duty is the duty which is paid on the increment of values between the beginning and the end of the lease, and as agricultural land is let first to one tenant and then to another, if there is increment, and the desire of the Government was increment on agricultural land would not be taxed, every farthing will be paid for. It will be paid in the name of Reversion Duty, not under the name of Increment Duty.
  It appears to me it is on that ground a somewhat illusory concession, and that unless the increment can be franked, both in the case of leases as well as sales, it is very little to release us from Increment Value Duty unless from reversion as well. In regard to exemption from Increment Duty agricultural land is exempt in this way, that agricultural land is exempted, the owner of which can satisfy, as the onus is put on him to prove the negative, the authorities that that land has no element of value that is not purely agricultural. The words are "While that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes." I am addressing a great number of gentlemen who know far more about agricultural land than I do, but I am also speaking on very good advice, and it is my own knowledge also, when I say that there is in this country an enormous area of agricultural land, and I do not know a better illustration of the land I am speaking of than in my own Constituency and throughout the home counties. It is by no means confined to the home counties, and exists to an enormous extent all over England, everywhere in the neighbourhood of great towns, everywhere in favourite residential localities, an area which is being
  1378
  largely increased by the use of motor cars. I refer to those agricultural districts where all the land is, and is likely to remain, under processes of agriculture, and there is hardly an acre of which a competent and respectable surveyor could be induced to declare there was no contingency of building or accommodation value which added some fraction to the value of the land. That is an enormous and important area of the agricutural land of the country. It is occupied by, shall I say semi-esquires, residential people with fair or moderate means, often business people, who farm more or less for pleasure, less for profit than an ordinary farmer, who are good and generous employers, able to give, and often giving, better wages than the regular farmer can afford to do. It is exceedingly bad policy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to limit his exemption in this niggardly fashion, so as to exclude all this land which has a small fraction of non-agricultural value. It greatly takes away from the benefit of the concession.
  Besides including Reversion Duty in the concession, there are only two ways of giving a substantial exemption to agricultural land. One is the rough and ready, but, in my opinion, the only practical way, of drawing some dividing line, separating urban from rural land, and giving your benefit without limit or restriction to the rural districts. The other way is more precise, but much more intricate, namely, that of distinguishing agricultural from non-agricultural increment. That is a somewhat difficult thing to do, involving a great deal of trouble and expense, but it is the only accurate way in which you can do what the Government express their desire to do, namely, to exempt all agricultural land from this taxation. Let the Committee see what will happen under this Clause. Take purely agricultural land, worth, say, £30 an acre, or any sum you please. Suppose there is a purely agricultural increment of £10 an acre. As the Clause stands, there will be no duty on that. But suppose, owing to the opening of a railway station or some other cause, there attaches to the land a trifling fraction of non-agricultural value, there is just a contingency that it may be wanted for accommodation or building purposes, which adds, say, £2 an acre to its value. Under this Clause, not merely would that £2 non-agricultural increment pay duty, but the whole £12, of which £10 is purely agricultural incre-

  1379
  ment. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to deal with this matter, I venture to say, while expressing gratitude for the concession, such as it is, it is a very small and disappointing fulfilment of those large professions of goodwill towards agriculture of which we heard so much in the earlier portions of these Debates.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Although I have not taken any part in this Debate, really I cannot allow the expression of opinion on the Clause of the hon. Member to go by. So far as I understand the Clause I am bound to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has amply and fully redeemed his pledge. His pledge was to exempt entirely—and it was only after a long Debate we obtained that pledge—from the Increment Tax all land which had no value beyond its agricultural value. That was all that we asked. That is what we have got in the fullest possible way in this Clause. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to large districts in Great Britain which were increasing and spreading every day. He said, "Where land is acquiring a value outside and beyond its agricultural value, but was still used for agricultural purposes." I understood the purpose—the whole purpose—of these taxes is to reach those lands! If you are going to exempt them you might as well repeal the land taxes altogether. These are the lands which the Government specially desire to reach, and so far as I am concerned, and so far as my colleagues of the Irish Party are concerned, we see no objection to these taxes. On the contrary, we heartily support them.
  We are told by the hon. Gentleman that this land is not exempted from the Reversion Duty. Really, I do not see quite why it should be. The Reversion Duty is a very, very different matter from the Increment Tax. If a man lets his land on a long lease, and it falls in, and he comes in for a considerable advantage, or financial profit, it stands in a totally different position from the Increment Duty, because the tax in that case does not fall on the occupier of the land, but upon the man who has let it. I think, therefore, the Reversion Duty is entirely different in its effect upon agricultural land. The only other point made by the hon. Gentleman was that in certain cases where a small value over and above the agricultural value of the land was added to the land by the building of a railway station, the tax
  1380
  should not be levied. But you must have a building or a site value, because you must, after all, use the land for one purpose or another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and "No, no."] Certainly you cannot till it and build houses upon it. You must stand on one leg or another. I quite admit that is an arguable case, and that a good deal might be said for that view, but I think it is only fair and just to the Government to say they did not undertake to exempt land from Increment Duty which had a value over and above and apart from agriculture. Whether hon. Members above the Gangway are going to press for further concessions or not I feel bound, in honour, to say that as far as I can judge the Government have fully redeemed their pledge.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend. Not only have I redeemed my pledge, but I actually read the words out at the time I made my pledge. It is not a question of whether it was a general pledge and that words were put down afterwards. I went so far as to read the words, and not only was general satisfaction expressed by hon. Members opposite above the Gangway, but they took credit to themselves afterwards in the country for having won the concession. "We have secured exemption for agriculture," they declared. It was repeated on many platforms, and I am sure it is in the leaflets of the Budget Protest League. It exempted all agricultural land which has not a building value. I made it perfectly clear, in the course of the discussion, that there were two categories of agricultural land, namely, land which is building land, not land, which, as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Salter) said, had a fraction of building value, but land which has a greater value as building land than it has for agriculture. That land is totally different from agricultural land. We made it perfectly clear we were going to exempt agricultural land, but that we were going to tax land that had a special value owing to its proximity to a town. The words were read in the course of the Debate, and I do not think anyone has any cause of complaint. The very proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Member was debated for three or four hours before I put my Amendment, and the House rejected his proposal and accepted my words unanimously. That is my recollection. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) expressed his satisfaction at the time.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: So far as that goes I did, but I entered this caveat, that they did not entirely exempt, as far as I could see, agricultural value. We did accept the position the Committee created on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not say we agreed, but it was carried in Committee that land should not be exempted except it was being used for Agricultural purposes when it had a value above its agricultural value. The point which I reserved in my criticism was that land might have a very low value now, agriculturally, but that its agricultural value might increase later on, and that it might acquire a building value, and that then the agricultural value would be taxed as well as the building value. That is the point. It is now suggested that land may be taxed upon its additional agricultural value as well as on its additional building value. I do not understand that that point has been discussed.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be surprised if we examine these words rather carefully. It is important that these words should carry out what we believe to be the intention of the Government. I understand that the intention is that there should not be charged any increment value on land except it has some other value which separately has a greater value than its value for agricultural purposes. I do not think that these words mean that. The words are, "While that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." Take a piece of land worth £100 for agricultural purposes only. We will assume that the valuer says it is worth that amount. Supposing, in addition to its agricultural value, we surmise it has some prospective building value for a villa residence, and we estimate that value at another £50. The total value of that land is £150, and that is a higher value than it would be for agricultural purposes only. It seems to me that some other words are necessary to show that the prospective value must be higher than the agricultural value. If you lump these two amounts together you will be valuing a certain quantity of agricultural land, which, as far as I can gather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend should be dragged into this tax. It is clear that, although the Government claim that they have exempted agricultural land, there is still a great deal of agricultural land will come under this tax. There is the case of the land in the im-
  1382
  mediate neighbourhood of towns and outside villages and small market towns. The general land round that town has no particular building value, but some particular piece of that land might have a building value, and I am afraid it is that sort of land which will come under the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not mind commenting on the points I have raised I should be very grateful. I do not think the words put down carry out the intention of the Government.
  Mr. J. D. REES: I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how this proposal will affect the land in certain towns in my Constituency. The area of the town of Welshpool is some 20,000 acres, and it is situated at the junction of three railways. It would be described by anybody as agricultural land, and it is used for agricultural purposes only. It is conceivable that on account of railway accommodation and the proximity of a market town that some of the land might have a potential value other than the agricultural value. I do not think it has, and that is the point I want to clear up. Would that land have a higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only? It is, I think, an extremely difficult question to answer, but, as it is of some importance to us, I venture to put the case. The case of Newtown is similar. The borough includes a great deal of land other than that occupied by the town. I should not like to say all the land, because it is nominally urban, has a value other than for agricultural purposes only, but I am not sure some of it has not. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he happens to be acquainted with these towns, if he can, to throw some light upon this matter.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that his intention was not to tax agricultural recovery. It is obvious that there are large tracts all over the country with regard to which the question of agricultural recovery will arise. Will the value which arises under that agricultural recovery be vitiated and entirely extinguished in the building value? Will Increment Duty have to be paid upon the total value of the building land and of the agricultural recovery? Will the higher value at the end cover agricultural recovery as well as the new building land? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has distinctly told us he has no wish to tax agricultural recovery. I do not charge him with having broken his

  1383
  pledge, but we say these words do not absolutely cover the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope, even now, he will see if he can make the Clause a little clearer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There can certainly be no broken bargain, because I have refreshed my memory, and I find I read these very words in the Debate. If land is sold as building land I do not see you can claim the privilege and exemption accorded to purely agricultural land. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) would not be protected even by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter).
  Mr. REES: I want to be protected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If land is purely agricultural it will receive the treatment of agricultural land, but if it is building land it ought not to receive the special exemption accorded to agricultural land. The position of the Government is perfectly clear. We divide land into two categories: one agricultural land and the other building land. If the real value of the land is attributable to the fact that it is building land, it ought to be treated as building land.
  Mr. J. A. CLYDE: The intention of this Clause is to exclude altogether from the Increment Value Duty all land except what the right hon. Gentleman has described as building land. I have intervened in the discussion because so far as I can understand them these words will not exempt any agricultural land in this country whatever. I think I can make that good. Take the case of an ordinary agricultural farm, or any ordinary agricultural estate, and ask a valuer to value it for you. I doubt whether the return from its use for agricultural purposes will be the most important, or even the first object of his consideration. First he will decide upon the number of years' purchase—a few years ago that was put at 25 or 26 years. If that were the only thing the valuer were bound to take into consideration the words of the Clause might be quite sufficient. But I do not know of any agricultural land in this country the value of which would be based only on the agricultural rental multiplied by a certain number of years' purchase. There is no single agricultural district of which that would be true. I have never seen a valuation of an
  1384
  agricultural estate which did not take into consideration certain other elements. One element would certainly be its sporting value. I doubt if any hon. Member ever heard of a farm being valued without taking into consideration the partridges in the turnips, and the additional value accruing therefrom. I challenge any hon. Member to point to a piece of agricultural land, the value of which would be fixed by any valuer without any regard whatever to the sporting opportunities on it. I certainly do not know of any agricultural land valuer who would do such a thing. I am not saying that the amount is large; my point is that that element is present, and must be taken into consideration. I understand that the chief object of the right hon. Gentleman is to put the incidence of this tax on building land only, and I say that these words will not secure that. What are the words of the new Clause? They read:—
  "Increment value shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only."
  So many acres let at a rent of, let us say 15s. to 20s. an acre, there are altogether 500 acres, will there not be in the valuation of that something, it may only be £10 a year, in respect of the sporting value of the land? It is all very well to say "Tax it," we are not talking of taxing it, the question is not measured by the tax, the question is whether this Amendment takes ordinary agricultural land out of the incidence of this tax? I make no excuse at all why I raise this point, I am not under any illusion about it. I know perfectly well that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are going to get up on every platform in the country and commend these proposals to the country by saying that this is a tax with no incidence on agricultural land. So long as the exemption takes this form that will not be true in fact. There will not be a bit of agricultural land which has not got a higher price than its value for agricultural purposes. It has, in addition, its sporting value for what it may be worth. I pass from the mere sporting value, which I admit is a small thing, and I come to something else which is not a small thing. The fact is again that no agricultural estate known to hon. Gentlemen opposite is valued simply on so many years purchase of its agricultural rent. If that were so one would expect the purchase prices to be a great deal less than they are.

  1385
  In the case of almost all agricultural land in this country there are elements of value which almost always, I think I may say always, enter into the market price other than the mere value of the year's purchase of agricultural rent, and the result is that in a great many of our agricultural holdings in England and Scotland there are elements of value attributable to agricultural land which are not represented by agricultural rent. They are variously described. They are sometimes called amenities, and sometimes are attributable to the residential qualifications of the country. Is that elementary value to be treated as site value or as building land? If it is, then do not tell us that agricultural land is free from the incidence of this tax because the value of agricultural land is not arrived at in the market by taking 25 or 26 years' purchase of the agricultural rent. If it were land it would pass from hand to hand in this country at a very much cheaper price. There is always, or almost always, an element of value attributable to the rural attractions, or it may be the social attractions attaching to the ownership of land, or to the ownership of land in a particular place. You may say if you like that these ought to be taxed, but the moment you tax them this pretence that this tax is fair upon agricultural property disappears into thin air. These are my two grounds for saying that this class of exemption, which I have no doubt whatever is intended to limit the incidence of the tax to land that has a value for building purposes—these are my reasons for saying this exemption does nothing of the kind. You approach the exemption from the opposite end, so the exemption is to apply to land which has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only. You forget that agricultural land, although there is no building value, has a value for other purposes, and that value always, or almost always, enters into its entire capital value. Therefore, I have no doubt that this Clause, which is intended to limit the tax to building land, does nothing of the kind, and renders it impossible to assert that this tax does not apply to the general agricultural land of this country.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman advanced his proposition with such a portentous air that I thought there must have been something in it, but I think he has discovered a mare's-nest. His proposition is that if
  1386
  there is even a sovereign value over the agricultural value for partridges, pheasants, scenery, or amenities, there is no privilege at all. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have considered the words. Supposing the value for agricultural purposes is £100 and the sporting rights are worth, let us say, £20. The value for agricultural purposes is higher than the value for sporting rights.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I thought the words meant exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, and that that was the meaning intended. It was a clear misunderstanding. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the meaning is what he now says?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never thought there was the slightest doubt at all that I had made that absolutely clear. If the value for agricultural purposes is higher than the value for any other purpose it is not taxed. Supposing you sold the land for building purposes and got only £50 for it, and its value for agricultural purposes was £100, it would be exempt, because its value for agricultural purposes is higher than its value for any other purpose.
  Mr. CLYDE: I think it is a question about words. Take a piece of agricultural land of the value of £120, of which £20 is attributable to amenities. The words of the exemption are:—
  "Increment value shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that agricultural land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes."
  Its total value is £120, which is a higher value than its value for agricultural purposes. Surely there can be no difficulty in making the meaning perfectly plain. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a higher value than the value for agricultural purposes only must be a value that includes other things than agricultural value only.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the opportunity of making it clear that that is not the intention of the Government. Nor is it the interpretation we put on the words. Our interpretation is that unless land has a higher value for some other purpose than the value it has for agricultural purposes it is exempted altogether from Increment Value Duty. It is purely a question of the interpretation of the words, and if there is any doubt in the mind of a lawyer

  1387
  of the distinction of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clyde) that is enough to justify us in making the Clause even clearer, but, at any rate, I do not want any misunderstanding about this. I shall suppose two cases. Supposing the value for sporting purposes is £50, and the value for agricultural purposes is £100, that land is exempted, because the value for agricultural purposes is higher than that for sporting purposes. Take the case of building land. Supposing that the building value is £80, and the agricultural value is £100, it is still exempted, because its value for agriculture is higher than the building value. But, on the other hand, supposing that the building value is £150, and the value for an agricultural purpose is £100, it is outside the limit. I say also if its value for a sporting purpose is higher than that for an agricultural purpose, there is no reason why we should give special privileges to it as sporting land. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider what words are necessary to give clearer expression to that intention, I shall be willing to introduce any form of words to make the matter perfectly clear. We are agreed as to the substance, and the only question is in regard to the words.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: As showing the probable effect of this Clause I can give the right hon. Gentleman a case that happened to me. I had some land that was wanted for building purposes, and I could not let it for building purposes because it would have displaced small holders who had been there for a great many years. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand is that under this Clause, in putting an increment value on this agricultural land near small towns and villages, he is bound to drive out many small holders who are around these villages and towns. If you charge increment value on the land which is not built on, the landlord will raise the rent to make up an equal value, or else he has got to get somebody to build on that land. The effect will be to drive the small holder further out. He has to get his new place into the same high state of cultivation as his present place, and he is farther off from his market. Therefore, the Clause does tax agricultural land, and it will have the effect of driving out these small holders, who get more out of the land than people who hold a larger amount of land.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have several Amendments to this Clause on the Paper, but if I can ascertain the intention of the Government I may not move them. Supposing a farm building or some other agricultural building stands upon agricultural land, would that land be outside the benefit of this Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly not, if those buildings are used for exclusively agricultural purposes.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As long as they are used for exclusively agricultural purposes, their being on the land would not matter?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, as long as they are used for purely agricultural purposes.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On that understanding, it will not be necessary for me to move my Amendments to this Clause.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as to the meaning of the Clause itself, and that it will carry out their intention, I do not propose to move either of my Amendments.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

POLICE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

POLICE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Annual Contribution towards Expenses of Metropolitan Police.)
  In addition to the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for specified services of the Metropolitan Police, and as salaries under the Metropolitan. Police Act, 1899, there shall be paid in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of services rendered by the Metropolitan Police for Imperial and national purposes such sum as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This is a convenient opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentle-

  1389
  man the Home Secretary one or two questions on the Clause which raises matters affecting the interests of the ratepayers of London and their contribution to the Metropolitan Police Fund. When this Bill was read a second time the right hon. Gentleman said the occasion had arrived when the contribution made by the Exchequer to the Metropolitan Force must be reviewed. He told the House that at that time the matter was before the Treasury, and that he was unable to give any further particulars. I would respectfully ask him to tell the House whether he is now in a position to give any information as to the increase from the national funds in relief of the ratepayers of London. Anyone who looks into this question will see that there is an undue hardship upon the ratepayers, who have to pay for the protection not merely of London buildings, but buildings which are really national, besides which they contribute to the protection of the lives of foreign princes to our shores. Indeed, in addition to their ordinary duties, the Metropolitan Police admirably perform great national services. Some of those services are rendered outside the metropolitan area, and therefore become more national than if rendered within the Metropolis. Having regard to the increasing demands imposed upon them by the central authorities in London, I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to give the relief much sought and much expected by the large mass of the poorer ratepayers of London.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I am afraid I cannot add much to what I have already said. I hoped to have been able to put the sum in the Bill, but it was found necessary by the Treasury to go very fully into the subject. It is a subject of very considerable perplexity, the exact contribution which ought to be paid by the State in respect of general services rendered by the Metropolitan Police. An undertaking was given twenty years ago, and I can only say, as far as I am concerned, it seems to me clear that it is time there should be some increase in the Imperial contribution to the cost of the Metropolitan Police. The object of Clause I. is to provide the necessary sum which shall cover all those charges which the hon. Member referred to and which may be Imperial charges, and certainly ought to be borne by the State and not by the ratepayers of
  1390
  London. This is a large question, and it would be necessary to go into the details of the finances of the country which would occupy a very considerable time. I can assure him I shall do my best to see that justice is done to the ratepayers by an adequate increase.
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Pensions of Widows and Children of Constables Killed on Duty.)
  (1) At the end of paragraph (6) of Part II. of the First Schedule to the Police Act, 1890 (which relates to the pensions and allowances to widows and children of constables in England), the following proviso shall be added:—
  "Provided further that where a constable loses his life from the effects of an injury which is not accidental, the police authority shall increase the pension to the widow to a sum equal to one-third of the annual pay of the constable, and the allowance to each child to a sum equal to one-fifteenth of such pay, or, if there is no widow, to a sum not less than one-fifteenth nor more than two-fifteenths of such pay unless the aggregate of such pension and allowances would exceed two-thirds of such pay, in which case they shall be rateably reduced; the police authority may, however, refuse so to increase the pension to the widow on the ground of her misconduct or for other sufficient cause, but any such refusal shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State."
  (2) At the end of paragraph 5 of Part II. of the First Schedule to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890 (which relates to the pensions and allowances to widows and children of constables in Scotland) the following proviso shall be added:—
  "Provided further that where a constable loses his life from the effects of an injury which is not accidental, the police authority shall increase the pension to the widow to a sum equal to one-third of the annual pay of the constable, and the allowance to each child to a sum equal to one-fifteenth of such pay, or, if there is no widow, to a sum not less than one-fifteenth nor more than two-fifteenths of such pay, unless the aggregate of such pension and allowances would exceed two-thirds of such pay, in which case they shall be rateably reduced; the police authority may, however, refuse so to increase the pension to the widow on the ground of her mis-

  1391
  conduct or for other sufficient cause, but any such refusal shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary for Scotland."
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY Mr. CLAUDE HAY moved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "which is not accidental."
  This proposal is the outcome to the very sad death of a constable at Tottenham on the occasion of his murder there by alien anarchists. The right hon. Gentleman has brought this Clause into the Bill in pursuance of the wish he expressed of meeting adequately the circumstances of officers killed under such conditions while in performance of duty. Surely in a case like that the death is accidental. I am anxious that the words, "which is not accidental," should not in any way confine the powers either of the police authorities here or elsewhere of making full and adequate compensation to men who have suffered death under such circumstances. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, and do not know the meaning of those words. Possibly there are technical reasons why they should not be inserted, and the right hon. Gentleman may be able to show that my Amendment is unnecessary.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: In the case of constables permanently incapacitated by injury received on duty, but not killed, the law draws a distinction between injuries that are accidental and those that are non-accidental. If a constable meets with an accident in the ordinary course of his duty, which is not due to any action on his part, or to any special circumstances requiring special bravery, if incapacitated he gets a pension on a certain scale. If, however, the injury is non-accidental, that is, is occasioned by special bravery on the part of the constable, such as pursuing armed burglars, as in the case of the Tottenham murder, his pension is on a higher scale. The present proposal is to remove an anomaly. The distinction in the case of injury to which I have just referred does not apply if the constable is killed. Although he may be killed in circumstances of special gallantry, he does not get a higher pension than if he were killed by an ordinary accident. We propose to take power in the Bill to give a higher pension in such cases.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or for other sufficient cause."—[Mr. Claude Hay.]
  In Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or for other sufficient cause."—[Mr. W. H. Dickinson.]
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 ("Short Title") agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
  Mr. HAY: I would like to take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any information as to how he proposes to deal with matters which have not been discussed, and which I may mention very shortly. At present police officers, under various Acts, have possibly to contribute to a pension fund. Payment is at their discretion—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that has anything to do with the Motion I have put. The hon. Member is now inquiring upon something outside the scope of the Bill, and which does not arise on this Motion.
  Mr. HAY: May I submit that what I was going to say has reference to the Act—
  The CHAIRMAN: That specific question is outside the scope of this Bill. It cannot be moved as an Amendment to this Bill. Therefore that question does not arise.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Shall I have the opportunity of making a short statement on this point?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to have an irregular discussion. It is outside the scope of this Bill.
  Bill reported with Amendments; to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock a.m., Thurs day 5th September.

  Royal Marines (Clothing).
  Royal Marines (Clothing).
  Naval Strategy and Tactics.
  Naval Strategy and Tactics.
  Mercantile Marine (Employment of Asiatics).
  Mercantile Marine (Employment of Asiatics).
  Labour Exchanges Appointments.
  Labour Exchanges Appointments.
  Export Tariff on Mackerel.
  Export Tariff on Mackerel.
FINANCE BILL.
  MARKET GARDENERS' GLASS-HOUSES.
  MARKET GARDENERS' GLASS-HOUSES.
  Old Age Pensions (Poor Law Relief).
  Old Age Pensions (Poor Law Relief).
  Bombay Political Officers (Memorials).
  Bombay Political Officers (Memorials).
  Indian Army Officers (Interpreters).
  Indian Army Officers (Interpreters).
  Postal Clothing Contracts (Scotland).
  Postal Clothing Contracts (Scotland).
  Classification of Postal Employés.
  Classification of Postal Employés.
  Census Returns Destroyed.
  Census Returns Destroyed.
  Untenanted Lands, Beaufort, Limerick.
  Untenanted Lands, Beaufort, Limerick.
  Civil Bill Appeal Cases (Belfast).
  Civil Bill Appeal Cases (Belfast).
  Preventive Detention of Prisoners.
  Preventive Detention of Prisoners.
  Education Return (Colleges).
  Education Return (Colleges).
  Elementary Teachers (Superannuation).
  Elementary Teachers (Superannuation).
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Report from, with an appendix made, and to be printed. (No. 184.)
LUNE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COLINTON TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order) and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HANDLOOM WEAVING BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.
NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
TELEGRAPH (ARBITRATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Debate on the Amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2a, viz., That the Bill be read 2a this day three months, resumed (according to order).
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, those of us who speak from this side of the House in this debate are, I think, in a position of some inconvenience, if not of some difficulty. So far, we have only had one official speech from the Bench opposite—namely, the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and that speech was necessarily in the main expository in character. I noticed that during the hour and a-quarter over which that speech extended, the noble Earl devoted as much as three-quarters of an hour to an explanation of the finance of this measure. But I understand that that is a part of the Bill upon which it is difficult, if not impossible, for us in this House to make any impression. In the remaining half hour of his speech the noble Earl skated over the surface of the remainder of the Bill, avoiding the dangerous currents and the deep pools with a dexterity with which we are now perfectly familiar in this House, but which, if I may say so, although it may have enabled him to escape immersion, left us admiring but quite unconvinced. Since then no official speaker from the other side of the House has made any attempt to reply to our questions or to answer our arguments. In these circumstances speakers like myself cannot, I think, be blamed if there is a certain inevitable reiteration in our arguments, and if we press again and again the points to which no reply has has yet been vouchsafed. Hitherto, with one exception, no speaker who has not been connected with Ireland, either by birth or residence or official position, has taken part in this debate, but I hope it will not therefore be regarded as an impertinence on the part of an Englishman like myself to venture to intrude upon this discussion.
This Bill is as much an English interest as it is an Irish interest, and from a certain point of view it is even more so. In the last resort it is the credit of the British taxpayer that is involved in the vast transactions contemplated in this measure. As far as I can make out, the direct obligation imposed upon the British taxpayer by this Bill will amount to over twenty-five millions sterling instead of the bonus of twelve

483
millions that figured in Mr. Wyndham's Act. In addition to that the taxpayer here has to bear the costs of the flotation of the future stock, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland has told us that he will be mulcted to the tune of fifty thousand pounds in every million of stock that is raised. That is, I understand, the direct contribution of the British taxpayer to the settlement of this question. But then beyond that, and much greater than that, is his ultimate responsibility for the whole sum that is to be raised.
Now, your Lordships know perfectly well what the figures are. Twenty-eight millions sterling have already been found and provided for this purpose. Fifty-six millions are now due in respect of arrangements that have been concluded, but owing to the want of money, have not as yet been carried out, and we are told by the Government that ninety-nine millions further are required. Now the whole of this vast sum, amounting to over one hundred and eighty millions sterling, and likely to swell, in the opinion of the most competent authorities, to over two hundred millions, is raised upon the basis of British credit. Irish credit alone would, of course, be insufficient to bear the burden. I do not, of course, fail to see that the combined interest of the landlord and the tenant in Ireland are more than sufficient to cover the advances that would be made under this Bill. That is quite true, but the only ultimate security that the taxpayer in this country will possess will be the economic soundness of the experiment you are going to set up in Ireland, and the character, the industry, the thrift, and the capabilities of the peasant population whom you are about to encourage and to institute. I therefore venture to say that this is a matter of vital moment to your Lordships' House, and it is for you as the custodians in this matter of the interests of the British taxpayer most closely and carefully to scrutinise the proposals under this Bill.
I am certain that, if the British taxpayer realises the immensity of the stake at issue, he will be the last to complain of your Lordships' House for any attention, however minute and however close, that you may give to the consideration of this Bill. I think these considerations are all the more important because in the Report of the Dudley Commission very little attention is paid to the interests of the British tax-
484
payer, and in the debates I have read in another place not much seems to have been said about him. Indeed the greater part of this measure was never discussed in the House of Commons at all. It therefore seems to me scarcely possible to imagine a case in which the necessity for the action of a Second Chamber is better established than in this. If this Bill were to pass into law in its present form, this country would really have been committed almost without its knowledge—because I am told that nobody reads the debates in the House of Commons now, whatever may be the case with your Lordships' House—to a revolution in the agrarian system of Ireland as great as any revolution that may be expected from the Finance Bill that we are shortly to discuss in this House, with results upon the future economy of Ireland as disastrous and as profound.
There is a further reason I venture to suggest why you should look carefully into this matter, and why even an Englishman from the outside may venture to speak upon it. Depend upon it the principles that underlie this Bill, though they may be for the moment confined to Ireland, will not be long before they permeate into this country. Compulsory purchase in the interests of a poor and meritorious class of people; the erection of a powerful and irresponsible tribunal swayed by the currents of public opinion in the localities concerned, and provided by His Majesty's Government with large funds—an almost inevitable instrument of bribery—for forcibly acquiring land at arbitrary prices which bear no relation to the market value of the day—these are doctrines which will find, nay, which I think have already found, eager and willing disciples in this country. I remember a saying—I think it was one of Mr. Disraeli's—that St. George's Channel had been through all the centuries the greatest barrier that had separated the hearts and sentiments of the Irish people from our own. That may be the case, but it will be no barrier to the transmission of these doctrines and these principles from Ireland to England. The principles of this Bill are distinctly and directly Socialistic, and at the very moment that we are asked in this House to contemplate a scheme of finance which is in many quarters credited with those features, we are asked to pass into law and to sanction in Ireland an agrarian revolution which is on precisely analogous lines. I hold, therefore, that on

485
the principle Proximus ardet Ucalegon we, as the possible, nay, even the probable next victims of the experiment, are entitled to look most closely into the first instalment of it which is presented for our notice over the way.
To any one who has watched even from the outside the progress of Irish land legislation during the past quarter of a century, it must, I think, be a somewhat disappointing and even melancholy reflection that this is the latest phase to which we are now brought. Almost my first political recollections were connected with the question of land tenure in Ireland. When I entered Parliament the Statutes which were associated with the name of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, who did so much for the system of land purchase in that country, were in course of being enacted. I remember very well the Land Bills of Mr. Arthur Balfour in 1891, and of Mr. Gerald Balfour in 1896. I recall the long and sometimes acrimonious debates that took place in the House of Commons on those Bills. Those measures attained a certain and a moderate amount of success, but they did not attain a complete success, because they failed at the crucial point of offering an inducement to the landlord to sell. Then in 1903 my right hon. friend Mr. George Wyndham, at a hopeful, and, I think I may say, even a dramatic moment, appeared on the scene with his eirenicon. I notice that the occasion was one that has tempted almost every speaker who referred to it to drop into metaphor and almost into poetry. It is true that everyone felt that the clouds that had settled over this question so long were being lifted, and that the dawn of a new and a better era was in view. I remember a phrase used by Mr. John Redmond, the Leader of the Irish Party in the House of Commons, to the effect that this Bill was "bringing to an end the struggle of centuries." And again Mr. William O'Brien said that this was "a great treaty of peace" between the contending parties in Ireland. Well, the Bill passed into law, and I hope I may say this, that nothing that has since passed has in any way detracted from the statesmanship of the author of that Bill, or of the Party that supported him in carrying it into law, or has snatched one single laurel from the brow of my right hon. friend. On the contrary, whatever be the fate of that Act, if it be modified or wiped out, it will always stand out as a landmark in the history, not merely of the Statesman and the Party that origin-
486
ated it, but in the whole history of land tenure in Ireland. It is a commonplace that the Act was a successful measure. It succeeded because it embodied a recognition of the simple truth that in order to make land purchase successful in Ireland you must make it to the interest of the owner to sell, and to the interest of the would-be owner to buy, and because the transaction between the two parties was absolutely voluntary in character, unattended by any element of partisanship or tyranny or injustice. It was almost, according to my recollection, a solitary instance of legislation by agreement between parties ordinarily widely opposed.
I confess, if I may digress for one moment, that I have never been able to understand why that method should not be more commonly applied to the solution of our political difficulties. I am a great believer myself, especially from such administrative experience as I may have had, in round table conferences, and in getting the legs of a body of men differing on questions of principle accommodated under the same mahogany. I never can believe certain questions in our public life that they are ever likely to be satisfactorily solved unless we approach them by some such method. I speak of such questions as education, the liquor question, the extension of the suffrage, and the redistribution of seats, and I would like to add, although I am afraid it is a very Utopian suggestion, the land question both in Ireland and in England. However, I know very well that this is not merely a digression, but that the sentiments I express are Quixotic and probably impracticable. But anyhow, in the case of this measure, there was the fact of achieved agreement between the two parties, and so successful was the Act that it only broke down because of its success. The vendor was there, the purchaser was there, the transaction between them had been concluded, and all that was wanting was the money to finance the transaction to its concluding stages.
Now this brief retrospect brings me to my point. Surely, when this stage was reached, it should have been quite possible for a Government, deriving guidance from the immediately previous history of the case, to offer some solution that would have carried on this continuity of agreement between the two parties. All that was required

487
apparently was a measure which in the first place would have provided, if not permanently, at any rate temporarily, the large sum of money that was required to carry out the financial operations already entered into. It would have relieved the Irish taxpayer of the cost of flotation, which everybody agrees was never meant to be placed upon his shoulders. It would have given wider powers, if they were required—though about this there seems to be some doubt—to the Congested Districts Board, and it would have prevented the overlapping of functions between that Board and other bodies in Ireland to which reference has more than once been made in this debate Such a Bill, which might have been of modest dimensions, would, I believe, have been received without opposition—I cannot speak for the other House of Parliament, but at any rate in the House of Lords—and you might have proceeded smoothly and amicably upon your way. Why has the Government not done so? We know the reason perfectly well. It is because such a policy would not have suited the exigencies of the Irish Party. It is not to their interest that the question of land purchase should be settled rapidly and successfully on the lines which I have indicated. Last night I more than once heard these gentlemen spoken of as the supporters of His Majesty's Government. Surely that is a strange inversion of phrase. His Majesty's Government are the supporters of the Irish Party. It is, as I understand, in obedience to the commands of the Irish Party that such a solution has been vetoed, and the whole question of the land system in Ireland is now to be reopened. Thus we arrive at the point that all the best features of Mr. Wyndham's Act of 1903 are in reality to be swept away. I lay stress upon that point because surely it represents the facts.
I listened last night with respect, and also with some astonishment, to that part of the speech of the noble Earl in which he defended the introduction of this new scheme. He represented it as a sort of harmless and innocent expansion of the existing law; as if he was a friend of Mr. Wyndham's scheme merely carrying it to its legitimate issues, as if he were a person who was placing, so to speak, a new thatch upon a house into which in the process of time the rains had succeeded in forcing their way. Surely these are not the facts of the case. As I understand it the Bill is as follows.
488
The bonus in Mr. Wyndham's Act has been whittled down substantially even if it has not disappeared; payments in stock have taken the place for the most part of cash; the zones are broken and many people think they are destroyed, and voluntary purchase has been absolutely destroyed. I thought I had here, but I am afraid I have left it behind, a speech from which I had meant to have quoted, by one of the highest of authorities on this matter—namely, Mr. William O'Brien. In a debate in the House of Commons which took place in December of last year on the First Reading of this Bill, Mr. O'Brien made a speech in which the phrase occurred that this Bill, so far from being any amplification or expansion of the Act of 1903, would be its absolute destruction and would blow it skyhigh into the air. I accept those words, and count myself safe in sheltering behind such an authority. Those are, as I understand, the destructive and negative features of this scheme, which practically wipes the Act of 1903 out of existence.
But now I turn to what is, after all, the immediate purpose, and the more important, namely, the positive and constructive, features of the new scheme. In the first place, reverting to the point that I took up in my opening remarks, you are about to place a new and onerous burden on the British taxpayer. Then you are invited to reopen the whole land question in Ireland, and you are invited to do this in response to an agitation of a most unscrupulous and immoral description, thereby placing a direct premium upon violence and disorder and crime. I might give many proofs of this, but I carry in my mind a resolution which was passed at a certain meeting of the United Irish League in which this Bill was acclaimed as "a triumph for cattle-driving in Ireland." Then in pursuit of your policy, you are attacking and breaking into the one branch of agrarian industry in Ireland—the cattle ranches—which seems in certain parts of the country to be best suited to the climate and to the needs of the people and which has been prosperous and successful in recent years. In place of that system you are going to set up a new system of small holdings of very doubtful economic value, the applicants for which are to indulge in a sort of headlong scrimmage, the lucky ones in the scrimmage being, as far as I can understand, destitute of any agricultural knowledge in many cases, and probably in a good many cases persons

489
of very undesirable character. You are asked to abolish the one body which has hitherto covered itself with credit and obtained popular support and esteem in the management of property and sale of land; and finally you propose an expropriation of the rights of owners of the soil such as I venture to say has never been embodied in any legislation of any Parliament in any civilised country in the world. You say to every landlord—and surely this is not an exaggeration—that he is no longer to be regarded as the owner of the fee simple of his land, but that he is a mere tenant-at-will who may be turned out at any moment, either, in the case of a congested district area by the Congested Districts Board, or in the case of the rest of Ireland, by an official sitting at Dublin.
Talk about evicted tenants. You are taking steps to scatter broadcast over Ireland in the future evicted landlords. Perhaps, however, if my language should be thought to savour of exaggeration, I may put the thing a little more clearly by asking you to note the exact character of the proceedings which, as I understand from the Bill, are to take place. It appears to be as follows. The whole of Ireland is to be divided into three parts. One part is to be handed over to the Congested Districts Board; the remaining two-thirds are to be the free playground of the new Estates Commissioners. Those, I think, are the proportions, and you give these bodies over these areas almost unlimited power of compulsory purchase over all estates and untenanted property. Now I come to the way in which it will proceed. Here I am well aware that I am putting a point that has already been submitted by more than one speaker on this side, but speeches of yesterday are apt to be ignored to-day, and I want to get from His Majesty's Government, if possible, an answer to the question whether the procedure I am about to describe is really the procedure meant to be carried out. It will be in the power of somebody, which means anybody, to make a proposal, or to enter into negotiations—those are the terms of the Bill—with the landlord for the acquisition of his property. Those proposals and those negotiations may be malicious or factitious or illusory, as the case may be. However, we will suppose that they have taken place. The landlord declines the offer, and says he does not want to sell. This fact is then reported to, or somehow or other comes to the notice of, the Estates Commissioners.
490
They then write to the landlord and send him what the Bill with cruel irony describes as their "final offer." I should have thought at this stage we ought to have had the first or preliminary offer. In fact, I doubt whether the word "final" should be in at all. However, they send this final offer to the landlord in writing, and along with this extraordinary document they send the amount of the price which they are willing to give. As far as I can ascertain from the Bill, that price need bear no relation to the value of the property in the neighbourhood, and certainly no relation to the value put on the property by the owner. Among the factors which they are to consider is the price which the tenant or other purchaser—the interested party, the grabber—may be willing to give. Well, if the landlord, confronted with this final offer, gives way, he is shorn at once of his property. If he declines to accept it, the matter is referred to Dublin or somewhere else, and after a short interval he is equally shorn. I would ask, Is it conceivable, is it credible, that a method of expropriation of rights in land of that description, can seriously be proposed by any responsible Government, or that they can honestly contemplate that it could be included in any measure likely to be passed by any responsible Legislature in Europe? I hope if I have put the case too strongly, I may be pardoned. I have put it strongly because I feel strongly, and with the hope of eliciting some expression of opinion from His Majesty's Government.
May I say a word or two further about the case for compulsion? Our attitude on this side of the House is this. What is the case for compulsion? I have been searching for it not merely in the few hours that we have devoted to this discussion, but for weeks past, while I have been studying this question. The first place I went to was the Report of the Dudley Commission. What are the cases in which they recommend compulsion? They talk of one unreasonable person who might block the symmetry of a scheme of resettlement. Their eye is fixed upon an individual—a unit. Then I went to the speeches of the Chief Secretary. He talked about compulsion being required, on one occasion he said in particular cases, and on another occasion he said in rare cases. Again we have not got to double figures. Last night the noble Earl the Leader of the House relapsed into the single figure, and talked about a cantankerous landlord. I do not know if he referred to the cantan-

491
kerous landlord as an individual, or spoke about him as typical of a class, but in any case are we not entitled to ask, "Where are these cases? May we not have particulars of them? "And then if they do exist and can be established, are we to believe, because one unrighteous man or five or ten unrighteous men exist, that therefore the whole city, which in this case is the whole country, is to be condemned? And are we really, in order to overcome the obstinacy or recalcitrancy of an individual, or even a small group of individuals, to revolutionise the whole system of land tenure in Ireland?
Another point made by the noble Earl was this. He said that compulsion might be necessary in cases where land was actually required for the relief of congestion which could not be relieved in any other way. That case, if it could be established, stands in an entirely different category. If he were able to prove the existence of such cases, the causes for relief being obvious and genuine, the difficulties and impossibility of relief in any other way being established, he would present a bona fide case for the sympathetic consideration of noble Lords in this House. But suppose he were able to prove such cases, surely these are not sufficient justification for the setting up of a great and elaborate machinery, an enormous instrument of intimidation not applied to congested areas alone, not limited, to these cases to which I referred, but as far as I can see extending its tentacles over the whole surface of Ireland. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, if I may say so, really let the cat out of the bag when he used the phrase to which the noble Marquess behind me alluded—"the weapon in the background." That is the real explanation of the whole matter. If the would-be purchaser cannot get the terms which he wants, he will enter into the transaction with the consciousness that behind him lies the power of compulsion; and similarly the landlord approaches the negotiations on the other side with the same consciousness, and with fear in his mind. Thus you arrive at this position, that the landlord enters the arena with both hands up, while the tenant enters it with one hand behind his back, and in that hand is concealed the bludgeon of compulsion. I hardly think His Majesty's Government can contemplate that these provisions will pass into law.
I should have thought here again that it would have been possible for them to
492
present to Parliament a carefully thought-out proposal, defining the cases in which compulsion might be required, stating, and in all probability strictly limiting, the areas to which it might be applied, defining again the objects for which it was to be enforced, and, above all things, giving the right of appeal to a High Court Judge or to the Court of Appeal. I should have thought that was possible, and if they had done so your Lordships' House would again have been willing to discuss and to consider the matter. But no such provision appears in the Bill, and in its present form I think compulsion is a matter which will receive the approval of but few members of your Lordships' House.
Now may I turn for a few moments to the question of the Congested Districts Board as illustrating the methods of the Government? I listened last night to many encomiums of the old Congested Districts Board, and the reasons of the success and the popularity of that body are obvious. It was a non-elective body. That is, it was not swayed by those influences that are apt to get the better of men who have constituencies behind them. It was although largely official, a non-departmental body, and it was unaffected by party prejudices and feelings. It had great official experience, and was strong enough to resist any kind of pressure brought to bear upon it, and to give an impartial hearing and a just verdict. This body has enjoyed, as we know, very considerable powers. It possessed an income which was increased by steady increments to £86,000 a year. It possessed very great powers for the purchase and resettlement of land, and for the promotion of Irish industries and agriculture in general. It had under its control 400 electoral divisions in different parts of the country, and it is a matter of common agreement that it played a valuable and a substantial part in the pacification and economic improvement of Ireland. If one wanted proof of that, one might quote even the Chief Secretary himself. I have a passage from a speech he made in the other House on the Irish Councils Bill in 1907, in which he spoke of the Board as—
"probably one of the most useful and one of the most popular bodies in Ireland."
Nevertheless it is admitted that certain criticisms were made, and legitimately made, upon the operations of this body.

493
There was what the Dudley Commission described as the duality of administration and the overlapping of functions between it and the Department of Agriculture. There was a sort of mild rivalry that seems to have grown up between this Board and the Land Commission in those parts of Ireland over which both of them enjoyed certain powers of purchase, and it may well have been that a certain rearrangement of areas, a certain redistribution of powers, possibly an amendment in its constitution may have been called for. Well, my Lords, this surely would not have been a very difficult matter. I should have imagined that the principles of readjustment and reconstitution might have been easily embodied in a Bill which would have received the favourable consideration of both Houses of Parliament. But His Majesty's Government would have nothing of the sort. In their passion to destroy, in their deadly partiality for the clean slate, they must wipe out the old Board altogether and set up an entirely new organisation in its place.
I would like, if I may, to endeavour to bring home to you the real character of this new organisation which, it is proposed to create. In the first place, it is to be very large, and, I think, unwieldy in numbers, and as we all know the efficiency of these bodies is, as a rule, in inverse ratio to their numerical strength. It will be a body without traditions, possessing little or no training, with little experience in the matters with which the members will be called upon to deal. It is going to be invested with tremendous judicial and executive powers. It will have the distribution of an enormous patronage; it will have the ultimate control of something like forty or fifty millions belonging to the taxpayers in this country; it will distribute from year to year an income of a quarter of a million sterling; it is to have one-third of Ireland, much of which is not congested at all, as the theatre of its operations; it is to be free from Parliamentary control, and as far as I can judge free from any control whatsoever. And this body so composed is to be allowed to expropriate those owners of land in those portions of Ireland to which its authority applies; and in order to make quite sure that this body shall not do the work which is required of it, but shall, on the contrary, reproduce and stereotype the worst features of agrarian strife in Ireland, you go and place in the ascendancy upon it representatives of the
494
very class who hope they will benefit by the operation of its powers, and who in most cases are the agents of the United Irish League.
Last night the noble Earl the Leader of the House gave us a defence of this portion of the scheme, and it was, if he will allow me to say so, even more surprising than some other portions of his speech to which I have referred. He said that this new Board was intended to create a modus vivendi, and to reconcile the existing conflict between the congests and the landless men. In other words, they were to be a body of umpires who were to hold the scales even between these contending parties. How is it possible for them to perform this function? Remember, these nine gentlemen are to be returned by the county councils of the congested districts. What is the position? I have obtained the figures of the county councillors in the congested districts in the nine counties to be placed under the Board. They are as follow: Donegal, Nationalists, 28; Unionists, 4; Clare, Nationalists, 29; Unionists, 0; Kerry, Nationalists, 30; Unionists, 0; Cork, of which four rural areas are to be declared congested, Nationalists, 49; Unionists, 0; Sligo, Nationalists, 26; Unionists, 0; Leitrim, Nationalists, 23; Unionists, 1; Roscommon, Nationalists, 29; Unionists, 0; Mayo, Nationalists, 33; Unionists, 0; Galway, Nationalists, 31; Unionists, 1. In other words, the approximate total in the county councils in these areas over which these enormous powers are to exist shows Nationalists, 278; and Unionists, 6. Now these gentlemen who are returned as Nationalists are, as everybody knows, members or supporters of the United Irish League, and as such they support the policy of the League. Now what is the policy of the League with regard to this matter? I could quote scores of passages in which the views of the United Irish League about congests and landless men have been stated in the most uncompromising terms. In this and in the other House of Parliament the congests are presented to us as a body, as they are, of innocent and meritorious persons who, by reason of their poverty, ought to be given some better proportion of parts of the soil in Ireland. But if you go to the meetings of the United Irish League they are described as outsiders, aliens, planters, land-grabbers, who are deserving of no sympathy

495
and will receive no mercy at their hands. Therefore the whole efforts of the United Irish League and the county councils whom they return, and of the representative members of the new Board who will be returned by the county councils, will be directed to the settlement of this question in the direction of deciding against the congests and in favour of the landless men. How is it possible under these circumstances to describe these persons as umpires who are capable of holding the scales even? If they are umpires at all, they will be like the umpires we are familiar with at local village cricket matches who always give their own side "in." I need not labour this part of the scheme, because it has been absolutely pulverised in his Minute of Dissent by Lord MacDonnell, who sits opposite. I believe the noble Lord is going to follow me in the debate, and I hope that he will repeat for the benefit of your Lordships the opinions which he has there expressed upon this subject. I will only say that in handling the Bill I do hope that this new Board, with its enormous powers and its great capacity for danger, will disappear altogether from the measure.
In the remarks that I have made on this Bill I have not dealt with the details, because I am not competent to deal with any of the more minute features of the measure requiring local knowledge, of which I am destitute. I have only ventured to call attention to one or two outstanding features of the measure which I hope your Lordships will alter with no trembling or uncertain hand. I altogether dispute the proposition that either the Peers in this House from Ireland, or the Peers on this side who represent England, are partisans in this matter. We are all of us just as anxious for the settlement of land purchase in Ireland; indeed, I think the Irish Peers must be more so than any Members of your Lordships' House. We are as much interested in the relief of congestion and in measures for settling upon the land the poor and miserable class to whom reference has been so often made. It is to the interest of every Irish Peer and also of every English Peer to see grow up in Ireland a strong, solid, solvent peasant proprietary in the future. Neither we nor those on the opposite side of the House make any claim to a monopoly of sympathy or patriotism or even of self-interest in the matter. We are all equally concerned in arriving at a successful, and, if possible, an amicable
496
issue. But there is one plea by which I hope your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be influenced. I refer to the threats, of which we hear so much, of what will happen if this Bill is not passed by your Lordships in its present form.
We have been openly told by Mr. Dillon, who is the real de facto leader in these matters, that if this Bill is seriously modified he will "cry 'havoc' and let slip the dogs of war." I have no doubt that in his hands those animals are under excellent discipline, and that they will obey, as they have done before, the orders of their keeper. But I hope you will not be in the least bit disturbed or diverted by these threats, but that you will go calmly on your way with the consideration of this Bill. After all, the real issue at stake is not the transient experiences of the forthcoming winter but the future through a long vista of years. If this Bill, by prudent compromise and by careful revision in this House, can be shaped into a suitable measure, I am sure your Lordships on this side will be only too anxious to do it. If you fail in your efforts, or if your propositions are treated with contumely in another place, and if in consequence of anything that you may do His Majesty's Government should decide to drop this measure, then I venture to say the responsibility will be not yours but theirs.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I came down to the House this evening in great expectation that I should hear from the noble Lord some information, and receive some guidance, as to how this complex matter should be dealt with. I am no stranger to the noble Lord's remarkable power of unravelling the most tangled skeins of revenue procedures and of rent laws; and I am a witness of the ardent desire which has always animated him to hold the scales of justice evenly between the owners of the soil and the toiling millions who cultivate it. But as the noble Lord's speech proceeded my hopes were clouded; phrases and allusions fell from his fluent lips which will leave their sting in Ireland. Nothing that he says gives any due as to how this impasse into which we have been led can be dealt with. A feeling oppresses me that although Ireland has the honour of counting him among her Peers, he has in no way entered into the feelings of those to whom a speedy ending of the land war in Ireland is almost a matter of life and

497
death. With great regret I say that I find in the noble Lord's speech no foundation upon which to build my own arguments.
It is also with great regret that I find, myself on this occasion differing from my noble friend Lord Dunraven. For several years now I have had the great good fortune of being admitted to my noble friend's confidence and of discussing with him the various phases of Irish affairs. I think I speak with entire accuracy when I say that in no point of aim or object have we ever differed, although we may have differed as to the means by which our objects might be attained,. In this particular case, I do not think there is any difference in object between my noble friend and, myself. The difference lies in this, that he can trust the Government to make no such changes in this Bill as will make it acceptable to the people of Ireland. I, on the other hand, think the Bill is capable of amendment, that the amendments are not very great and should be introduced into it before it leaves your Lordships' House.
I have heard with surprise and deep regret the remarks that have been made during the debate belittling the Act of 1903. I believe my noble friend Lord St. David's said that the best thing to do was to repeal the Act. I had the privilege of taking a share in the preparation of that Act, and I wish to offer to your Lordships some remarks regarding it before I proceed to deal with the Bill before the House.
It is well known to all Members of your Lordships' House that the Irish land difficulty is one of very old standing. For more than half a century Act after Act was passed to restore order or to produce order from disorder in Irish land affairs, but not one of that long sequence of Acts succeeded in laying the foundations of settled peace, or in avoiding hardship to one side or the other. It was during the debates on the Land Act of 1881, I think, that it occurred to the mind of that great Statesman, the late Mr. Bright, that perhaps a solution of the Irish land difficulty might be found in the abolition of rent altogether, by enabling the tenant to buy out his landlord. Provisions were introduced into the Act of 1881 giving effect to that proposal, and. these provisions were enlarged in the Act of 1896, with which the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne is so honourably connected. Time passed on, and it became an accepted belief in
498
Ireland that only in an extension of land purchase could a solution of this longstanding difficulty be found. Accordingly the Act of 1903 was passed. It was passed amidst universal approval. What has been the result of that Act? In the last Report of the Estates Commissioners it is shown that the total of transactions from November 1, 1903, to March 31, 1909, amounted to £78,661,011. In the six months which have elapsed since March 31 last, further sales and transfers have taken place, so that at the present time more than eighty million pounds worth of land in Ireland has passed from landlord to tenant. If it be remembered also that under the previous Land Acts of 1881 and 1896 land valued at twenty-three million pounds was also sold, your Lordships will see that as the whole land of Ireland is, I believe, valued at under £200,000,000, more than half the saleable land in Ireland has already been sold under the Land Purchase Acts. From the tenants' point of view that is a great achievement, but far greater than the mere money figures indicate is the change that has come over the Irish people in the tracts in which land purchase has operated. It requires that you should, go amongst the people, that you should compare their state now with the state of their neighbours who have not bought, to perceive the change that has taken place in the disposition of the people. Under the operation of this Land Purchase Act a spirit of industry, of contentment, and, of loyalty has grown up which is the highest testimony to the success of the policy of the Act of 1903.
I have heard during this debate this policy measured in pounds, shillings, and pence. What pecuniary standard of measure can you apply to a beneficial change in the disposition of an entire people?
Where does the difficulty occur which you have been called upon here to face? We have been told that the Bill in the first place destroys the zones. I venture to think that those who have said that have not read the Bill with the carefulness which it deserves. Section 14, upon which the criticism is based, must not be read by itself alone; it must be taken also with Section 20. But let me consider what force there is in this charge that the zones are being destroyed. I agree with those who say that if the zones had been destroyed a very serious injury would have been inflicted upon land purchase in Ireland.

499
It is stated that the zones are the cause of the high prices which have prevailed under the Act of 1903. Nothing could be more fallacious. The high prices that have prevailed since 1903 are due to the low interest which the Act of 1903 introduced compared with the higher rates of interest which prevailed under the Acts of 1881 and 1896. I am not prepared to say that the zones may not have in some degree contributed to that, but that they were not the main contributory cause is, I think, clearly demonstrated.
Now what does Section 14 say? It says that in certain circumstances the Estates Commissioners must make inquiry as to "the security for the advance" or "the equity of the price." These are the two things which have to be taken separately. As to the security for the advance, I am quite aware that under the system which is known by the term "zone," the purchase price is based upon judicial rents, and so far, there is a security and an assurance that the price is such that the State can with safety advance. But there are certain cases in which agreements are made out of Court. They are registered in Court as judicial rents, and purchase agreements are founded upon them. These agreements do not pass under the scrutiny of the Courts, and do not give the same assurance which judicial decisions give as to their sufficiency in the interests of the taxpayer. All that the first portion of this section provides is that where the Estates Commissioners shall be satisfied that there is a danger to the taxpayer, they shall make inquiry and see that no improper methods have been adopted in fixing the price. In regard to the equity of the price, as I read the section, there is no intention of going behind any agreement which landlord and tenant make with each other. In Section 20 it is stated that the Estates Commissioners must inquire as to whether the improvements which the tenant has made in his holding have been included, whether the price has been based upon improvements which the tenant has made in his holding, and for which he has not been compensated by the landlord. This is purely a matter for discussion in Committee. I cannot, of course, speak for His Majesty's Government, but I am sure if there is any clear contradiction between the two parts of the Bill in this respect the matter will be corrected.
Now, my Lords, I come to the question
500
of finance. The purchase money under this Bill may be divided into three classes. There is, first, a sum of money which has been paid for land that has already been bought. That, at the present time, amounts to thirty millions, and in regard to that no loss whatever has fallen upon His Majesty's Treasury. The costs of floating that thirty millions—the average cost was twelve per cent.—was £3,600,000, and upon that an annuity of three and a-quarter per cent. interest and sinking fund has been met from the Ireland Development Grant. That grant is purely Irish money; and the corresponding and equivalent amounts which were given to England and Scotland are being utilised for their proper object in the promotion of primary education in those countries. But in neither of those countries is the necessity for primary education more manifest than in Ireland; yet, in order to finance the Irish Land Act, the Treasury have diverted this amount of £185,000 from its legitimate purpose. And yet allegations are made that the Irish people are not to be relied on to pay their debts. I repudiate that imputation in the strongest terms.
The next sum I come to is the fifty millions which is the amount necessary to finance pending agreements which are deposited in the Estates Commissioners' Office. It is quite clear that the costs of flotation of this sum must be either borne by the Treasury or must fall upon the Irish ratepayers. I heard it stated last night in the course of the debate that the Irish ratepayers are under a strict bond to pay this money. What is the origin of this obligation? When the Act of 1881 was introduced, and again when the Act of 1896 was passed, a guarantee fund was made a part of the financial system of both Acts. In 1881 the interest on Consols had not been reduced, and Consols were at par. In 1896 the interest on Consols had been reduced to two and three-quarters per cent., and the price was 109. No suspicion ever crossed any one's mind that any obligation or liability was imported or connoted by the existence in those Acts of the guarantee fund, and when the Act of 1903 was passed the provisions of the previous Act were incorporated in it, but nobody at that time throught that any obligation would fall upon Irish taxpayers than had fallen on them under the previous Acts. But I need not labour this point, because the common-sense of both Houses

501
recognised that upon no grounds of justice or honour could this obligation be imposed upon the Irish people. Quite properly, the Treasury came forward and said "We will take upon our own shoulders this cost of floating the fifty million pounds." Therefore in regard to that the account is clear.
The Irish people are grateful to His Majesty's Government for what they have done. Only in one particular do I think this settlement in regard to the fifty million pounds is a little hard. Under the terms of the Act the landlords are entitled to be paid in cash, but under the arrangements made by the Treasury only five millions in cash is to be floated every year. I make no complaint against the Treasury. I do not say that in 1903 any suggestion was held out that a greater amount of money would be raised in any other year than five millions. What Mr. Wyndham said was to the effect that "in the first three years of the Act we will not throw upon the market more than five millions, but we hope to quicken the pace a little later on, so that the whole transaction of £100,000,000 will be dealt with in fifteen or sixteen years." That meant that in no particular year of the fifteen or sixteen years would a larger sum of money than five or six millions, or perhaps seven millions, be raised. For my own part, I make no complaint against the Treasury on that account, but the position now in regard to the Irish Landlords is that many of them will have to wait eight or ten years before they get payment of their money, and as many of these landlords are indebted landlords, paying perhaps five per cent. interest while receiving three and a-half, I say their position is one of cruel hardship. I also say that I think they have just grounds for an appeal to the Government to give them better terms than those which the Bill incorporates. The Bill seems to suppose that Irish Land Stock should never get above ninety-two, but it is now at eighty-five, so that if any Irish landlord takes the option of payment in stock, he loses straight way something like seven per cent. That is a point on which I think Irish landlords in this general settlement, as I hope this will be, of the Irish land question, could make, with considerable reason, an appeal to the Government.
Now I pass on to the final part, the finances of this Bill. The noble Earl the Leader of the House put the future purchases at
502
£70,000,000, although I shall not be much surprised if they do not cost £90,000,000. The position is this, and here I have to deal with the question of compulsion. The key of the situation in dealing with this matter is the issue of stock at three per cent. It is perfectly clear that the only way this enormous sum of £90,000,000 can be advanced is either by throwing the cost of flotation on the Treasury, by throwing it on the Irish people, or by issuing three per cent. stock, which means throwing it on the landlords. The Treasury refused to accept any further liability, and I am not here to say that they should. The Irish people refuse, and you cannot enforce it in this case, seeing that you have abandoned it in the other. Only the third way remains. Now what happens? When an agreement to sell is proposed between landlord and tenant, the latter will say "I am willing to buy, but I will only buy at the price which my neighbours have paid." Take the case of a tenant with a £100 holding. That tenant will buy under existing terms at three and a-quarter per cent., say at twenty-three years purchase. His landlord is to get £2,300. The tenant's annuity is three and a-quarter per cent. on that, which, I think, is £75. If this Bill should pass in its present state, no tenant will give more than £75 for the same kind of property, which means that the three and a-half per cent. imports no greater charge on him than the three and a-quarter did to his neighbour. How is that to be met? It cannot be met. It is one of the deterrents to land purchase.
I wish to be perfectly clear and state the deterrents on the one side and the arguments for and against, and then I will give my own conclusions. If this Bill passes in its present shape every landlord may have to sell at from one and a-half to two years purchase less than before. I do not think that is a very great hardship, because I agree with my noble friend Lord Dunraven in thinking that Irish landlords, on the whole, have bought from one to two years purchase too high, and the raising of the annuity to three and a-half per cent. will automatically effect a reduction which in my opinion ought to be effected. What is the other deterrent? When the landlord takes his three per cent. stock and throws it on the market, he will get £97 or £96 per cent. for it. Local stock is selling in the market at ninety-seven and though this stock will

503
cease to be called Irish Land Stock, and will be called Guaranteed Stock, and thereby will secure a higher price in the market, it still will sell at some few pounds of discount. That is the second deterrent element which this Bill has introduced to the landlords. The third deterrent is the bonus. The bonus as at present drawn penalises the owner of good land in order that the owner of bad land may get more than its value. These reasons combine to deter the landlord from selling under this Bill. What will then happen? If the compulsory provisions of this Bill remain, landlords will have recourse to them. If the Bill remains unaltered, the landlords must have recourse to them. I agree with everything that was said last night to the tendency which this Bill will have to prevent dealings of an amicable nature, that it will all tend to compulsion. The tribunal that you have under the Bill could be changed probably, as the landlords would insist (and if they did I would support them), in asking for a Judicial Commission and the two Judges of the High Court, not that I mistrust the tribunal of the Bill. Such a tribunal would give the landlords as high a price in my opinion as they deserve. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dunraven in thinking that there ought to be for the landlords no terror and no dread in the idea of compulsion. During the time I was engaged in assisting Mr. Wyndham in preparing the Act of 1903 I had many conversations with all the more important landlords of Ireland, and with one especially, an extremely prudent and far-seeing man, the late O'Conor Don. He was entirely in favour of compulsion, and I myself do think that if the landlords could get over their objection to the word compulsion it would be to their entire interest under this Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope the noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting, but I should like to hear the occasion on which the O'Conor Don, a very old friend of mine, said that he was in favour of compulsion, or used words to that effect?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I thought it was a commonplace in Irish politics. As far as his telling it to me, I am absolutely certain on the point.
LORD CLONBROCK: I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the O'Conor Don did not couple with that opinion the condition that the exact sum which the
504
landlord was to receive should be put into the Act.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: No.
LORD CLONBROCK: In speaking to me he distinctly said that. When the Bill was first Introduced in 1903, he did not like it altogether, and said, "I should prefer a compulsory measure as no doubt in that case the sum that the landlord was to receive would be put into the Act."
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I have no remembrance of that, but I can assure your Lordships that this is a matter on which my recollection is absolutely precise. I have had several conversations with him in which he always insisted that compulsory purchase would have been an advantage to the Irish landlords. However, the matter is not of great importance. But what would happen if a general scheme of compulsory purchase was accepted by the landlords? Under this Bill His Majesty's Government would have to raise seventy or ninety millions in cash; they would have to pay the cost of flotation on the whole of that sum; they would have to give prompt payment, because it is not to be supposed that the State could expropriate the owner of an estate and refuse to pay for it. Let me point to another difficulty that is raised but has not been noticed in the course of this debate. In making a proposal leading up to a compulsory purchase, the Estates Commissioners, who buy only to resell, would have to find out from the tenants in some way or other what they were willing to give for their holdings. Say that the tenants agreed to give £10,000 for an estate, and say that on appeal to the judicial tribunal the landlord was awarded £12,000. The Land Commission could not retreat, having instituted these proceedings, so then they would be left with a property worth £12,000, for which the tenants were only willing to give £10,000. Then there would have to be another compulsion. You would have to bring compulsion on the tenants to buy. If you did bring compulsion on the tenants, you would be sowing a seed which in a very short time would produce the poisonous crop of repudiation. These considerations suggest to me that this proposal for compulsory purchase should be cut out of the Bill in the interests of

505
the Treasury alone. If the landlords wish it to be cut out I should support them, although I do not think they are wise in wishing to have it cut out. But if the Treasury wish to maintain it, I should begin to doubt the sanity of the Treasury. That is all I have to say on the question of finance.
I have troubled your Lordships at very considerable length, but before I sit down I wish to say one word regarding the Congested Districts Board. I entirely concur in what my noble friend Lord Dunraven said as to the necessity of representative institutions in Ireland. I have said so in the Minute which I felt bound to record on the Report of the Congestion Committee, but in my opinion this Board is eminently not one for a representative element. This is a Board which deals with the expropriation of the landlords in a large part of Ireland, and it would not be fair to the landlords to have that great work carried through by any body except one whose impartiality and competence were beyond reproach. I was for five or six years on the Congested Districts Board, and conducted its business in the intervals of its sittings. I think I ought to know everything connected with every branch of that Board, and I say without any hesitation that if you put on to it a representative majority selected from the county councils in the Western Counties—I do not cast any imputation upon the character of these men, some of whom ought to be appointed nominated members of the Board—appointed by election, and therefore having to work up to the dictates and to the wishes of their constituents, you will have a Board remarkable for its inefficiency.
On this question of the Congested Districts Board I have three suggestions to make. I think, in the first place, that all the purchases of land in Ireland should be concentrated in the hands of one body, the Estates Commissioners, who have now an unrivalled experience in purchasing land in Ireland, and who, as far as I am enabled to know, have given general satisfaction. It is fatal to economy in the purchase of land to maintain two standards, and if you maintain the Congested Districts Board as a purchasing authority you will have two standards in the future as in the past, but even more divergent than they have been, because the Congested
506
Districts Board in the past was always responsive to the suggestions of the Under-Secretary and of the Chief Secretary. The second suggestion is this. All the functions which are now exercised by the Congested Districts Board, and for which a special department has been created—namely, agriculture, fisheries and industries—should be transferred from the Board to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. The third suggestion is that the Board should be restricted to its present area, and that its operations should not be extended to the whole West of Ireland.
I have stated officially and publicly that the method of administration followed by the Board is not as productive of that strength of character as that of the Estates Commissioners. There always seems to me to have been too much spoon feeding in the method of administration by the Board. What we want in the West of Ireland is to put people as soon as we can on their own resources, and let them work out their own salvation. They are doing that under the auspices of the Estates Commissioners, who also deal with congestion as well as the Board. It was perfectly possible to compare the two methods of working and the results, and the conclusion which was borne in upon me was that there could be no hesitation in making a choice between the two. The last point I have to say is about the elective element. I need not repeat what I have said, but should your Lordships, as I sincerely hope you will, send this Bill to Committee, I shall be prepared, if no other noble Lord will take the duty, to place upon the Paper such Amendments as will, in my opinion, convert this Bill into a useful and beneficial supplement to the great Act of 1903, into a Bill which would help even further to lay the foundations of prosperity in Ireland.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I would like to explain that I am speaking now in the place of Lord Denman, who would have spoken but for the fact that unfortunately he is ill. The noble Lord who spoke first this evening very justly made some remark to the effect that they had received no answer of any sort from our Benches, and Lord Denman's absence is the reason which I would urge in explanation of it. I will endeavour to answer the different questions put to His Majesty's Government, especially by Lord Dunraven

507
and by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. In the first instance the two noble Lords queried whether there had been adequate discussion in the House of Commons, and Lord Dunraven said he considered the lack of discussion a sufficient reason for the rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, the noble Marquess considered it quite the opposite, and thought it a reason for au adequate discussion in this House.
I have had a comparison made of the actual time spent on the Bill of 1903 as compared with the present Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill of 1903 took in all sixteen days. This Bill took thirteen days, without including two days which were spent on the Bill last autumn. The compulsory clauses we are told were guillotined. I cannot find that this is the case. I noticed that the compulsory clause, which I suppose is generally taken as Clause 64, was discussed during the whole day on the eighth day of the Committee. I am also informed that discussions in Committee took more or less the form of a Second Reading debate. For instance, on the first day they had the new rate of annuity; on the second day, the new three per cent. stock, and incidentally the making up of differences between land and consols; on the third day, bonuses and landless men; and up to the sixth day was spent on the constitution of the Board and compulsory purchase. So I do not think it can with justice be said that this Bill has received no consideration in another place.
Lord Lansdowne said that he considered landlords who had not yet been paid suffered a very real grievance from the dilatoriness of the Government in this respect. There is no doubt about that. Irish landlords, and I myself among them, have suffered very much from not being paid in time. We have often had large mortgages to pay, often paying four to five per cent., while getting only three and a-half. But it must be remembered that under the Act of 1896 all landlords who elected to sell their estates must of necessity have known that there would be a very large block before they could be paid. That was common knowledge as early as 1896, and I think Mr. Walter Long recognised that when he brought in the Bill to which reference has already been made. When
508
the present Government came into office they were faced with this difficulty—what was it possible to do? The Irish Development Grant was very nearly exhausted, and therefore all the cost of flotation must fall on the Irish ratepayer. The noble Lord said this was only a technical mistake. It is not a mistake, because it is the law of the land, and has been supported by the Law Officers on both sides. The Treasury are going to take over the whole of these undertakings in this Bill. They will take over the fifty-three millions, and, in addition, take over the expenses with regard to the flotation and the bonus. Your Lordships will understand that if it had been possible to raise money at three and three-quarters at par, there would have been no necessity for this Bill, but the difficulty now is that such a thing is not possible, and the only possibility of placing the finances of this Bill on some sort of sound basis is, I think, by the suggestion that in future land purchased in Ireland will be self-supporting, and that stock will be paid to landlords at the rate of three per cent. Arrangements must be come to between landlord and tenant with regard to this.
The noble Lord said he hoped it would be possible to accelerate the payment of this fifty-three millions. It may be possible, and it is likely that the present staff of the Estate Commissioners will be more or less increased so as to allow of a larger amount of stock being paid each year. With regard to the zones, the noble Marquess said they were virtually torn up by this Bill and done away with. I do not think that is quite correct. We all know what use they have been in Ireland, and there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of doing away with zones. What they do is this—they simply leave to the Estate Commissioners a discretionary power by which they can, if they are dissatisfied with any particular arrangement or undertaking with regard to an estate, inquire into and see that the State has proper security for its money.
Lord Ashbourne asked if we could bring forward any case in which fictitious value was being asked for. I have looked the matter up and have found one case. An owner agreed to sell to his tenants at a certain price. He arranged with the tenants that a further sum was to be added to the agreed price, and as soon as he had

509
received payment himself he would hand over this further sum to the tenants, so that the object of the arrangement was that both vendor and tenant should receive an ulterior benefit. The vendor would receive twelve per cent. and the tenants would receive a sum in cash. It was believed that a great many cases of this sort existed in Ireland, and it was for this reason that the present clause in this Bill was drafted so as to give the Estates Commissioners general discretionary power to examine into any given estate. Lord Ashbourne also raised a point with regard to compulsion. He stated that in the event of compulsion being exercised, the Estates Commissioners had a perfect right to schedule and purchase any land which was already purchased under the Acts of 1886 or 1891.
LORD ASHBOURNE: No, I think it was Lord Dunraven.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; but that remark was made in the course of the debate last night. I have inquired into that, and I find that land already bought and paying an annuity is not subject to this Act to any extent at all, and neither the Estates Commissioners nor any person in Ireland can purchase land which is already paying annuity. I have the quotation here, but if Lord Ashbourne does not think it is stringent enough we will make that perfectly clear. There has been a great deal said about compulsion. Several noble Lords seem to think that the Estates Commissioners are going to acquire land all over the country. That is not the case at all. The Estates Commissioners will exercise their powers very sparingly indeed. Lord MacDonnell gave a very good instance. He said the Estates Commissioners might propose to buy an estate and their final offer might be £10,000. The landlord would appeal against that, and on its going to the Judicial Commissioners they might award him £12,000, but the tenants would refuse to exceed the price of £10,000. What is going to happen? Who is going to pay the extra £2,000? It is obvious that the Treasury will not. It falls on the county. That in itself would not make the compulsory clauses very popular. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, made reference to the fact that any person could put into force the compulsory powers
510
of the Estates Commissioners. That, I understand, is an error. The noble Marquess shakes his head. I will give him a justification for my remark—I have lost the reference for a moment, but I will come back to it. I am informed that any person wishing to put compulsory powers into force must of himself be a tenant within the meaning of the Act. That, I am informed, is the case.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It is wrong.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am informed that that is the case, that he must be a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The noble and learned Lord also said that great dissatisfaction would be caused in Ireland by the different rates tenants would have to pay, that under the present Act they only paid two and three-quarters, whilst under the future Act they would be paying three and a-half. My Lords, there has been no trouble so far with regard to that; there are a great many tenants who have purchased under the Ashbourne Act and who are paying three and one-eighth, and there has been no trouble there. An Irishman's one wish is to acquire land. Every time he pays an instalment towards the purchase of land he gets nearer the goal of his ambition, and I do not think that he really cares whether he pays three and a-half or three and one-eighth or three and three-quarters per cent.
I will now touch very briefly on the compulsory powers so far as they affect the Congested Districts Board. I am sorry that Lord MacDonnell is so averse to the composition of this Board. I think it has always been recognised that compulsory powers were absolutely necessary in that part of the country, and I would venture to quote from the Annual Report of the Congested Districts Board for the year 1894–5 on that point. This Report was made to my noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India—
"The Congested Districts Board are in possession of information that there are large tracts of land that may be used to enlarge the holdings of small occupiers and to promote schemes for migration from congested districts. The Board cannot give effect to this important department of their work unless more funds are placed at their disposal and compulsory powers given to them to acquire lands at their just values."
The Report goes on to say that large powers are desirable to give effect to such

511
schemes on a large scale. This Report was signed by Mr. Gerald Balfour and by Mr. Arthur Balfour, who was also a member of the Board. The noble and learned Lord asked whether I could produce any evidence of the necessity for compulsory powers in the congested district area. I have been able to find some very interesting cases in that respect. During the existence of the Congested Districts Board there have been thirty-two cases in which landlords have refused the Board's offers for their estates, totalling to as much as £318,000; 103 cases of refusal to sell grass land, and in no fewer than 244 cases owners have given no reply whatsoever to the circular asking whether they were willing to sell their land or not.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Would the noble Lord give the dates? I pointed to cases within the last twelve months.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The answer to that is that during the last twelve months the Congested Districts Board have had no money with which to offer to buy anything. If they had, they would no doubt have had refusals.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Could the noble Earl give the last date up to which his figures extend.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am sorry I cannot off-hand.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Could the noble Earl give us the number of years exactly over which those refusals would run?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: From the year when the Congested Districts Board started—that is 1891.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Could the noble Earl give us the date of the circular to which he said 244 people did not reply, and state to how many people it was issued?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: This is during the whole time—from the date when the Congested Districts Board started. From this Report there is no doubt that in certain parts of Ireland compulsion to a certain degree may be necessary. I think most noble Lords will agree to that.
LORD ASHBOURNE: No, not one.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: You think that in no particular case compulsion would be necessary?
THE EARL OF MAYO: Not until you have got rid of all the land you can on the voluntary system.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: That is very just. But there are a great many cases where the Congested Districts Board will want to get a certain bit of land in a particular district, and if they cannot acquire that by compulsory power what are they to do? It is beside the point to say that they could get land elsewhere; the point is that they want land in a particular district.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Where is the money to come from if you tell us that they have no money with which to buy?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: That is last year, but if your Lordships are good enough to assent to this Bill the money will be forthcoming.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Is that to be taken from the money already asked for, £56,000,000, or where is it to come from?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: There is their income, £250,000, and the Estates Commissioners would find the rest.
THE EARL OF MAYO: From what und?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am not perfectly certain on that point. Noble Lords have also taken very great exception to the composition of the Congested Districts Board; they have said they objected very strongly to the elective element therein. No one seems to have touched on the point that the administrative committee of the Board had entire control of the finance. There are four permanent and two elected members of that committee. Although the Board may suggest some policy to the administrative committee, that committee will not sanction it unless they like. They are a sort of small Treasury; they have absolute power in that respect. I think noble Lords take a wrong view especially with regard to that elective element.
There is one question with regard to Clause 17 of the Bill with which I wish to

513
deal—namely, with respect to the landless men. Landless men, as my noble friend behind me stated, are a product, or a by-product rather, of the Act of 1903. Before that time no one had ever heard of a landless man. Particularly, great objection is taken to subsection (e) of that clause because noble Lords from Ireland seem to think that the Estates Commissioners can put anybody down on the land under this provision. That is the last thing which the Estates Commissioners wish to do. The Estates Commissioners have taken this power simply to be able to deal with the residues of estates. The residue of an estate may be left which is not suitable for a tenant farmer, and it is simply in order to be able to deal with that that this has been inserted. If noble Lords do not think it practicable and we are forced to it we are perfectly willing to meet them.
LORD ASHBOURNE: That is to leave out the landless men.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: No; it is subsection (e) that is objected to, because it is said that any person can be put on the land under it. That is not the wish of the Estates Commissioners.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Are the Government willing to strike out the reference to the landless men?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: There is very little difference really in respect to landless men in this Bill from the Act of 1903. The Act of 1903 allowed tenants' sons to purchase, and this Bill allows tenants' sons and also people in the neighbourhood to purchase. I do not think there is very much to cavil at there.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I agree.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I have dealt as far as I can with most of the points which have been raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven. I am glad to hear that your Lordships propose giving this Bill a Second Reading. I am sure this Bill will, as any noble friend Lord Mac Donned said, do a lot to further the prosperity of Ireland. We all agree—all of us who are going to live in Ireland—that without land purchase there, and without the peasant becoming the proprietor of his
514
land, there is very little hope of any ultimate settlement or rest in that country.
LORD ATKINSON: My Lords, I rise to correct a misstatement which was made, I presume unknowingly, by the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Earl said that Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Gerald Balfour both approved of conferring compulsory powers on the Congested Districts Board. That is absolutely inaccurate, and in my hearing has been contradicted by both those gentlemen times innumerable. I have in my pocket a letter from Mr. Gerald Balfour, received only this morning, in which he repeats his statement that nothing of the kind occurred. What did occur was this. At a certain meeting of the Congested Districts Board, at a time when Mr. Arthur Balfour was chairman of the Board, the Board in his absence passed a resolution that it was desirable that they should have compulsory powers. At a subsequent meeting at which Mr. Gerald Balfour was present, the report referring to this resolution came up for consideration, and he, as chairman, was obliged to sign the minutes of the meeting, as every chairman is—a signature which does not at all express approval of the course taken at any previous meeting, but merely authenticates the minutes and nothing more. That has been stated again and again, and I believe it is to be found in the evidence of Mr. Gerald Balfour before the Dudley Commission. It is entirely inaccurate to say that either of those gentlemen on any occasion expressed an opinion that it was desirable to confer compulsory powers on the Congested Districts Board.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the Amendment before your Lordships' House is that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months. I do not at all agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, who has moved that Amendment, but I feel I cannot give a silent vote upon this Bill for the reason that there are two financial provisions in it which I think cannot be ignored. The first is the one which relieves the ratepayers of Ireland from any further liability. I should like to read what the leader of the Nationalist Party, Mr. Joho Redmond, said upon this subject:—
"Therefore, so far as we are concerned" [that is, the Nationalist Party] "we could not put any obstacles in the path of this Bill, If there was

515
nothing else in it at all except this question of congestion, if there was nothing else in the Bill except the lifting off from the shoulders of the ratepayers of Ireland £500,000 or £600,000 a year, which is the alternative of stopping land purchase altogether, it would be impossible for us to stand in the way of its passage into law … … but there are many other things of great value to it in Ireland."
There we come to the parting of the ways. There are other things which he thinks of great value to Ireland in the Bill but this House does not agree with him.
Now, my Lords, for the Bill. You are all aware that this is the second session of the Bill, and it differs but little from the Bill of 1908. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time in seeking for epithets or adjectives with which to abuse the Government for the way in which the Bill was rushed through the House of Commons, but the tone of its originators was "Take it and swallow it," and all Amendments of a reasonable and drastic nature were walked to a quick death in the Division Lobbies of the other House. The Bill before us contains two principles—the continuation of land purchase but under compulsion, and the dealing with congestion in Ireland. The first has resolved itself really into a financial question and nothing else; the second is an economic one which we all know carries with it certain financial provisions. I should like to say something on the first.
Every Land Act in Ireland dealing in any way with the transfer of land from the landowner to the tenant has been carried out on the voluntary system, and from the time that Mr. Bright forty years ago brought in these proposals up till the last Act, the Wyndham Act of 1903, that system has been successful. The money advanced by the State has been punctually paid back by the tenants in Ireland. They have met their debts almost to the uttermost farthing, and we therefore on those grounds only, because these debts have been paid, begin to really think that the voluntary system has been a success. The noble Earl in his speech when bringing in the Bill said—
"I put this Bill forward as what the Americans call 'a business proposition.'"
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it is a fair business proposition to pay in paper, in stock, and not in gold. He said that £2,000,000 was to be paid in
516
cash and £2,000,000 partly in cash and partly in stock. I do not see that in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: No, it is not in the Bill. But I rise to correct a slight inaccuracy in the statement of the noble Earl. It is £2,000,000 in cash and £2,000,000 in stock for those who are prepared to take half of each—£4,000,000 in all.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes, they can take cash if they like, but we all know they will have to wait a very long time for that cash. The Chief Secretary has very often said things to smooth over the matter, and, as my noble friend Lord Curzon said, to glide over the currents and the dangerous pools, but we want to see it in the Bill, and then when we come to a later stage the matter can be discussed. The noble Earl said that the Act of 1903 was carried through Parliament in a burst of generosity, and that everybody shook each other's hand and drank each other's health, etc., etc., and we were all as happy as possible. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he ever read the speech of Mr. Bowles, the Member for Lynn Regis. Also Mr. Coghill in his speech abused the Bill in every possible way and talked of its being "a raid on the British Treasury." I do not think that is an instance of generosity, and I think the noble Earl rather overstated the matter in that respect.
I should now like to say a word with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord St. David's, said yesterday. He concluded his speech by saying that no one in the course of the debate had attempted to justify the Wyndham Act, and that the Wyndham Act had broken down and its finance was impossible. He made a speech which I think I am right in designating as the speech of an amateur Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that because Colonial securities have been introduced into the Trustee Act Consols had fallen. I should like to ask the Government if they think that taking Colonial securities out of the Trustee Act would be a very popular measure? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord St. David's, is an Imperialist or what he is, but his speech struck me as dealing rather with Imperial finance than with the Irish Land Act. We all know that the noble Lord has interests south of North America. I only wish to

517
say that there are valuable securities down there which might have affected in some way the price of gilt-edged securities in this country.
In this Bill we have compulsion to sell and compulsion on the tenant to pay a larger annuity—that is the State rent. I am not quite sure that there is such a universal demand in Ireland for compulsion as the Chief Secretary and the members of the Government wish to point out to us.
I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from what a noble Lord who is, I think, now in the House has written to me with regard to his tenants. He says that two or three tenants bought during his father's lifetime, and that early this year one or two of the tenants approached the agent with the request, which was very earnest, that they should not be forced to purchase. This arose from the fact that there was no specific rent day on the estate and that the tenants could pay when they liked, always with a satisfactory result to the landlord. As long as they paid that was the great thing; whilst those who had purchased had to pay on May 1 and November 1 to the rent collector of His Majesty's Government, who refused to give them any extension of the time in which to pay, which was most inconvenient financially to the tenants owing to the fact that they had to sell their live stock at a bad time. That does not show, I think, that there is really very much wish amongst tenants to purchase. I am not talking of the West of Ireland; I am talking of parts of Ireland away from the West where compulsion would be put in force as is in this Bill.
We all know that the Bill is brought in because of the calculations made under the Wyndham Act that guaranteed land stock could be issued at at least £95 for each £100 stock. That seemed reasonable enough, but owing to the fall in stocks the Guarantee Fund is almost exhausted, and under the 1903 Act the loss will fall upon the ratepayers. That is an acknowledged fact. We all know that this Bill is founded on the Runciman Report—that is, the Report of a Departmental Committee of the Treasury. I ask your Lordships' House and everybody concerned in this matter, Is the Treasury really better off because compulsion has been tacked on to
518
the Bill? Really it looks to me as if this is what might have happened: that the Chief Secretary was faced with this serious situation that land purchase must go on—he has admitted that; the Treasury were appproached and they said they could do it on certain terms, and they may have suggested, "If you put compulsion into the Bill you will have the Nationalist vote." That sounds very well. I am speaking for the farmers of Ireland who make their living out of the land, and I begin to think that we who live in Ireland have really been made fools of over this question, because I do not see myself why compulsion should have been tacked on. Is it for a financial reason? I have never heard that suggested. It has been tacked on in order to make it popular in certain quarters. We object to compulsion. When Clause 1, where the tenant is made to pay 5s. per cent. for his annuity, came up in another place, the Nationalist members and the Unionist members joined together and voted against the Government. That is a very rare combination. That was on the question of the tenants. Then the compulsion on the landowner is really of the most drastic kind. The compulsory sections are Clauses 64, 65 and 66, but the Estates Commissioners may by order delegate all or any of their powers to any one or two of their number with no appeal except on law and not on fact.
Now, my Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to what fell from Lord MacDonnell. I cannot congratulate the noble Earl who introduced this Bill on the way he has been treated by the Back Benches. One noble Earl, whom we all know very well, a very old friend of mine, attacked the Bill in no unmeasured terms. My noble friend Lord MacDonnell says he will support the landlords against compulsion although he does not quite see how the Treasury will take that. Lord Granard cited a case with regard to the zones, and then said he believed a great many cases existed. When we come to Committee I think we must hear what those cases are because I noticed that a great many of the remarks of the noble Earl—I say it with all respect to him—were more fitted for Committee than Second Reading. When we come to close quarters I hope we shall have those cases mentioned. As to the Estates Commissioners and the

519
power that can be exercised by a Commissioner, broadly speaking it means that one man can take land in any part of Ireland for any purpose he thinks fit. The drastic powers of compulsion to be exercised by a Commissioner against landowners reminds me of the sequestration of property in a conquered country after a war. That is exactly the case, and noble Lords cannot deny it. As has been said again and again from these benches, there has been no case made for compulsion, none whatsoever. The noble Earl read out some cases from the Report of the Congested Districts Board as showng that compulsion was necessary and that Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Arthur Balfour were in favour of compulsory powers being given. I think he had his answer from Lord Atkinson with regard to those two gentlemen, and I hope that answer was perfectly satisfactory.
The most complete speech and the most perfect speech with regard to this Bill was delivered by the Chief Secretary in 1908, when he explained its provisions. The right hon. gentleman said that if you gave compulsory powers for one-third of Ireland to the Congested Districts Board for the relief of congestion it would be impossible to withhold similar powers from the Estates Commissioners outside that area, otherwise the boundary question would arise. We know that question will constantly arise, and that is one of our objections to the Bill. The Chief Secretary went on to say that nobody knew better than Mr. Wyndham that there were many estates outside the congested districts which presented precisely the same difficulties, and to include one and exclude another would, in his judgment, cause great injustice. My Lords, we will deal with that question also in Committee. The Chief Secretary added that it was obvious that the powers would have to be exercised within close limits owing to the limitations of the resources of the Estates Commissioners. That is the only saving clause in the Chief Secretary's statement where he put forward strongly and explicitly that there was to be compulsion but under limitations. He said that those powers were as necessary in the one case as in the other to secure social order. I do not myself see where the social order will come in when one man is paying one rent on one side of the hedge and another man a different rent on the other. I know what my countrymen are. The Chief Secretary
520
said it was social order which alone could justify these provisions of the Act of 1903.
I do not wish to say anything personal at all. I only speak from the political point of view with regard to the Chief Secretary. He has given way on many points, but he has not given way on this. I see no change here. Grass lands, pig styes, woods, apple orchards, shingle and rocks are all mixed up together in one huge Irish land stew to be ladled out by Mr. Commissioner so-and-so to whom he likes and how he likes. My Lords, I can see the cow-hunters and the cattle-drivers—I know them, and we have read about them and talked about them in this House—gathered round waiting with interest for a very large ladleful. We are threatened with direful consequences if this Bill is not passed as it is presented to this House. It has been said before that "the dogs of war are to be let loose." That is entirely too grand an expression. I would rather read it that the curs of village ruffianism should be unmuzzled to bark and bite at the heels of respectable men.
No doubt we shall be told in Committee that there is compulsion existing in England under certain Acts. But is over £50,000,000 owing in England for voluntary agreements for purchase between landlord and tenant? There is no analogy at all in the case, and if any analogy is made we shall, of course, be glad to argue it to the uttermost point. I must remind your Lordships that the representatives of the tenants and the representatives of the landlords came to an agreement at the Land Conference. I am sorry my noble friend Lord Dunraven is not here. I noticed that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said he took all honourable part in that agreement. I perfectly agree with that. I helped him. Compulsion was not in that treaty of peace, and I ask the responsible Ministers of the Crown if they are once more going to throw the apple of discord amongst us owing to financial considerations which have nothing to do with Ireland and which are not the fault either of an individual Irishman or of Irishmen collectively.
I should now like to say a word with regard to the zones. "Zones" is a technical word, and I quite understand noble Lords from England being immensely

521
confused by the technical terms which have grown up with successive Land Acts in Ireland. At one time I did not understand them myself. I understand them only too well now. Dryden says "An embroidered zone surrounds her waist." The zone we talk about in an Irish Land Bill is a much more prosaic question. I feel it is like talking Greek sometimes when using these technical terms. I am sure Greek is a great deal better understood by many noble Lords than some of the terms used. Tenants and landlord enter into a market, let me call it a Zone Market, and if they come to an agreement the Government can step in, in the shape of the Estates Commissioners, and say "Very well, you have come to an agreement and we will accept your terms within certain limits." I will not mention the limits; it is not material to my argument; but they step in and say "The money will be advanced, you are within the zones, it is practical business, and we ratify the bargain." The noble Earl, Lord Granard, said that we say that is entirely swept away. It is not entirely swept away, but the Estates Commissioners come in and begin asking questions about the price. "Is the price good enough?" Under the former arrangement they did not come down and examine the holdings and delay the matter in any way, but you now give them the opportunity of doing so. If there is any question of shortness of money it is very easy to delay the matter in that way, and we all know that it has been delayed in many cases because the money is short.
Then as to the bonus. After all, we are told that you are very generous with the bonus. I suppose the generosity is based on this, that the Runciman Report reduced it by a stroke of the pen to three per cent. The Government have given us in this Bill a sliding scale for the bonus. I do not want to go into the figures at all, but the truth of the matter is that the bonus has slid away down the scale. The bonus was very important to us. The noble Earl knows as well as I do that it was the sweetener that enabled the landlord to sell his land. Now I come to the congested districts part. I approach this subject with no feeling of rancour whatsoever. I know what congested districts are, I have been in some of the very poorest, and I have seen very great poverty indeed. That was some years ago, but you must remember that owing to the Congested Districts Board as at present constituted a great deal of that poverty has been alleviated
522
and those people have been helped in many ways; and I am glad to see that the money provided for the new Board amounts to exactly £144,750. At the present moment there is no cry of distress in Ireland, and the West of Ireland has enjoyed a very fine season. The sun has shone there while the rain has poured down in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the President of our Trish Board of Agriculture has told me with truth that there is very little potato disease—that bane of the peasantry of the West—there, greatly owing to the efforts of the Board of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board.
There is no doubt there is congestion in the West. Let me remind your Lordships that it is divided into three classes—the maritime class, people living on the seaboard: the intermediate class, half maritime and half landsmen; and the inland class who cultivate small holdings and never go out on to the ocean at all. Before I continue with regard to this question of congestion in the West, which I approach, as I said before, with no feelings of rancour or disagreement at all, I should like to say something again with regard to the author of this measure. I do not speak in any personal way at all. I have the pleasure of the Chief Secretary's acquaintance, but when we have a measure of this importance I think it is necessary to ask oneself what are the political achievements of the man who brings it in. I ask your Lordships, and I ask everybody in Ireland, what has Mr. Birrell done to promote the prosperity and welfare of that country? Mr. Birrell succeeded Mr. Bryce. Mr. Bryce left the country to go to America to occupy a great and honourable place there. Cattle-driving had begun. It continued in Ireland under Mr. Birrell's administration to such an extent that this industry was seriously threatened. I never thought it would go on and ruin it, and I never said so. I do not think we are all such fools in Ireland as to allow it to go on, no matter what Government are in power there, because cattle and horses (which were "driven" too) in an agricultural country like ours where we have the best grass in the world for cattle rearing and feeding is our most important industry. Let us see what Mr. Birrell did. He brought in the Councils Bill. The rejection of that Bill was about the cleverest thing the Nationalist Party have ever done. I give Mr. Birrell credit for the Roman Catholic University Bill,

523
and I was very glad to see it was passed. I will not say anything more about the Chief Secretary.
I should like to say a word with regard to the extraordinary provisions in the Bill by which nine counties are included in the congested areas. I have a table here with regard to the county of Cork showing the amount of land that could have been bought for the relief of congestion—always supposing congestion existed there—when it was in the open market. We can deal with that in Committee. Now I should like to quote to your Lordships something from an entirely independent Report with regard to the congested districts. You all remember the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Blair Balfour, in their joint recommendations, said—this was in 1902—that in the congested districts there were two classes mainly, the poor and the destitute; that there were hardly any resident gentry, very few traders and officials, and that nearly all the inhabitants were either poor, or on the verge of poverty; that in those districts, the very poorest in Ireland, the taxation was by far the highest, but the local resources were so low that even with a high rate of taxation the indispensable needs of the locality could not be properly met; that there was very little spent on outdoor relief and there were very few indoor paupers because the people were very helpful to one another, and although so poor themselves largely supported their destitute. My Lords, that is very true. Let the Government make out a case where it can be shown that land adjacent to these poor holdings cannot be got without compulsion. I want to show that land can be got without compulsion.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to what the O'Conor Don said with reference to compulsory purchase. In his evidence before the Dudley Commission he said it was a novel thing, when you could get more land than you could use without compulsion, that although A did not want to sell his land and B's was quite as good you should take A's. He agreed if owners of land would not part with it that there might be a case for compulsion, but he did not agree that that was the case. His opinion was that it had been proved pretty conclusively that it was not so, and until all the land that could be obtained voluntarily had been acquired there was no case for compulsion. I heard the O'Conor
524
Don's father's name quoted in the debate just now. All I can say with regard to that is, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. My Lords, I will not detain you longer. I will only add that, as one living a good deal in Ireland and living in peace, I do not hesitate to affirm that at this moment the Irish people suffer from no grievances, political or social, which it is in the power of any Government to allay. There is absolutely no need for this up-rooting of a system of land purchase which has for nearly forty years worked well and worked for peace—I allude to the voluntary system. There is now in Ireland no Government oppression, no class oppression, no religious oppression, and no oppression at all unless it is an oppression not to be allowed to seize your neighbour's goods or resort to violent measures if you do not agree with his views on land tenure. My Lords, this complicated and drastic measure settles nothing, but, on the contrary, unsettles everybody in our country.
LORD ASHTOWN: My Lords, I shall not detain you many minutes as there is only one point upon which I wish to remark. It is a point that no one has touched upon yet, and that is the effect the migration of congests to the grazing lands has upon the cattle trade of the country. That is one of the most vital points, and in order that it may be understood I must explain to your Lordships that among the grazing farms in the West we have what are called judicial holdings—small holdings under £20, holdings between £20 and £50, and. holdings above £50. The small men breed most of the young cattle, the middle men breed some, and the biggest judicial holders generally buy the cattle young from the small holders and when they become one and a-half or two years old they pass on to the grazier. It is absolutely necessary that they should go to the grazier, because the cattle cannot develop on small holdings; they want scope as they grow. If you take away the grass land occupied by the grazier all the small holders will become bankrupt; they will not be able to pay their instalments if they have bought their holdings, or their rents if they have not bought, and the result will be that although you benefit congestion in another district by the migration of the congests you will create paupers in the districts to which they go. I live in the country and farm my place myself, and I know perfectly well what the custom with regard to rearing cattle in Ireland is as I have explained to your Lordships; and

525
you ought not to break up an established custom suddenly before you see whether the proposed change is going to have a good effect.
The result of the Act of 1903 is that lands have been divided largely, and I can assure your Lordships that the cattle trade has been affected. There are too many young cattle in the country now to supply the graziers, and young cattle are a drug in the market. You may go round the fairs and you will see a lot of half-starved underbred cattle which have been reared on poor land and which the graziers will not buy. We hear about there being a boom in the cattle trade. There is a boom in the sense of a rise in the price of old cattle in condition because they are scarce, but young cattle, as I say, are a drug in the market. I think I can prove that to your Lordships by one or two quotations. The first is an article in the Roscommon Messenger,a very strong Nationalist newspaper of April 3 last, when the spring cattle trade was at its height. It is dealing with one of the results of land purchase. I do not want to abuse land purchase and I do not think this paper wants to either. It says that recent fairs in the county have brought under notice one of the natural results of land purchase which may lead to very serious injury to the cattle trade in the country if necessary precautions are not taken, and that within the last six or eight months there had been an entire absence in their fairs of herds of well finished cattle owing to the system of land purchase in the country.
Then, my Lords, the Tuam Herald of April 17, commenting on the same subject, says it is abundantly clear that not a moment too soon has the question been raised, and that we cannot allow universal purchase to go on without seeing whither it leads and where it ends. It goes on to say that the Irish cattle trade has been an established institution and must not all at once be subjected to a change a little short of revolution without seeing whether or not it is a change for the better. It points out that the small farmer raises young store cattle which, at the age of twelve to eighteen months, he sells to the grazier, and if the grazier who prepares the cattle for exporting is to go under, and he is being gradually stamped out by land purchase, the small owners and breeders must at once turn round and supply his place if possible. That, my Lords, has been the effect on the cattle trade in Galway and Roscommon. In August last I was going down from my place
526
in Galway and there was a fair being held at Gort at which the train stopped, and an inspector got into my carriage and complained that there was not a single young fat beast to be got that year and that there had been 2,000 less cattle carried from Ennis station. It may be asked why do not the people complain? My Lords, they dare not. There is no independent public opinion in Ireland to-day. I think the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, will admit that. The League forms public opinion, and if people do not follow the League they know what will happen to them—outrage is the first thing, possibly murder in the end, and boycotting always.
I would like to say a good word for the graziers. We are told by the Irish Nationalist members that graziers employ little or no labour. That is perfectly true, but they put more money into the pockets of the small men than if they employed labour. We will suppose a grazier has a farm of 100 acres of moderately good land, and, allowing one beast to two acres, supposing he buys a young beast for £7, that £7 goes into the pockets of the small holder, so that the grazier buys at the rate of £3 10 s for his acre, all of which goes into the pocket of the small man. Is there any other farmer who spends as much as £3 10 s an acre? Why is it that they are unpopular? The fact of the matter is that the grazier is a more or less independent man; he is not popular with the Leaguers and therefore is not allowed to become popular with the small tenants. Grazing farms are the only farms that produce what I might call a fair competition rent for the land, and if you place small men on the land who are not agriculturists in the ordinary sense of the word at all although they may understand spade labour and the putting of a few potatoes in, the result will be disastrous. I am in favour of relieving congestion, of course, but what is the good of bringing over to the rich grass lands of Galway small men who know nothing whatever of farming?
Sir Horace Plunkett holds the same opinion, if I may quote from an excellent article he wrote in the June number of the Nineteenth Century and After. He points out the uselessness of importing these small men on to grass lands, and says they would have to be taught to be efficient labourers before they could begin to learn to be farmers. I do not agree with Sir Horace there, because I have had experience of these men as labourers and do not want

527
any better; the only thing is they require to have a man over them to show them what to do. They have not much constructive power, but put a good man over them and you do not want any better labourer. Sir Horace goes on to speak of the immense general importance to Ireland of discrediting the agrarian idea which leads every man to cling to his own land or to covet his neighbour's, and although he agrees with the necessity for the reduction of congestion yet he says the Government should refuse to give a farm to any man who has neither the knowledge and skill nor the working capital to enable him to make a living out of it.
I believe the real way to relieve congestion is to get employment elsewhere for the men in the congested districts. Galway, for example, is full of marble and granite, and there is a small company at work there now developing quarries. They have put £17,000 into it, and although it is only a small beginning they are already paying away £100 a week in wages. If capital could be got into the country to start that kind of thing it would relieve congestion considerably, and I would far sooner see £500,000 spent in developing such an industry than in giving it to landowners to induce them to sell their grass lands. When the Committee stage arrives I shall bring down some samples from the quarries of the company I have mentioned for any noble Lord to look at who cares to do so. It has been assumed that if the land is transferred from the possession of the owners to that of the tenants everything in Ireland will be settled. I think there are three very great dangers behind that assumption. One certainly is that capital will leave the country, another is that if the grass lands are divided it will certainly mean ruin to the cattle trade which is the most promising industry we have in Ireland. As soon as compulsory land purchase becomes general the loyalists will be driven out of the South and West, because that is the whole object of land purchase. It has been an agitation from start to finish to get the landlords out of their lands in the South and West because they are loyal subjects. If any noble Lord doubts that opinion I can amply justify it by quotations from the speeches of Irish Nationalist members. In every speech up to to-day they have said they want us out for that, reason.
LORD LANGFORD: I will not detain your Lordships very long in bringing before you, as best I can, the reason why I wish to
528
support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is admitted that there would have to be a re-adjustment of the financial position under the Act of 1903, and that appears to me to make it necessary for us to consider the points in this Bill as they appear before us. First of all, I must say what an extreme advantage it has been to us in this House to have had this Bill discussed, a Bill containing as it does such sweeping conditions altering to a very great extent the land purchase system in Ireland. The noble Earl who brought in the Bill said the Act of 1903 was passed amid congratulations, conviviality, and the shaking of hands by everybody. May I tell your Lordships why there was that great conviviality? It was because it meant a return to that freedom of contract between man and man which is so clear to every one of us. That conditions of things is to be swept away and the arrangement underlying the whole of the 1903 Act which made it such a phenomenal success is to be set aside. We have only had dug up before us one single case of irregularity of purchase, and I believe that case if it were inquired into would be found to be not so bad as it is supposed to be.
In bringing in the Bill the noble Earl omitted to allude to Part IV. That Part of the Bill brings the whole of Ireland under compulsion. It is put at the end of the Bill as a sort of afterthought. That appears to me to be a peculiar feature, and we cannot in all fairness apply it to particular parts; we must apply it to the whole of Ireland. I should like to ask the noble Earl who brought in the Bill whether, following the argument of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, we shall be able to discuss and amend the financial clauses of this Bill in Committee. I do not know whether that would raise a question of privilege, but Lord MacDonnell, in his very able speech, suggested that there was a possibility that we should be able to discuss and amend the financial clauses of the Bill in Committee.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I see the noble Lord wishes an answer now, and I am unwilling to answer that question at such short notice. The noble Lord knows as well as I do what the custom is as regards the privileges of the other House—that is to say, that to increase or diminish or vary a charge upon public funds has not hitherto been considered to fall within the province of this House, and the noble Lord will have

529
to judge how far any Amendment he may desire to put down on this part of the Bill is in conflict with that long-established rule.
LORD LANGFORD: Quite so. It may be a case of privilege, but it appears to me that this Bill has come before your Lordships' House in a very curious way. The financial clauses of the Bill were not discussed at all in the other House, and I do not know whether that fact would be any justification for altering them in this House. It appears to me to be a very odd position of affairs that a Bill of this kind dealing with such large financial matters should be brought up to your Lordships' House and we should not be in a position to in any way touch it or amend it. As regards the financial proposals, it appears to me to be a perfect farce that they should never have been discussed in the House of Commons, and yet the Bill has been brought up and placed on the Table of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand that one day was given by the other House to the discussion of the financial Resolution associated with the Bill, and a second day to the Report of the financial Resolution.
LORD LANGFORD: Then I have been misinformed, but One day appears to me to be a very short space of time in which to deal with the financial provisions of a Bill of this description. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell me whether he may put our Amendments on the paper. Whether they will be considered or not is another question. The noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, gave us a concrete case just now showing that a considerable loss would fall on the landlord if the Bill passed in its present form, and that it might mean a loss in selling the land of two years purchase on the rent.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: In the case I gave the House the loss amounted to one and a-half year's purchase.
LORD LANGFORD: There is one clause which the noble Earl who brought in the Bill appeared to treat with great affection—Clause 17. I myself entertain the greatest misgivings with regard to the whole of that clause, because it means the incorporation into the Bill of that very dangerous element which has sprung up in Ireland of the landless men. Landless men do not exist
530
only in Ireland; they are a by-product that you get in any country in the world. If law and order are not guarded landless men will spring up anywhere and make themselves a trouble, and I maintain that it is quite unjustifiable to say that landless men are the outcome of the Act of 1903. They are a by-product created by the Government through not taking care to look after the law and the property of the people in Ireland.
The history of the Congested Districts Board is one of the nicest things in Irish history. It emanated first of all when Mr. Arthur Balfour was Chief Secretary for Ireland. But now you have been putting men who are not agricultural men on these lands, and you have been running great risks. An Irishman is a man who will take any land you put him on and see what he can do with it. I cannot help thinking that there has been too much hurry in dealing with congestion in the West of Ireland. But is the system of buying, dividing, and altering the size of holdings and putting men here and there going to obtain as a permanent institution in Ireland? The procedure to get untenanted land which has never come into the Courts is very peculiar, and the question of buying these untenanted lands is a very delicate one; for where negotiations have been entered into and failed it means that the property is depreciated in value. One word more about the compulsory clauses. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, said last night that compulsion meant cash payment, and that cash payment would mean another block, and a block which would be very hard to get over, in the Land Commission Courts. There is a block now of £52,000,000. According to the noble Earl's figures there are £75,000,000 required to complete sales.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I ought to explain about the £75,000,000. I took that as a sort of half-way house between the two extreme figures which have been named.
LORD LANGFORD: Assuming it to be £70,000,000, supposing you brought in compulsory purchase to-morrow you would have a block at once and a worse block than you have now. You cannot have the two things running side by side. You must have the one or the other. If you have compulsory purchase you must inevitably have cash payment, and you will have a worse block than you have now. We on this side of the House only ask that you will

531
allow the voluntary system, which has been such a phenomenal success, to continue as it is now. I dare say the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he addresses your Lordships' House will give us a case to prove that compulsion is necessary. We maintain, on the other hand, that land suitable for dealing with congestion can be obtained voluntarily if the owners are paid in cash and if they are properly approached. It is very curious, if the voluntary purchase system has been such a phenomenal success, that you should immediately knock it on the head and start another one. I am afraid, my Lords, I have gone over a lot of old ground, but with a Bill of this description and with the voluminous speeches we have had in the course of the debate it is almost impossible to avoid going back over some old ground. But I do trust, if we are to read this Bill a second time, that we shall be able to make it a Bill which will not inflict injustice on the owners and occupiers in Ireland.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think that if there are any who have doubts as to the advisability or the necessity of a Second Chamber those doubts must disappear when it is realised in what condition this Bill, a Bill of great importance and magnitude, has been sent to your Lordships' House. I may say it has been practically undiscussed in another place—certainly its chief clauses have been undiscussed, because they were guillotined by means of a powerful majority; and therefore I say it is necessary in those circumstances that your Lordships' possessing here fortunately no guillotine and no question of that guillotine, should discuss each of these clauses when we go into Committee in the manner in which I think they ought to have been discussed in another place.
In the course of his speech last night my noble friend Lord Dunraven drew your Lordships' attention to the very short time that was permitted in the House of Commons for the discussion of this question. I do not think I need weary your Lordships by again going over the details he gave as to the amount of time given to this very important measure, but I heard with some surprise statements from the two noble Earls on the Front Bench opposite which seem to show that they think adequate
532
time and adequate discussion have been given to this measure in another place. In the course of his speech Lord Langford, who spoke last, made a statement in which he declared that no proper time had been given to discuss the financial clauses of this Bill. The noble Earl opposite, I have no doubt speaking as he believed absolutely correctly, declared that a certain amount of time had been given to the discussion of these financial clauses. Since your Lordships' House adjourned this evening I have looked into this question, and I find my friend Lord Langford was absolutely right. I find that one day was given to the financial Resolution in Committee, but that it was gagged without discussion in accordance with the rules of the guillotine as carried out by His Majesty's Government in another place; and I find that one day only was given on Report. The Report of the Resolution was taken on July 23, one day being allocated under the gag resolution to the Committee stage of the clauses, which occupied certainly not more than half an hour or so. Therefore, I think my noble friend, Lord Langford was perfectly justified in saving that the financial clauses of this Bill had been run through the House of Commons with hardly any, if any, adequate discussion.
I must remind your Lordships again, because it seems to be forgotten on the Front Bench opposite, that although this Bill contains no fewer than seventy clauses only ten of them were discussed at all in another place. To the Second Reading only two short days were given; for the Committee stage eight days, of which four were Fridays and therefore short days; for the Report stage, two days were given, the only clauses discussed being Government clauses; and for the Third Reading, only half a-day was given. I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether in his experience of the House of Commons he has ever known a Bill of this magnitude rushed through by means of a powerful majority with such unseemly haste, which I think, is absolutely injurious to the interests of Parliament as a whole. I confess I heard with a certain amount of surprise from the noble Earl Lord Granard, that he considered the Bill had been sufficiently discussed in the House of Commons. It is not for me to confute the noble Earl, who is not here, but I refer him to his colleague Mr. Birrell, and to two of his Nationalist supporters, Mr. Redmond and Mr. Kavanagh

533
What said Mr. Birrell with regard to this measure? Mr. Birrell said—
"I agree there are some parts of this measure which have not received proper, or indeed, any Parliamentary discussion."
I think out of the mouth of the Chief Secretary I can prove that this Bill has not been fairly discussed, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he can give some reason why, on the confession of his own colleagues, this Bill has not been properly discussed in another place, and is sent up here where it is expected, I suppose, to be accepted literally without discussion. Mr. Redmond said that if there were no great Budget called for in this session the whole of the session could be most properly occupied with the discussion of this Bill. Mr. Kavanagh, also a supporter of the Chief Secretary, virtually said the same thing; and therefore I do ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he will give us some reason, when he replies to me, why a measure of this importance is sent up to your Lordships' House from another place without discussion. My Lords, I have my own ideas. I cannot but think it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to conceal from the country the shortcomings of this measure; but I hope your Lordships when we arrive at the Committee stage will not allow anything of that sort, and that you will discuss fully and freely every one of the clauses so that the country may understand what is the nature of this Bill.
I say at once that if this had been a measure to promote the transfer of land in Ireland by means of purchase it would receive the most cordial support of the Party to which I belong, not only in this House but also in another place. I have myself from the moment that I commenced my political career as an Irish member of the House of Commons done my utmost, as far as lay in my power, to promote the transfer of land from owner to occupier in Ireland on terms agreeable to occupier and owner and with no appreciable risk to the State; and I look back with satisfaction to the various measures that I have been privileged to support. I look back to the measure of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne in 1885 which did so much to solve the great Irish land problem; and of all the measures of land purchase which have been put forward by the Party of which I have been a member I can say with perfect truth that I
534
have done my utmost, as far as lay in my power, to promote those measures. But, my Lords, the Bill before us is not merely a Land Purchase Bill. It was not initiated in another place and sent up to your Lordships with the idea of transferring the land from the owner to the occupier on the terms I have put forward. This is a Bill which has been truly described in another place as calculated to paralyse the whole system of land sale and land purchase in Ireland. There are many other objects aimed at in this Bill far beyond the principles we have always supported. There is undoubtedly what is called compulsory sale. Upon that I shall say a few words before I sit down; but in this Bill, which we were led to believe was a Bill to promote the sale and purchase of land in Ireland, we find involved an enormous number of provisions of an absolutely extraneous character. We find there is the reconstruction of the Congested Districts' Board. We find also many provisions in this Bill which, if the question is fairly considered and thrashed out in your Lordships' House, must prove to be absolutely injurious to the question of land purchase and land sale in Ireland.
A great deal lies been said about the Act of 1903. I am proud to think that as a member of the Government of that time I had a good deal to do with that Bill in sup porting the proposals of my right hon. friend who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. George Wyndham. But remember what was the basis on which that Act was founded. There was a general agreement on both sides of the House of Commons, and also on both sides of your Lordships' House. It received the sanction and the support of the Nationalist Party in Ireland, and consequently I may say that it was a universally satisfactory Bill. But what is the Bill now before us? I cannot gather much from what took place in the House of Commons, because no discussion of the question was allowed there; but even from what I have heard in your Lordships' House in the course of the last two days I cannot but gather that this Bill is not universally approved of by all the sections of those parties who support His Majesty's Government either in this House or in the House of Commons. The finance question, of course, is a very serious one. If His Majesty's Government had introduced a measure which would have lubricated the wheels of finance, by which, I mean, introduced some measure which

535
would have remedied some of the imperfections with regard to finance in the Act of 1903—for I do not think there ever has been a Bill introduced into Parliament of any sort or kind without imperfections—that measure would have received the hearty support of the members of the Opposition, whether in this House or in the House of Commons. But this Bill does nothing of the sort.
I am not going to enter into the question of finance. It has been dealt with by Lord MacDonnell, and I have no doubt that in Committee it will be dealt with equally fully. Therefore, I do not propose now to enter into details; but what I do complain of is that the only solution, so far as I can gather at the present moment, to obviate the financial difficulties that have accrued is that the tenant who has bought should pay a higher annual sum to the State and that the owner who has sold should not receive his money in cash. As has been shown in the course of the debate, these two proposals must act most injuriously towards the whole question of transferring the land from the owner to the occupier, on which, I think, the future land question of Ireland depends. Not only will it do that, my Lords, but I think these proposals will injuriously affect the present arrangements that have been made.
Having said so much, or rather so little, about the financial question, because I think that is really a question for Committee, I pass to what I think are the chief clauses in the Bill which will most injuriously affect the question of the transfer of land in Ireland. I deal first of all with the zones. Now that question has been discussed from various points of view, but I have not gathered from anything that has been said that anybody can controvert the statement that the zone system initiated by Mr. Wyndham has been most beneficial in the transfer of land from owner to occupier. The only fault, perhaps, that can be found with regard to the zone system is that it has worked too satisfactorily, for it has what is vulgarly called "taken on," and a vast amount of land, far more than ever was anticipated, has been transferred from owner to occupier. The rapidity and the ease with which those transactions have been carried out have been due entirely to the admirable system of the zones as intro-
536
duced by Mr. Wyndham in his Bill of 1903. I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will contradict me when I say that the transfer of land has been extremely rapid and extremely satisfactory, and that the only drawback has been that there has not been money enough to meet the requirements from the action of these zones.
What is the only objection put forward to the admirable working of the zone system? Undoubtedly the Nationalist Party did not approve of the progress made under the zone system in the transfer of land in Ireland. Undoubtedly that transfer, making the occupier the owner of his holding, is very injurious to those whose sole object in life is agitation in Ireland. Consequently, if the zone system, which has worked so satisfactorily, and would continue to do so if left alone, is allowed to remain, they recognise that agitation must be abolished. Therefore, they put forward a number of arguments as to why the zones have not worked satisfactorily. One of their arguments is that the prices of land are too high. If that is true the zone system must be unpopular. But is the zone system unpopular, either with the occupier who desires to buy or with the owner? If it were so the intending purchaser would naturally and wisely refuse to buy directly under the zone system and would insist on buying through the Estates Commissioners. Well, have they bought through the Estates Commissioners to a greater extent than they have through the direct system of sales, as they are enabled to do under the zones? I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will find that nine-tenths of the total applications to buy land have been under the direct sale of the zones, and not at the hands of the Estate Commissioners. Therefore, the statement that the zones are not popular is contradicted by the figure I have quoted.
Then we know, again, that the Nationalist Party, which are synonymous with the United Irish League, are extremely anxious to abolish the zone system, and the leaders of the Nationalist Party or the United Irish League Party held a meeting of their various constituents in September last year in which they denounced the whole of the zone system. But they have been repudiated by the men whom they advised not to take advantage

537
of the zone system, for in the two months following September last year; in which this appeal was made, applications for money to be advanced on direct sales amounted to nearly £13,500,000. I venture to say—and I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will take note of my assertion—that the zone system is not only not unpopular but has worked with the greatest advantage in Ireland for those who desire to buy land. Then we have been told by the Nationalist Party that under the zones the occupiers of land who are anxious to buy have made improvident bargains. I have myself a higher estimation of the sense, the shrewdness, and the ability of the occupiers of land in Ireland than evidently the Nationalist Party have, and having had a certain amount of experience—I have sold all my property in County Down—I do not hesitate to say that the occupier of land is quite as capable of taking care of himself as the man whose land he wants to buy. If the occupier had been improvident and had given more than he could afford to pay, would not the result have been apparent in the fact that he would not have paid the annuities which were due? Is not that a proof that the tenant has not only got what he wanted, and that he has not lost, but has in all probability gained by the bargain? The noble Lord, Lord St. David's, made a long speech yesterday, but as I am not a financier I could not follow him with regard to all the points he put forward; but on one point I could follow him and controvert him. Lord St. David's seemed somewhat doubtful as to the security on which money was advanced to the occupier in order to enable him to buy his holding. Well, my Lords, I say at once that when the State advances money it is bound to recognise its responsibility and be perfectly assured that the annuities to be paid for the advance should be paid regularly and without any doubt or any fear that the State will not receive its just return.
But now let me go back to the various Purchase Acts with which I was connected. I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he is aware of the regularity with which these annuities have been paid. From the very commencement the annuities have been paid regularly by these Irish tenants, and in a manner which has
538
not been equalled, Certainly not surpassed, by the London tenants of those Dukes who are so often held up to reprobation. If the noble and learned Lord cares to look through the figures he will find that the arrears are not even in thousands, but are only in hundreds; and therefore when Lord St. David's tells us there is no security I ask him to prove it, seeing that I can show that the interest on the money has been paid with a regularity of which anybody in any part of the United Kingdom might be absolutely proud.
Again, my Lords, we are told that the prices given under the zones do not represent the full security. The man who says that, to my mind, is absolutely ignorant of the details of the question as to how Irish laud passes from the occupier to the owner. The money advanced under the zones is only the owner's interest. But what remains? There remains the security to the State of the farm itself, and there remains above all what is known in the North of Ireland as tenant right, which your Lordships in England would understand as goodwill, and the goodwill of the farm generally surpasses by a very great extent the fee simple of the value of the land. Therefore I venture to hope that I have proved Lord St. David's statement to be absolutely inaccurate, and it would never have been made had he really studied the question of the transfer of land in Ireland, the regularity with which the payments were made, and the security of the State in obtaining its just return for its outlay.
Now what I want to know is this—What is the attitude of the Government with regard to zones? The Government seem to me to take up a very curious attitude. On the one hand they denounce the zones, as I gather by their Bill and speeches, while, on the other hand, they seem inclined to allow the zones to go on. They do not wish, so far as I can see, entirely to abolish them, but they give powers to certain commissioners to interfere and endeavour to make a bargain—a system which has never before been known amongst those who have accorded the Land Act of 1903 the right to come between the zones. What is the reason of this change in the zones? I have proved, I think, that the zone system is not unpopular, that it is advantageous to the owners and occupiers of land in Ireland, and that the amounts which have been

539
advanced have been at no risk whatever to the State. Therefore I am at a loss to understand on what grounds the Government propose to alter this zone system which has worked so well. I know exactly the excuse that is put forward. It is that unreasonable sums have been advanced in order that in the sum advanced the payment of arrears might be included. It was mentioned by one or two of my noble friends behind me. But I ask His Majesty's Government to give me some specific cases in which this has taken place. From what I have heard, the cases are few and far between. Lord Granard gave one; but can he tell me of a number of cases of a similar character? I have not heard of them. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will tell me. If this state of things has taken place which we are told is the reason for abolishing the zones, then let the Government first of all give us those cases, and if they are proved to be correct then let them do one of two things—either move an Amendment to their own Bill in your Lordships' House insisting that an inquiry shall be made as to the arrears over a certain number of years, or else let them, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday, put down two years of arrears which should be allowed within the sphere of the zones. I think that is a fair offer to the Government. But I do ask before anything is done and the zones condemned that we should be given some specific cases as to how the system of zones has been abused. Having realised the extraordinary rapidity with which sales have been managed and the extraordinary absence of friction with which these sales have been carried on under the zones, I say that it is not right that this system should be interfered with, as it would retard, and retard most materially, the good work done under the zones by the Act of 1903.
As to the question of the bonus, there seems to me a great deal of misapprehension as to the reason why the bonus was given in the Act of 1903. I do not think noble Lords have any idea of the expense that is required to effect a transfer of land between the owner and the occupier, and it was because the expense was so great in regard to the proof of title and many other things in the transfer of land, that that bonus was given, and more especially in order to meet the very high rate of interest
540
paid on charges on property in Ireland, for without that bonus being given it would have been absolutely impossible for the owner of property to sell. That was the reason why, a ter a considerable discussion in the House of Commons, it was decided that the bonus should be a fixed bonus and not a sliding one, and it is on those grounds, without going further into the matter, that I think your Lordships should very carefully consider the question before you decide to alter the system from a fixed to a sliding scale.
But now, my Lords, the most important question in the whole of this Bill is what I may call the compulsory sale, so frequently called compulsory purchase, although I do not know why, because no one is compelled to buy, but people are compelled to sell. Your Lordships, however, will understand what I mean by it. That principle was never under discussion in Committee of the House of Commons. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor why that was the case, because I think the most important feature of this measure is the change from the voluntary system in the Act of 1903 to the proposed compulsory system under the Bill now being discussed. I should like to hear why it was never discussed. But I would say that, in discussing the whole question of taking land compulsorily, there must be two objects prominently before the mind of any just man. First of all, is it necessary to take the land compulsorily; secondly, if you are convinced that it is necessary, are you doing it in a just mannner? Let me deal first with the question as to whether it is necessary to take this land compulsorily. I think the only excuse that can be put forward for taking land under this Bill compulsorily would be by proving that it was absolutely impossible to get land otherwise. But is that the case, my Lords? I maintain that at the present moment that state of affairs does not exist. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt very fully with this question yesterday. He will correct me if I am wrong, for I am speaking from memory, but so far as I could gather from his speech he seemed to think there was property in the congested districts of not less than 12,000 acres which was inspected by people competent to inspect—the Congested Districts Board—and which it was agreed would be absolutely suitable if it could be bought. Why was it not bought?

541
Because there was no money to buy it. Surely, my Lords, you cannot say that you ought to take land compulsorily when there is much to be sold voluntarily. At the present moment there is land of the aggregate value of £53,000,000—I think the noble Earl opposite gave this figure although my figure is £56,000,000, but that is a detail—which it had been agreed to sell under Mr. Wyndam's Act, but for the purchase of which money is not available.
I ventured, I hoped not rudely, to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Granard, when he was talking about taking land compulsorily. What I want to ask is this—Are the Government proposing to take land compulsorily and to pay for it when they have no got the money to pay for the land in respect of the agreements which have been made and which were made voluntarily? If that is the case, I am very anxious to know where the money is to come from. If His Majesty's Government do not carry out the contracts agreed upon up to those fifty odd million pounds they have no right to take money to invest in fresh lands which they propose to take compulsorily; they have no right to do that until they have paid their rightful debts. We understand and believe that it is proposed to reduce the amount of money which is due to those who have voluntarily agreed to buy and sell by taking some of it to acquire land compulsorily. I cannot believe that anybody with a sense of justice can take money which has been agreed upon, and invest it in taking land compulsorily which has not been agreed upon. Before embarking upon any system of expropriation, any system of taking land compulsorily, the amount of money that has been agreed upon should first of all be paid off, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will not agree to allow any question of taking land compulsorily and paying for it with the money which has already been agreed upon, and more or less promised—I hope your Lordships will not allow that to be done under this Bill. I think I have proved that it is not necessary to take land compulsorily.
I now proceed with the other part of my argument. Is it just to take this land? Let me examine the provisions of this Bill in which it is proposed to take land compulsorily. The proposals are of a most
542
remarkable character. The first step in taking this land is the "final offer," and the final offer is to be the first step. There is to be no bargaining. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, laughs, but it is no laughing matter for those whose land is about to be taken. The Bill says that the final offer is to be the price which the Estates Commissioners are willing to give, and in arriving at that price, the Estates Commissioners are to have regard to the price which the tenants and other persons—I draw attention to that—are willing to give. Therefore it would seem that a wholly ridiculous and inadequate offer on the part of any tenant, perhaps some unknown tenant, may be made, and if refused by the owner, as it would be refused, that starts the procedure which begins the "final offer." Therefore I am justified in saying that the first step is the final offer and the final offer is the first step. A noble Lord opposite rather criticised a remark by a noble Lord on this side of the House with regard to the question as to whom "any person" may be. I think that in the Committee stage of this Bill we should have Clauses 17 and 43 clearly defined as to what "any person" may mean. It might be the man on the spot or it might be somebody walking about the streets of London, and anything more dangerous it would be absolutely impossible to imagine. What is to be the effect in Ireland if this provision is taken advantage of? The result will be that the owners of property will be forced to take the lowest possible price, a price far below the market value. Then what will be the result of that? Those who have purchased already, those who have agreed on their purchase deeds, would naturally think that they had paid far too much, and it is quite possible that those who have agreed to buy their lands for their sons might repudiate those agreements. They might do even more. There might be the feeling that a man had paid too much, and he might refuse to pay his annuity.
I was very much struck last night by a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Castle-town, who knows the state of Ireland a great deal better than I do. The noble Lord stated the belief that since this idea has been in the air there has also been in his district an idea to repudiate not only agreements, but to repudiate annuities. He went further and said he believed that

543
if there were a general repudiation of these annuities the result would be a civil war in Ireland. I would commend to the Government that carefully thought-out statement and ask them, in the face of that, whether they are justified in going on in the course that is being pursued. There is one question I want to ask, a really important question. Does the Chief Secretary really mean to carry out the proposals he has put forward with regard to compulsory sale? Mr. Birrell, replying to objections brought against the clause, declared that they were not likely to be realised because he said that for many a long day to come the cash at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners would be so small as to render it most unlikely that they would be put into operation. The Chief Secretary was referring to these compulsory powers. I want to know what that means. I think we are entitled to have an answer on that subject. Obviously, if the clause is to be worked it is unjust. On the other hand if it is only meant for show, if it is only meant to hoodwink the Irish Nationalists into believing they have the substance when they only have the shadow, I think your Lordships will be justified in putting an end to that state of affairs by removing the clause altogether.
Now I come to Part III, the part which deals with congestion. The question of congestion occupied a most extensive inquiry at the hands of the Dudley Commission and should have received by the House of Commons considerably more attention than it did Mr. Birrell, in introducing the Land Bill in 1908, said the Commission attracted an enormous amount of attention and excited great interest in Ireland, and that if the House of Commons imagined that they could refer a question of such vital importance and deep interest to a Commission of this sort and then pay no attention to that Commission's Report, they would be repeating the evil behaviour for which, unfortunately, there was some precedent in the past. What has the House of Commons done with regard to the Report of the Dudley Commission? The whole personnel of the Congested Districts Board is thrown into the melting pot. The House of Commons was only allowed a few hours at the fag end of the session to discuss a question which took the Royal Commission two years to investigate, by means of 116 public
544
sittings devoted to the examination of 560 witnesses through over 60,000 questions. Their work is recorded in eleven volumes of evidence, besides nearly twenty-one pages of supplementary matter. Surely it must therefore have been a joke on the part of the Chief Secretary—one of the somewhat remarkable jokes he makes—when he allowed the Report to be considered in such a short space of time. Therefore I do hope that when this question comes up in your Lordships' House it will be thoroughly discussed and thrashed out from every point of view. There are very important alterations made—alterations to increase the number of members of the Board, to increase the elective element, to enlarge the Board's area, and to confer upon the Board compulsory powers of purchase. For what purpose was that body originally created? It was created to endeavour to allay the distress and misery existing in certain congested districts. That Board did its work right well, and the changed condition of affairs in those districts is shown by the money invested in the savings banks and the increase in the thrift and industry of the people.
But what is proposed to be done now? It is proposed to alter the whole constitution of the Board. It is proposed to add to it a number of elected members. What does that mean? To the ordinary man in England it sounds very plausible, but we who live in Ireland know full well that local pressure will be put upon those elected members to do what they can for their own districts, and so carry out a system of jobbery simply in the interests of the districts with which they are associated. If they did not do so jealousy would be created and the lives of those people would be a misery. And their business must be neglected. How can a great body of nineteen people, some of them elected, some of them not, carry out the work which a practical body has been doing for the last few years? They will resolve themselves more or less into a body of discussion and debate, and a body such as the Congested Districts Board, which has the distribution of public finance, should be above anything of that sort. They ought to be above local pressure and able to deal with these great matters with absolute impartiality. But what would be the result of this? We know full well that these elected members would be the nominees of the United Irish League, and

545
that the United Irish League has never hesitated to bring pressure of a most unpleasant character to bear upon people who, to them, are obnoxious. I have had cases brought before my notice, in which a great number of labourers' cottages have at times been put down on certain spots, not because they were wanted there, but because it was thought they would annoy the man who was the owner of the land. That is not an unusual occurrence. If that is the case with regard to labourers' cottages, what will be the condition of affairs if they have still further and greater powers entrusted to them?
The main object of the Government in this Bill is, I understand, to migrate from the congested districts to other districts those people who are what are called migrants. What reception would those people have at the hands of the members of the United Irish League if they were planted on to land which those who were cattle-drivers thought was to be their reward for the action they had taken part in during the past two years? Do you think that migration would be encouraged under this new elected Board? We know well the opinion of those in authority in the United Irish League with regard to the landless men. There is plenty of evidence as to the opposition which the landless man feels towards the migrants. Reference is made to it in the Report of the Evidence of the Dudley Commission, numerous resolutions have been passed by branches of the League against migrants, and county councillors and other leading local members of the League have advocated the claims of the landless men as against the claims of the migrants. Under this Bill what is going to be done? You are going to let loose the cattle-drivers on the migrants. That will be the result of your proposals with regard to this alteration of the Congested Districts Board, and the whole bottom of your Bill is knocked out if these migrants whom, under your Bill, you propose to transplant into these districts, are not allowed to live there because the cattle-drivers object to them.
Why is this Bill introduced? I do not think any one will say it is introduced for the purpose of promoting prosperity in Ireland. Can any one say that it is introduced for the purpose of promoting the transfer of land between the occupier
546
and the owner which is now working so admirably? Can anybody say that under this Bill you are going to relieve congestion by putting migrants down in a district where they will not be allowed to live? I do not think any one will contradict me when I say the clauses of this Bill will not carry out those objects. They will ruin some of the chief resources of Ireland. Lord Clonbrock told us yesterday that in Connaught horse-breeding was a great advantage in supplying remounts for the Army. The noble Lord did not tell your I Lordships of the enormous amount of cattle reared on these grazing ranches, or the amount of cattle exported annually on which the agricultural classes chiefly depend. The amount of stock reared on these ranches in Ireland can be calculated by millions, and if you break up these ranches, if you try to make them into mere agricultural holdings on which to put migrants who have had no experience of farming or who will be driven off by the cattle-drivers, you will bring to a deadlock one of Ireland's greatest industries.
Why, then, is the Bill introduced? It is introduced simply as a quid pro quo to Mr. Dillon and the Nationalist Party for supporting the Liberal Party at the present moment in the House of Commons. It is the reward given to the members of the United Irish League for having decided that while this Bill was in progress there should be a cessation of cattle-driving. "Give Mr. Birrell a chance" was their cry. But does Mr. Birrell himself believe in the Bill he is introducing? I venture to say he introduced this Bill simply because he was told to do so, and he did so with the greatest possible reluctance. Here are Mr. Birrell's own words—
"No one would accuse any Chief Secretary of wishing to introduce a Land Bill if he could possibly avoid it. I have done the utmost I possibly could do to avoid introducing the measure."
Those are the words of the Chief Secretary in introducing one of the most important measures ever introduced into Parliament. This Bill is not introduced to benefit Ireland. To my mind, if carried in its present condition it will mean the ruin of Ireland. It is because I feel so strongly on this subject, it is because I feel, living in Ireland as I do, how much Ireland depends on being governed by a firm system, endeavouring to promote prosperity by transferring the land on equitable terms

547
from landlords to tenants, that I beg your Lordships, when this Bill goes into Committee, to consider it most seriously in each and all of its details.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I think everybody will admit that the whole subject of Irish land and its tenure is one of the most complicated legal, social, and political problems that can be presented for the consideration of any man, and I am under this disadvantage in comparison with the noble Marquess who has just spoken, that I have not his intimate personal knowledge of the working of this subject. I have knowledge merely as a Parliamentary student during a long period of years, and my knowledge is secondhand. An additional difficulty is placed in my way by the manner in which this debate has been carried on. All through the debates that I have heard in reference to this subject there has been a constant series of accusations against the Government of the day, varying hardly at all either in phrase or in substance, and going on now, in my own experience, over a period of twenty-nine years. In each one of those debates the same kind of accusation has been made in the same kind of language as was used yesterday and as has been used to day.
Let me see, for example, how the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, dealt with the matter. The noble Lord, if I may respectfully say so, did not contribute a single suggestion towards the solution of these difficult questions. He said that the Government were under the heel of the Irish Party; that the Irish Nationalist Party wished to prevent a settlement; that we have re-opened the whole of the question of land purchase; that we have destroyed all the elements of the Act of 1903; that the Government of this country are setting up an enormous system of intimidation; that we had a passion to destroy and a deadly partiality for a clean slate. We have also been told that the loyalists are to be driven out of the country, and that the Government wish to conceal from the country the real meaning of this Bill. Of course this is Parliamentary discussion, and I suppose Parliamentary invective differs from personal and private invective because of a certain usage; but there is no foundation for any one of those charges, and I will endeavour to establish
548
that with regard to particular charges made on this occasion, and others which have been made upon every occasion during the whole of the agrarian revolution that has been proceeding for more than thirty years in Ireland. I will myself endeavour to refrain from rhetoric. I am a great admirer of Lord Curzon's eloquence, but I cannot help thinking that if he could deal with these questions with a little less eloquence and a little more in a matter-of-fact way we should be more likely to come to some conclusion. I will endeavour to be matter-of-fact, and, as far as I can, to be accurate.
In the first place, let me ask what is the occasion of this Bill? The Chief Secretary for Ireland expresses a great reluctance to bring in any Irish Land Bill. I can completely understand his feelings. I think there are very few Members of this House who do not sympathise with him. But let me see what were the circumstances and necessities attending the introduction of this Bill. The primary necessity was a necessity of finance. I do not make any reproach at all to Mr. Wyndham nor to his colleagues in the Government of 1903. But we must all acknowledge that they based their proposals upon serious miscalculations. In the first place Mr. Wyndham said that the size of the problem, the value of the land which was to be purchased under this scheme, was one hundred millions sterling. Now that was obviously wrong. There have been contracts already amounting to £85,000,000 sterling, and if his calculation had been right we should have been within £15,000,000 of completing the whole of the transactions. We know from the figures that there is from seventy-five millions to ninety-eight millions of property still to be disposed of. We know that the size of the problem was understated by one-half. In the next place, the Government of that day acted upon the assumption that two and three-quarters stock would be issued at par. As a matter of fact, the stock which has been issued during the last five or six years has been issued at eighty-eight and a fraction, and it is now still lower, and if we continued on the footing on which the Act of 1903 was introduced there would be a complete departure from the absolute limit of the demands upon the Treasury which was promised at that time in Parliament by the Government of the day, and on the faith of which Parliament passed the Act

549
of 1903. An immense block has arisen in consequence.
The complaint is made, "Why do you not increase the staff?" and the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, said "What you are proceeding to do is asking the State to make a composition with its creditors." But Mr. Wyndham's pledges did not relate merely to the amount of stock that would be required or to the rate at which it would be issued, but also to the rate at which the purchase would proceed. My noble friend the Leader of the House referred to that in his opening speech, but no reference whatever has been made to it in the subsequent debate. Let me remind your Lordships of what was said by Mr. Wyndham in 1903. He said there was to be "due and zealous regard in this respect to the national credit." Surely we must all share in an opinion of that kind. He then proceeded—
"I say emphatically that it will be neither financially prudent nor administratively possible to expand these operations at a pace so high as to make us go to the City for more than £5,000,000 in any one of the first three years after the passing of this Act."
But during the first three years after the passing of the Act upwards of £5,000,000 was issued every year. He proceeded—
"After three years, in my opinion, it will be possible and desirable to mend the pace. After three years we ought to be able so to mend the pace as far as we are concerned as to enable all saleable land to be sold in the course of some fifteen years."
In other words, it would be at the rate of £7,000,000 a year. In the fourth year upwards of £5,000,000 was issued, and in the fifth year upwards of £6,500,000 was issued, and I must say it seems to me very difficult to blame the Treasury in that particular, remembering the promises that were made and the conditions upon which the landlords themselves and the tenants knew it was intended to operate when the Bill was passed. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition admits that the time has come to reconsider the financial arrangements. Any one who has not only a jealous regard but who has a reasonable regard for the national finances of the country and the national credit, which is valuable for Ireland as well as this country, must feel that the noble Marquess is fully justified in making that statement. But it is easy to say there should be re-
550
consideration. It would have been most interesting from one of the distinguished authors of the Bill of 1903 to have received some assistance towards getting out of the deadlock created by that legislation. We were assenting parties to the legislation of 1903, I entirely agree, but being in Opposition and without official knowledge we could not be expected to be acquainted with all the financial foundations.
Our solution of the deadlock is this. There are four parties who are concerned in these transactions. There is the landlord, the tenant, the Treasury, and the ratepayer. Nobody proposes that we should proceed on the lines of the Act of 1903 without some change, and for this reason, that it would leave upon the ratepayers a charge of about £640,000 a year. That is what will be the effect unless some Bill is passed to mend the situation. We do not propose that the ratepayer should bear that sum of money, and the Treasury is ready to come to his relief. I must confess that the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, made a remarkable statement when he was dealing with the liability to fall upon the fund in relief of rates. It was solemnly laid down in the Act of 1903, and was a condition given as a security to Parliament, that the Treasury would not be called upon to find the money. The noble Earl has referred to this as a technical error in the Act of 1903. He is very tender to his friends, but I think he was, I will not say unkind, but a little severe upon his opponents. Under this Bill the ratepayers will be relieved from the responsibility for this £640,000 a year.
Now I come to the Treasury, and let us see how they are dealt with. The Treasury are generally supposed to have no friends, and though I do not agree with everything that has been said by my noble friend, I can quite understand sympathy even for the Treasury in the circumstances in which they are placed by the dilemma caused by the Act. The Treasury take over the liability for excess stock for pending agreements capitalised at seven and a-half millions. Instead of a bonus of twelve millions, including excess stock, on the bonus they will have to pay eighteen millions. The twelve millions were not given, as the noble Marquess seems to suppose, on the footing that everyone would get twelve per cent., but on the assumption that 100 millions would cover the purchase and that the

551
twelve millions should go as far as they could if the amount was over 100 millions. It was an absolute limit—these are the words of Mr. Wyndham—with regard to the bonus, and it now comes to eighteen millions. I never knew the Treasury in such a melting mood before. I think the Treasury have behaved with singular generosity, for not only will they pay this large sum, but they will have to find cash—and this is an answer to one of the questions of the noble Marquess—for all the compulsory purchases they may make under the Bill, if it passes, and they will have to pay the staff expenses. Taking all together, instead of there being the limit of twelve millions, as was contemplated under the Act of 1903, there will be loss to the Treasury estimated at about thirty millions. I think it was the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, who, in the course of the debate, and in default of making any practical suggestion, which I was most anxious to hear from him, said it would be wise to treat people generously in this matter. I think the Treasury have behaved generously on the figures I have just presented.
I now come to the landlord. Of course, in a situation like this some sacrifice is to be expected from everybody. Let me take the case of the landlord. The landlord may stay as he is, waiting for the block to be removed, and pray remember that whenever landlords or tenants entered into an agreement under the Act, knowing the finances of it and the rate at which the purchases were to go through—that it was not to be done at the rate of more than five millions a year—they all knew there must be a block. They must have known it. What we ask them is that, if they like to stay as they are, very well, they will take their turn; but, if they do not, they have the option of taking payment in stock partly or wholly, and partly, or wholly in cash. My noble friend explained it was rather an intricate matter, but I think he explained it most clearly—that there would be different lists, and one of the lists which would be early taken would be that of those sellers who were willing to take half in stock and half in shares, the stock being taken at a price of ninety-two. The tenants, it is true, sacrifice a quarter per cent. more in security. I regret it, but when a reconstruction, so to speak, has to be arrived at—and no one really disputes that there must be a reconstruction—have not the Treasury taken a
552
fair share of the burden, and is it not reasonable that a small contribution of that kind should be made by the other parties to this transaction in the circumstances to which I have alluded?
I was very much entertained by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, who said, When are we going to have an end of Land Bills? And he seemed to suggest that there was something approaching delinquency in our bringing forward this Irish Land Bill at all. I do not in the least mean to reproach him, but I think he might have remembered it has arisen out of the deadlock created by the miscalculation which was made in 1903. I thought myself, when he made that observation and asked that question, that I detected on the countenances of some of those noble Lords sitting behind him that irrepressible sense of humour which is the magic of Ireland.
Let me turn to the other complaint that has been made. If you will permit me, as I know there are other speakers with a better title who wish to address the House, and as it is essentially a Committee point, I will not say anything at this stage about the composition of the new Congested Districts Board and the representative element upon it. It is an argument which requires dealing with. We shall meet it and deal with it in Committee, but, after all, that is a thing which is not one of the fundamental parts of the financial operations of the Bill. It may be an important part of the Bill and such as deserves discussion; but in the short time at my disposal I prefer to deal with the really substantial part of the Bill. And first, before I do that, may I refer to the statement which has been made that this Bill has not been discussed in the House of Commons? We have had figures given us about what the House of Commons did, how many hours they bestowed upon it, how many days—a sort of time table of the proceedings of another place. Is it not rather delicate ground for one House of Parliament to take under its wing the internal proceedings of the other House, and to constitute ourselves censores morum of the other House of Parliament? I respectfully suggest that for the consideration of your Lordships. But let me just see. The tremendous offence on which Lord Dunraven adverted was that only eight days had been given to the Bill in Committee of the other House. I wonder why its important pro-

553
visions did not receive consideration in that time. I am not going to transgress in the direction which I have ventured to indicate; but let us take a hypothetical case. Suppose it were the case that in any imaginary House eight days were spent in debate upon trivial and unimportant questions, and therefore an important question was not reached. I suggest that as a hypothesis. That only eight days should be spent in Committee appears to shock the noble Marquess. He announced at the same time that this House would freely and fully discuss these important questions. I shall watch with interest whether we take eight days. I do not mean by that in any way to incite your Lordships to take a longer time, but I think that eight days in Committee, we will say in this House, is not an altogether inadequate time.
Now I come to the question of zones. Your Lordships have been told repeatedly that His Majesty's Government by this Bill proposes to obliterate the zones, the beneficial effect of which has been so great. This is only one instance of what has taken place in the course of this debate, in which a great deal of zeal has been spent in defending what nobody attacks and in attacking what nobody defends. I agree the zones are excellent. We agreed with you on that in 1903. The peculiar merit of the zone system is that it saves a valuation of property which has been once valued. There is no great mystery in the zone system. I understood one of your Lordships to say, in regard to this particular branch of the subject that it was so confused that English or Scottish intelligences could hardly grasp its full meaning. It simply means that when you have valued a rent, if you take so many years' purchase you may assume to get the basis of a judicial rent and not require a second valuation. Nothing has surprised me more during this debate than the assumption that we are tearing up the whole system of the zones. We are doing nothing of the kind. I will tell your Lordships what we mean. Experience has shown—this can be discussed in Committee—that there are some cases—I do not think many—in which the very basis upon which the zone system rests has failed. For example, the judicial rent may be an agreed rent which has not been subject to revision by the Court. Surely, it is a modest request that where the very essence of the zone system is in a particular case violated because there is not in fact a
554
judicial decision, though there may be in form, you should be at liberty to ask that your security should be established to your satisfaction by showing that the price is a reasonable and equitable one. That is our intention. It is in the Bill, and if it is not clearly expressed in the Bill, it will be made the subject of criticism when the clause is reached in Committee.
There is another point that has been dwelt upon repeatedly in the course of the debate. There have been but few points dwelt upon, but these few points have been repeated and enlarged upon, I do not say unduly, but with every kind of apprehension that something disastrous and wicked is being enacted. The point I wish now to take is compulsory purchase. The question was put to us, "Do the Government run a voluntary or a compulsory system of purchase?" I answer at once, "We run a voluntary system." It is our wish to maintain the voluntary system. It is clear that if you have concurrently two systems competing with each other—the voluntary and compulsory—the compulsory, like Aaron's rod, must eat up the voluntary. It really did not require the elaboration devoted to it. What we mean, what has been stated by my noble friend the Leader of the House is this. We mean compulsion to be exceptional and to be supplementary to the voluntary system. I am sure I need not enlarge upon this; at least if I cannot induce your Lordships to agree with me by stating it I do not propose to elaborate it. Is it not the case that there may be estates in Ireland where it is desirable in the public interest there should be a change? I think the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly Lord Dunraven, admitted there may be cases of that kind. Are there not cases also possible in which you may need for the relief of congestion to acquire property, not at a distance—because people do not wish to have congests from outside thrust upon them, having people of their own to provide for—but land in the particular neighbourhood? Are there not cases like that? All I say is if you desire the purposes for which, and the occasions upon which, compulsory powers are to be employed to be stated, there is no objection to those powers being limited by some reasonable definition. All this was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House. But the statement has been entirely ignored by your Lordships and some of those who took part in the debate have spoken as though they proceeded on the

555
belief that some great expropriation of the land of Ireland was intended by the Bill, that we were replanting or resettling half of Ireland, and that every man's property was to be at the mercy of the Estates Commissioners, or, indeed, of one of them. That is not the intention of the Government. We have stated in terms clear and deliberate what we do mean.
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, referred to the machinery and objected to it in the strongest terms. He said the final offer was the original offer, and that it was to be framed upon the footing, not of the real price, but of the price—I have forgotten the words, but of the price offered by the tenant or other person. It may be cumbrous, though I do not think it is, but the scheme is this. If the Estates Commissioners desire to acquire a piece of land for reasons which are sufficient, then they make an offer for it. They may, in the first place, inspect it. Then they make a final offer—that is a firm, a fixed offer which they cannot withdraw from. If it is accepted, well and good. If it is not accepted, then the thing goes to be tried by the valuer irrespective of what the tenants or others may offer. The true value is to be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and I believe the Judicial Commissioner enjoys the confidence of noble Lords in Ireland. This is the other terrible evil which called forth so much of the oratory of Lord Curzon and of other noble Lords. I am stating it in prosaic, I am afraid in very prosaic, language, and I cannot see that it forms a better basis than a good many other things for the suggestions of robbery, confiscation, spoilation, and Socialism, and all the other numerous sins of which His Majesty's Government are said to be guilty.
Let me come to another question Do you propose, it is asked, to provide for landless men? Is that the design of Clause 17? And I was asked by the noble Marquess to define "any other person." In the first place, powers are given in order, as my noble friend the Leader of the House pointed out, to deal with exceptional parcels. At present you cannot sell those parcels. I will not be guilty of the indiscretion of again referring to the house with laurel bushes and the mill, but, as a matter of business, you ought to have the power of
556
selling. The noble Marquess who last addressed the House said there would always be liability to very great difficulty when you had to plant congests—I do not like the phrase, but I think it is understood—in surroundings which are not in their own neighbourhood. There is a provision in the Act of 1903 by which land in some circumstances may be given to the sons of tenants or, I think it is, to persons in the neighbourhood. This is the clause I am told which is really the origin of the agitation by the landless men because, before it was introduced, the whole scope of the Irish Land Acts so far as they related to purchase was to fix tenants and to regulate the relations between landlords and tenants. It is in some cases impossible to deal with the question of migration if the Commissioners are not entitled to give some consideration to the claims of the landless men—I adopt the phrase—in the locality. The Government must try and effect some working arrangement where the congests are concerned if they can.
These landless men are tenants, sons of tenants, successful herds, or agricultural labourers of a good type, who are strong agriculturists, and they are the stamp of men who are first introduced by the Act of 1903. It is because you cannot deal with congests without some powers of this kind that this clause finds its place in the Bill. I think there is nothing wrong in that. It is nothing but what is reasonable. You have to deal with an exceptional and difficult situation, and this is the way in which the Government think that it is best to deal with it. Now I think I have referred, not to every minor point, for that would not be expected in a Second Reading debate, but to every considerable or big objection which has been made to this Bill. Your Lordships may judge. I have at all events tried to. I have asked leave to postpone the question of the constitution of the Congested Districts Board which is too long for the present occasion. I have referred to the zones, to the compulsory powers, and to the landless men, which are the three things which have filled up this debate. The answers which I have given, my Lords, are the answers of the Government, and I can only say, in conclusion, that I think our proposals ought to be received and considered in a fair spirit because they are fair dealing proposals and are not introduced for any of the malignant or

557
ulterior purposes which have been rather ungenerously attributed to them.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, in my humble protest against many of the provisions of this Bill I shall have to traverse ground which has already been covered by previous speakers, and, in that respect, I may have to ask the indulgence of the House. My task is rendered somewhat more difficult from the fact that I have to follow the noble and learned Lord, whose persuasive powers are so well known. But, even with all those powers, I think he has failed to make out a good case for the Bill before the House. I have learned something, however, from the noble and learned Lord, who is a past master in the art of debate—namely, that when you are in difficulty about a point or principle the defence of which presents difficulties to your mind, what you do is to relegate it to the Committee stage. After all, the question of the composition of the Congested Districts Board is a very important point. I am afraid I shall have to dwell rather more largely upon it than the noble and learned Lord thought it necessary to do. It seems to me that in dealing with a measure of Irish land purchase, and especially when that measure proposes most important and drastic alterations and really advocates an entirely new line of policy, it is sometimes helpful just to look back for a moment and cast your mind over the past history of the question, and the different stages and phases through which it has passed. To the vast majority of your Lordships the whole story is familiar, too familiar perhaps, but there may be others interested in the system of land tenure in Ireland and England and in the bearing the one has upon the other to whom it is not so familiar.
I need not go farther back than the Act of 1881, because all later land legislation comes as the natural result of the situation created by the passing of that Act. At that time dual ownership appeared. It was created by three things given to the tenants—fixity of tenure, whereby they remained in their holdings and could not be put out except for non-payment of rent; fair rent, which provided them with a Land Court, which fixed the rent and revised it every fifteen years; a free sale, which gave them the right to part with their interest at any time to anybody. The landlord
558
and tenant were forced into partnership and became unwilling occupiers of the some bed, rather an uncomfortable condition for both. But it was early recognised by landlords and by all who had the interest of agricultural land at heart that the system of dual ownership was an impossible one, and, moreover, harmful to the agricultural and economic development of Ireland. Various schemes were thought out, the landlords being desirious of selling their interest, and many Acts were passed with the object of setting up machinery for the transfer of land from owner to occupier. But the terms offered by these Acts were neither tempting nor satisfactory enough to bring about a deal on any large scale, and matters drifted on till in 1902 the impossibility of further continuance of this dual ownership and the harm it was having on agriculture in Ireland were pressed home, and a conference took place between the representatives of landlords and the tenants. As a result, we had the Act of which we have heard so much, the great Wyndham Act of 1903, if I may so call it, which embodied to a certain extent the terms of the conference with modifications. The result of that Act is, of course, well known to your Lordships, but I would like to give a figure or two to show what it has accomplished. Its results have been excellent. Whereas during the twenty-two years from 1881 to 1903 under the various Land Acts £21,000,000 was advanced to 63,000 tenants for purchase, between 1903 and October 31, 1908, £25,000,000 was absolutely paid out to 69,000 tenants, and agreements between landlords in the case of further 173,000 tenants and involving £54,000,000 were entered into, thus showing that what was aimed at in previous Land Acts and had been long felt necessary by all parties was on a fair road to accomplishment under the Act of 1903.
That brings me to the contemplation of the present situation before your Lordships' House. One of the chief complaints I have to make about this Bill is that it opens the ball by deliberately tearing up the financial agreement between the Treasury and Ireland. In 1903 a bargain was struck and a contract made and agreed upon by all parties—the landlord, the tenant, Parliament, and last, but not least, the Treasury. The noble Earl the Leader of the House seemed to indicate that he failed as yet to understand how it was that

559
that contract was agreed upon in such a manner. He seemed to think it was due to a certain levity, to the idea that there was an era of hopefulness springing up in Ireland, and to many other circumstances which he did not quote, but which no doubt he had in his mind. But the fact remains that the agreement was agreed upon. It was no doubt subjected to all the financial experts of the Treasury first. Where is that agreement in the Bill now before the Horse? I am not financier enough to follow the details to say, but this I know, that in the very opening words of the Bill future tenant purchasers are asked to pay £3 10 s. instead of £3 5s. as the rate of their purchase annuity. I think I am right in saying that that amounts to something more than £20,000,000 which has to be taken out of Ireland by the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, in his speech seemed to indicate that the tenants were to be relieved of the extra burden due to the fact that they were to pay £3 10 s. because the landlord was the man who would suffer, inasmuch as he was to accept, under compulsion, two or three years less purchase than he had got hitherto. But, my Lords, if the system of compulsion in the Bill falls to the ground the tenant still pays his £3 10 s. instead of £3 5s. Past history goes to show that representatives of Ireland and the Irish people have swallowed before now the English bait, not always to their internal comfort. That tenant purchasers in Ireland can be guiled into believing that an extra quarter per cent on their purchase annuity, whereby they are mulcted of twenty millions, is good and wholesome medicine for a malady that is being rapidly cured by present methods, I really find hard to believe.
No, the position cannot lead to further progress in land purchase. Rather will the effect be otherwise. It will lead, I believe, to cessation of land purchase, and it will set adrift once more the spirits of unrest and discontent. What is the attraction? Some attraction there must be which is offered to representatives of the Irish people to disarm opposition to this proposal. It would appear to lie in the third part of the Bill, in which they are given the idea that they are to have a free hand in the distribution of grass lands in the West—a flattering, but as I think I shall show, an illusory idea—and, in addition, the free handling of a quarter
560
of a million of money. So much for the tenants' interest.
What about the landlord? The landlord is given the option of two things. He can either take payment in stock or in cash. The former holds out hopes to him of some earlier settlement, whilst the latter foreshadows the indefinite postponement of the completion of his sale, inasmuch as all settlements in land stock are to have priority. He is between the devil and the deep sea. If he takes payment in cash he may have to suffer an indefinite postponement, while his former experience under previous Land Acts has given him an absolute desire to have payments in cash, and the bargain of 1903 was that he was to have payment in cash. The Chief Secretary has stated in another place that anything which would affect the transfer of land and land purchase in Ireland would be an economic and political blunder of very great magnitude; and yet he is himself responsible for a Bill which, if it has not that very object in view, at any rate can only bring about that as a result.
I come to what I regard as another very serious blot upon the Bill—namely, the manner in which it is proposed to deal with the relief of congestion, a study of which I have had to make during the past eight years as a member of the Congested Districts Board. The problem of the relief of congestion is a thorny one and beset with difficulties, and it is of very large proportions. The Report which I have in my hand says that in the nine counties which are proposed to be scheduled as congested there are 80,000 holdings which require enlargement and improvement. Our policy on the Congested Districts Board has always been to encourage migration, and this migration seems to have fanned in some mysterious way the flame of land hunger, until a situation has arisen in which landless men have put forward claims of ever growing proportions. The noble Earl said that landless men were not heard of in his palmy days of administration in Ireland. That is perfectly true. They are a by-product, which has arisen quite latterly, and it was stated by the noble Earl and also by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they are really a product of the Act of 1903. With due respect, I must disagree with the manner in which they have interpreted

561
that Act. It seems to me the landless men were brought into the Act in a perfectly different manner and from a perfectly different point of view. There is nothing in the Act of 1903, at any rate, which showed that a preference should be given to landless men as against congests. But let me explain my interpretation of the Act with regard to landless men. They were brought in under the following conditions. There might be a case in which the State had purchased a congested estate which, we will say, contained 500 acres of untenanted land. We will say that 300 acres of that untenanted land had been used up for the purpose of congests and another 100 acres for the evicted tenants, so that there remained yet another 100 acres. Rather than that the State should remain perpetual landlords, or that the 100 acres should be put up for auction, provision was made in the Act of 1903 that those 100 acres might be given to any landless men. That is a very different proposition from that which is urged—namely, that the Act of 1903 introduced these landless men.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My idea of the position simply was that the landless men came into being by the inception of something beyond the direct sale from landlord to tenant; that was the first change that started the possibility of obtaining land except as a tenant buying from the landlord. I do not go further than that.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: At any rate, we are all agreed about this, that the congests should have priority of claim as against landless men. Yet in Clause 17 of the Bill His Majesty's Government uses language which countenances the landless man as against the congest. This has been repeatedly disclaimed, I know, by His Majesty's Government and by noble Lords who sit opposite. Well, then, if that is so, let them disclaim it by Amendment in the Bill. My Lords, I come to the new Congested Districts Board, which I am afraid I may say more about than the Lord Chancellor thought fit to say. It is an extraordinary idea that you should set up a composite board of twenty members, some ex officio, some elected, and some nominated, perfectly independent in their actions, and who are to take over all the work of land transfer in these new congested districts and all the work has hitherto been carried on by the Congested Districts Board.
562
I say it is a novel position, and there is no instance on record where such a task has been entrusted to a body independent of State control. It has been stated in another place that, after all, this new Congested Districts Board is not to be independent of State control, as we think, because in Clause 51 of the Bill the Lord Lieutenant may do all sorts of wonderful things. He may regulate everything by Order in Council. Well, if that is so, why bring in the elective element at all? I think the idea of nine elected members representing local prejudice and bound more or less by local agitation, which at present is all in favour of the landless men, is really a most mischievous principle.
It has been argued also that if so much objection is taken to the elective principle upon this new Board, why was the elective principle introduced by a Unionist Administration which set up the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland. It is perfectly true that that Department consists of a council, two-thirds of whom are nominated by the county council, who, in their turn, nominate two-thirds of the Agricultural Board, which has a veto upon the spending of the Department's funds. If this is the basis which His Majesty's Government have taken for the constitution of their new Congested Districts Board, I think it would have been far simpler, instead of setting up a new Department, to have taken this Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction as the body for carrying out the work hitherto carried on by the Congested Districts Board. I would have no objection to that. The Agricultural Board have passed a Minute claiming their fitness for this work and stating their willingness to undertake it, except anything connected with land purchase. Now that could have been done, as has been said by other speakers, by the Estates Commissioners who have been dealing with land transfer, which is the very object of their existence, and they have been dealing with congestion in other parts of Ireland, for I would remind your Lordships that there is congestion not only in Connaught but in Ulster as well as other parts of Ireland. You have the machinery in hand, and there is no doubt that the whole of the work of the Congested Districts Board might have been divided between these two departments.

563
Is it to the benefit of Ireland that there should be a further partition of the country? We already see a theoretical division between North and South, and is it really to the benefit of Ireland that you should now divide the East from the West? Are the fish in some waters to be congests and the fish in others to be non-congests? That is to say, are the Western fish always to be congests and the Eastern fish non-congests? Surely it would have been saner policy to develop the administrative work of an admittedly progressive and thoroughly efficient body of men such as the Department of Agriculture and to give it a national policy which would at any rate have made for harmony, in contradistinction to setting up a Congested Districts Board which must result in overlapping and friction. I should like to remind your Lordships that there has been a Minute passed by the Belfast Chamber of Commerce setting very forcibly forward the arguments for and objections against this part of the Bill. It represents the views of sound business men who have realised that the welfare of our home commerce is largely dependent upon the prosperity and progress of the agricultural industry—in fact, the two must go hand in hand. I commend this Minute to your Lordships as coming from a body of Irishmen possessing a well-established and worldwide reputation for sane and business-like methods in commerce and finance.
My Lords, I do not intend to dwell at any length upon the principle of compulsion. It has been thoroughly put forward by other speakers in your Lordships' House, but this I will say, that I join in the general chorus of disapproval of any recourse to compulsion where voluntary methods have succeeded so well. Whether compulsion is to be permitted for a definite degree of congestion is a point which I admit is arguable, and will be argued, I have no doubt, when we reach a later stage. But, on this side of the House we have, I hope, proved that if this Bill is to have a Second Reading at your Lordships' hands it must be drastically amended in Committee, and I believe we are all agreed that it cannot leave this House in the shape in which it made its entrance. We have endeavoured to indicate the lines upon which the Bill might be amended, and I am glad to think, from the remarks which fell from the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, that when we come to the Com-
564
mittee stage His Majesty's Government will sympathetically consider Amendments moved on the lines we have indicated. Of this I am quite sure, that the Bill cannot leave your Lordships' House in its present form, and we may have to appeal to the majority of your Lordships' House when we come to the Committee stage; but if that appeal is made, it will not be from the point of view of a landlord who looks not beyond the confines of his estate or to whom personal interest is paramount. We want to see Ireland happy and contented, and, above all, we wish to see stability in the management of Irish affairs. Ireland has lost much and has suffered much from frequent changes of policy on the part of successive administrations. We have had a direct agreement entered into and accepted by all parties. Is it not natural, therefore, that we on this side of the House should desire to stand by those principles, and is it not the duty of the State to see them through? I think it behoves us to allow nothing to pass that may hinder or undo the good work that has been begun. It requires only, here and there, a judicious step forward to enable it to attain to maturity to the benefit—the lasting benefit, I think I may say—of Ireland and the Irish people.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, this Bill contains proposals so novel, and it is so far-reaching in its effects, that even if it had come to your Lordships as the result of full and adequate discussion in another place I doubt whether its proposals wonld have been acceptable to the majority of this House. But what has been the history of the Bill? We have heard from other speakers how it was put down for consideration on Friday after Friday when the vast majority of Members, exhausted from vigils from the previous Monday, were seeking a few hours of well-earned repose, and those jaded Members who were present found it impossible adequately to discuss the provisions of the Bill owing to the use of the closure. The most contentious clauses were passed by means of the closure, not only without discussion, but also without explanation or attempt at justification by the Minister in charge. The Divisions on those clauses which were discussed showed a Government majority getting beautifully less and less, until, on one occasion, the Government were only

565
saved from defeat by a majority of eight votes. And this is a Bill which has been hurled at your Lordships' heads in the closing days of September with a threat that if you do not pass it the most unpleasant consequences will follow.
We are led to understand that the friends of disorder in Ireland who, to use their own classic diction, have "given Birrell a chance," will in their turn be given a chance by the right hon. gentleman during the long winter nights that will be shortly upon us. I do not believe there is one of your Lordships on either side of the House who will be affected by these threats or who will not try to do what he thinks his duty in this matter. So far as I am concerned, I should be inclined to dismiss this Bill with as little consideration as it received in its passage up to us were it not for one clause in it. I daresay many of your Lordships remember the well-known story of a famous sermon delivered by an eloquent prelate on an epoch-making occasion, and the observation afterwards of a cleric who remarked that there was not enough gospel in it to save a tom-tit. I have found in this clause just enough gospel to save this tom-tit. I refer to the clause which relieves the Irish taxpayer from a liability he incurred under the Act of 1903—I venture to say through excessive zeal on the part of the Treasury—and which I think all sides agree it was never intended should be carried into effect.
This Bill professes to be a corollary, and a necessary corollary, of the Act of 1903. Let me shortly remind your Lordships what that Act was. It was a treaty of peace made between the landlord and the tenants of Ireland, solemnly ratified and confirmed by the State. It was an attempt, and a successful attempt, to do away with the system of dual ownership which was introduced in 1881, which proved the bane of Ireland, and which might go down to posterity, coupled with the curse of Cromwell, as the curse of Gladstone. It enabled landlords and tenants to come together as free men to arrange within certain limits, terms of sale and purchase. The tenants on becoming owners of their holdings paid annuities considerably less than they had previously paid in rent. Landlords were consoled for parting with their acres by payment in hard cash, and the State, which ratified the proceedings and provided the money
566
necessary to carry it out, was amply secured, as has been pointed out, in the first place by the fact that the tenant's annuity was much less than the rent he had previously paid; secondly, by the security of his tenant right; and, thirdly, by those improvements which it was believed by the magic of property were bound to be made to his new possession. The Act was mainly intended to make occupying tenants owners of their land. It was certainly intended, in cases where holdings were too small, that a certain amount of the grass land adjoining should be voluntarily purchased to enlarge them, but in the main the graziers were to be left as in time past, the great middle-classes of Ireland, the backbone of the country, the pliers of its most successful industry, to furnish a market for the young stock of the new owners, and the grass lands were to remain the property of landlords to furnish an example by their rich pasture land, their well-kept fences and drains, of what the land of Ireland could be made when in capable hands.
Now, my Lords, let us examine the present Bill, and I must really take the present Bill as I find it here and not the good intentions of the Government as explained by the Lord Chancellor. In the first place, we find that the tenant who purchases under this Bill of a Home Rule Chief Secretary has to pay a considerably higher annuity than his more fortunate brother who purchases under a Land Act of a Unionist Government, and the landlord instead of being paid in cash is paid in depreciated stock, which must tend more and more to depreciate as he is forced to throw it on the market. As to the graziers of Ireland, that great body—what of them, my Lords? So far as I can make out they are to be done away with in order that the executive of the United Irish League—for such in fact, if not in name, will be the reconstituted Congested Districts Board—may be able to reward the most stalwart supporters of their policy of cattle-driving, and to place on the grass lands of Ireland corner-boys without capital, without assiduity, and without knowledge of farming.
And to do this it is proposed that these grass lands should be purchased compulsorily. I ask why compulsorily? The noble Earl, Lord Granard, gave us an answer to that question. He stated that

567
during the eighteen years that the Congested Districts Board has existed there have been thirty-two cases in which landlords have refused to sell at the price the Congested Districts Board offered them. Surely that does not mean that they would not accept a just value if it were offered them. It merely means that they do not consider what was offered to them the full value of the land. The noble Lord also mentioned a number of landlords who refused to sell their grass land, but he forgets that no one thought of selling his grass-land until 1903, and he does not tell us how many instances there have been since the new policy was introduced in 1903. He further told us that a great many landlords made no reply to the circular sent out by the Congested Districts, Board. I think a great many people when they received the circular thought it was ample time to reply when they understood the Board was taking active steps to acquire their land, and I have heard of instances where the Board sent out to know if landlords were willing to sell grass-lands which did not belong to them. But I think we may say that the landlords of Ireland, whatever they may think of the policy as an economical one of turning the grass lands of Ireland into agricultural holdings, and however sorry they may be to part with land with which their families have been associated for many generations they are perfectly ready to allow this experiment of the Government to be tried if they are only certain of getting an adequate price for their land. I ask, what is an adequate price?
I had the honour of a conversation with a distinguished Radical politician—and so many Radical politicians are distinguished that I am not in any way betraying the identity of the gentleman in question—who said that if he were valuing my grass lands he could not help being influenced in his valuation by the thought which would come into his head that they would depreciate in value owing to the introduction in the near future of Canadian cattle, to which I replied that if I had to value his grass lands I could not help being influenced by the thought that they would appreciate in value by the advent in the near future of Tariff Reform. The one opinion is as good as the other. If we can get at facts they are much more important. What prices have been given during the past year and are still given by solvent tenants
568
for these lands? I only speak for myself and do not bind any other member of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, but I think the least that can be offered to landlords for their grass lands is twenty years' purchase on the gross rental which they have received for an average of seven years previously.
I do not know whether the noble Earl, if he winds up the debate, will tell me that that is unreasonable or will take refuge in generalities and say that the tribunal the Government have appointed consists of gentlemen who have actual experience and that we may trust to their impartiality. If he does, I know it is not the habit to attack members of the Civil Service who are not able to defend themselves; but without doing so I think I may say we do not consider them to be the proper judges of the value of our lands for four reasons. The first of, these is that they are the purchasers themselves, and I do not think I need dwell further on this point. It seems to me it must be apparent to everybody that the purchaser is the last person who should fix the price he is willing to give for a thing. The second is that they are precluded by the words of this Bill from giving a fair price, and are obliged to consider not the value of the land, but what the people to whom they are willing to sell it will give for it. The third reason is that we know from the evidence of some of these gentlemen given before the Dudley Commission what their views are with regard to the value of land. Mr. Commissioner Bailey states that:—
"Many owners seek for a price that will give them their income on the basis of their grazing lettings. This, of course, is, impossible."
They may have received this rent for ten, twelve, or fifteen years, but to accept it as the basis of purchase—
"would mean our purchasing the land at a price that we could not dream of re-selling it at to an occupying purchaser."
He further states that an outside tribunal ignorant of their redistribution schemes might fix those prices too high. It is but fair to Mr. Bailey to say that those remarks were only made with regard to voluntary purchase of land. What does Mr. Finucane say? He says—
"A man might receive £2 an acre for eleven months (as a grazing rent), but a yearly tenant might only pay, say, for that, £1 an acre; so that the two things are different."

569
There is a fourth reason. To prove my case it is necessary that I should quote figures. There are two cases—I will not mention the names for obvious reasons, but if the noble Earl would like to know the names I should be glad to give them to him privately. In one case the owner received £35 a year as rent, in addition to which he received £10 a year for shooting rent from a neighbouring landlord. This rent had been paid for seventeen or eighteen years, and the man who had given it expressed his willingness, if my friend remained the owner, to take a lease for ten or twenty years more. I do not say that this ought to count as the same value as freehold, but it was a valuable asset to him, and at any rate he receives at present £45 a year for this land. The Estates Commissioners offered him £556. He appealed to have this increased; and the grazier who had farmed the land for the previous twenty years appeared before them and stated his willingness to become a statutory tenant of the land at the same rent. The Estates Commissioners listened to his representation, and increased their offer to £620. My friend appealed to the Judicial Commissioners. His appeal was dismissed, and the costs, which amounted to £40, were not allowed. So for what he had previously received £45 a year, he will now receive, deducting £40, £580. As he is a limited owner and has to invest this at three and a-half per cent, he will receive £20 6s. for what he previously received £45. Another instance is of a former rent of £64 and an offer of £852, twelve and a-half years purchase; and another instance is £24 a year and an offer of £326, thirteen and a-half years purchase. Is it astonishing that under these circumstances we do not trust the Estates Commissioners as a tribunal to fix a price of our grass lands?
We know what happens in these cases. A young man is sent down from the Land Commission offices. He does not seek out the grazier and find out if he is satisfied with his bargain, but fixes his own price—what he thinks agricultural tenants will give for it, and we have it on the evidence of Mr. Finucane that they may be exactly half of what the grazing rent is. After that he takes fifteen per cent, for State security, and on reduced rent offers twenty-six and a-half years purchase, These are not my figures but they are the evidence of Mr. Stuart, one of the chief
570
officers of the Land Commission, and I should like to point out the difference in the interest that results. Twenty years purchase on £100 would be £2,000. The Land Commissioners would at once reduce the £100 to half and take off fifteen per cent, for State security. That makes it £42 10 s. Taking that at twenty-six and a-half years purchase it would be £1,105. If the landlord had to invest at three and a-half per cent. he would receive £38 10 s. instead of the £100 a year he had previously received, and there would be no question of bonus being added to this because we are told that in cases of twenty-six years purchase and upwards there is no bonus, and that in the case of a purchase of untenanted land the number of years purchase shall be calculated "in the manner prescribed by the Treasury." We know why land is reduced from £2 an acre so that the tenant may only pay 17 s. an acre. It is given by Mr. Doran in his evidence. He says the tenant is able to go on letting it to the grazier to whom the landlord let it before and thus "accumulates a little capital" from the difference.
There are some noble Lords who are said to be converts to the principle of compulsion being extended to Ireland. But the principles of the case are very different in England and Ireland. In England every acre of land outside your park walls will not be compulsorily taken, and the purchaser is not the man who fixes the price. In England there is an allowance made for severance and for the depreciation of the rest of time property, and also for land being taken compulsory. None of those things is allowed for in Ireland. There is only one other point. That is the question of income tax. Both Schedules A and B are charged on untenanted land. Let me take the case of a farm which lets for £100 a year. Take the poor law valuation as £80. On Schedules A and B income tax would be paid on £96 10 s., if it is sold on the terms I have just named the landlord will only pay in future on £38 10 s. I hope some noble Lord will call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this fact. It might be interesting to find how it would work out if applied to the whole of the untenanted land in Ireland. I have only touched really one of the many problems which abound in this Bill, but the question of congestion is one which affects those of us who live in the west of Ireland very closely, and I thought it my

571
duty as far as possible to put the case before your Lordships as to our difficulties in this matter. I wish to make it clear that while we are perfectly ready to sell our grass lands for the benefit of State purposes, if it is thought desirable that we should do so, we are not prepared to accept any terms of compulsion unless His Majesty's Government can show us clearly when we reach the Committee stage that they cannot acquire land voluntarily at such a price that will enable landlords to receive their net income when invested at three and a half per cent.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have been struck by what seems to me the salient feature of this debate, and that is the extraordinary differences that we find between the Government Bill and the Government speeches. We claim that this Bill abolishes the zone system, and I think the drafting of Clause 14 is perfectly clear upon that point. The clause says, "If the Land Commissioners are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry," &c. The zones are in future, by the proposals of the Government Bill, to be absolutely at the discretion of the Estates Commissioners. That is what we call abolishing the zones. Indeed, in the Third Reading debate in the House of Commons the Chief Secretary defended this clause and used very strong language about it. He said that it was his desire that the Estates Commissioners in those cases under consideration in connection with the zones should be given an opportunity to strike a blow. Now we hear from the speeches of the noble Earl who leads the House and the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that these provisions which are asked for in Clause 14 are only desirable in order that they may be used in exceptional cases, and I notice that the Lord Chancellor spoke of one case which he considers, and I believe rightly, an exceptional case; that is to say, the case where there is an agreed rent which is to take the place of a judicial rent. But that is not the proposal in the Bill. We note the noble and learned Lord's offer to put that proposal in the Bill, though, of course, I am not in a position to say whether or not that would satisfy my friends from Ireland.
On the question of compulsory purchase, unquestionably Clause 43, read in connection with Part IV of the Bill, sets up a universal system of compulsory purchase. There is no limit to it whatever. We now under-
572
stand from the Leader of the House and from the Lord Chancellor that these powers again are only required for particular and exceptional cases. Again, my Lords, there is no mention of exceptional cases in the Bill. The Bill could not possibly have been drawn wider than it now is. The Bill as drafted, we maintain, opens the door as wide as possible to the landless men. We now understand from the Government speeches that these powers are only required for exceptional cases. Why are not those exceptional cases in the Bill? At any rate I think my noble friends from Ireland can congratulate themselves that we have made some progress. I have only had a very short experience of your Lordships' House. There are many Members with very much greater experience than I have, but has any one of your Lordships even seen a Government Bill come up from the House of Commons and the representatives of the Government tumbling over each other on Second Reading to amend it? We shall be very interested indeed in discussing this Irish Land (No. 2) Bill when it is submitted to us in Committee next Tuesday. As I have said, I am not, of course, in a position to say whether the Amendments suggested to us will be satisfactory or not, but I think I may say this, that whereas no case has been shown in the course of this debate for the proposals that are in the Bill neither has any case yet been shown for the Amendments that are suggested, and we shall be interested to see whether any case can be shown for them at a future stage. But I cannot help asking one question. If really what we have been told in the course of this debate is the proposal of the Government, why was nothing said about these things in the House of Commons either in Committee or on Report? There was absolutely no sign of what I may call this conciliatory spirit in the course of the debates in another place. I was very much struck to notice that on the Third Reading the Chief Secretary declared himself without hesitation a tenant's man. He did not use that exact phrase, but undoubtedly he did come down upon the tenant's side of the fence, and I am sure whilst your Lordships will be given no explanation of this phenomenon you will all take very careful note of it.
I desire to associate myself with the wish of many of your Lordships not to go into the details of this Bill, which we will, perhaps, be better able to discuss in Committee. Therefore, I will only deal very shortly with one or two of the financial proposals that have

573
not yet been dealt with. But first I should like to refer to one statement by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, in which he spoke of a great many leading landlords as having been at some time or other if not now in favour of compulsion. I have only been connected with the Irish Landowners Convention for some five or six years, but I have had the opportunity since that statement was made of communicating with Mr. Willis, who has been secretary for over twenty years. This is what he writes to me in one sentence—
"As to Lord MacDonnell's statement about 'a great many landlords,' it is curious that the landowners Convention has never heard of them, and that the Convention has been unanimously passing resolutions against compulsory purchase in almost every year, and certainly in connection with every land Bill, since 1887 without any of these supposed dissentients making any protest."
The Irish Landowners Convention is known to be supported by landlords in every single county in Ireland, and I do not hesitate for one moment to assert that if there had been one leading landlord in favour of compulsory purchase we should, have heard about it in the Irish Landowners Convention meetings on more occasions than one. I hope we shall hear no more of this suggestion that there have been leading landlords in Ireland in favour of compulsion in any shape or form.
I only desire now to refer to one or two of the financial aspects of this Bill that I think have not been referred to. As I have said, the details of the rest of the Bill will probably be much better raised in Committee, but I presume that a number of the financial proposals will not be conveniently raised in Committee. That is my excuse for dealing with them now. I do not desire to go in any detail into the general aspect of the case, for that was dealt with in the absolutely unanswered speech of Lord Curzon, whom I am sure all Irishmen are very glad to welcome in his first speech in your Lordships' House on Irish affairs. I accept, of course, the difficulties of the financial position as being the primary necessity for this Bill. I was not, if I may say so with all respect, very much struck with the simile of the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he compared what we have to do now to a scheme of reconstruction between three classes of shareholders, and when he asked us therefore to approach it as a business proposition. I do not feel at all like a shareholder in this matter. I feel rather like a party to a contract who has
574
fulfilled his part of the bargain and who has been asked by one of the other parties to the contract to let him off a portion of his part of the bargain and to share some of the loss that he finds put upon him as a result of arrangements made six years ago. I think this Bill was very rightly described by Lord Dunraven as a "Treasury Relief Bill." We are interested to hear that in future £2,000,000 a year is to be set aside for payments in cash; £2,000,000 of cash is to be set aside for those, as I think, extremely stupid individuals who will agree to accept half in stock and half in cash. But, remember, stock is not a full description of what you are going to offer landlords. You are going to offer landlords stock which is worth eighty-five at ninety-two. We have had no justification of that proposal from noble Lords opposite. The only mention of the words "ninety-two" that I heard came from the Lord Chancellor. I had hopes that we were to have some justification for the proposal which is made for giving stock at ninety-two which is now worth only eighty-five, but noble Lords opposite have carefully avoided the least mention of this very important provision in the Bill.
The Report of Mr. Runciman's Committee—a Report with almost every word of which we disagree, and a Report the evidence of which has never been shown to the public—says, on what authorty I cannot imagine, that landlords who are given stock at ninety-two, although it is only worth eighty-five or any other price, will keep it because they will obtain a three per cent. investment. All the evidence that I can find before the Dudley Commission proved conclusively that every landlord who gets cash can expect to get from £3 11s. to £3 12s. per cent. as the result of money he invests from purchase in trustee securities. Is it seriously imagined that anybody is going to be so stupid, if he is an entirely free agent, as to take stock at ninety-two which is only worth eighty-five, to take stock which is going to pay him three per cent. when he has the right to expect cash which will enable him to re-invest in investments which will pay him another ten shillings or eleven shillings per cent. If he is a free agent, if no undue pressure is brought to bear upon him, not one single landlord will accept stock at the price offered in this Bill.
I believe that this Bill is going to relieve the Treasury a great deal more than is thought, because it is going to confer upon them the obligation to produce only

575
£2,000,000 in cash and £2,000,000 a year in stock. That there are landlords ready to take as much as £2,000,000 of stock in a year I myself believe is a hope that is almost a waste of time to discuss, and, if it is, the Treasury are going to find themselves in the happy position of having to produce less than £4,000,000 a year in cash, whereas hitherto they have had to produce £5,000,000 and sometimes £6,000,000 in cash. Note the result of that. Instead of getting rid of purchase agreements at the rate of £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a year you are going to get rid of them at the rate of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year, and the £50,000,000 now outstanding are going to take sixteen or twenty years to clear off. It is difficult to realise, unless I am an extremely pessimistic prophet, how the provisions of this Bill are going to help to get rid of this block that everybody admits is an evil.
The noble Lord, Lord St David's, referred yesterday to another aspect of this question. I do not wish to follow him in detail as to his attacks upon my noble friends on this side of the House regarding the provision of the bonus. The noble Lord described the bonus as a gift which noble Lords on this side of the House gave to their political friends in Ireland, and he had previously explained what he meant by that statement. He seemed to imagine that the bonus was something extra that the landlord got after he had agreed upon the price of the land with his tenant. Of course anybody who has ever negotiated with a single tenant knows that the fact that the bonus was there made it possible for landlords to agree to prices considerably lower than they would have had to have asked if there had been no bonus, and considerably lower than they would have had to ask under this Bill. I do not wish to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord St. David's, as to anything he said about Irish land, because I do not think he would pose as an expert on Irish land. But I do recognise him as an authority in the realm of finance. The noble Lord made it quite clear that stock, whether this Bill passes or not, but principally if this Bill passes in its present form, is not going to rise. We are not going to see Irish Land Stock at ninety-two or anything like it for many years to come. One may say, in passing, it has not been at ninety-two since the year 1906. If the price, therefore, is not likely to rise, are you quite sure it is not likely to go down? You assume at present that landlords will take stock at
576
ninety-two which is worth eighty-five, but, as we have been shown, the number of trustee securities on the market is increasing. Are you quite sure that this stock is not going down? Do the Government really think, supposing this stock went down to seventy-eight, that landlords would still take it at ninety-two? Do you think they would assist you to get rid of the block by making a still greater sacrifice? I almost feel inclined to prophesy that we shall have this fall, and that five or six years hence we shall have another block, and we shall have slower progress than we are having now. We shall then have another Land Bill, and I am sure we shall have another eloquent speech from the noble Earl who leads the House in which he will tell us as he told us yesterday, that he wishes to avoid all recrimination, as he did avoid all recrimination, but that it is not unfair to say that the finance of the Act of 1909 was a little hopeful; thereupon another request will be made to the landlords and tenants of Ireland to take over a little more of the loss that the British Treasury does not like to incur. That may be very satisfactory to the British Treasury, as this Bill, I have no doubt, is very satisfactory, but it will not be much encouragement to those of us who desire to see the progress and the pacification of Ireland as a result of land purchase.
I want to refer very shortly to a point that has been made a very great deal of by Government speakers which I think has not been answered as yet from these Benches. A great deal is being made of the liberality of the British taxpayer in this matter. I do not wish to deny the liberality of the British taxpayer, and I do not wish to quarrel with the figures of the Lord Chancellor, but I think he was a little inclined to treat this whole transaction as a dead loss. I quite agree that the bonus provisions are going to be a dead loss, but the money that has been advanced outside the bonus provision is, we are told, going to be paid back to the last penny, and everything points to every penny of it being paid back.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): The figures I gave included the excess stock.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The figure in my mind is the £100,000,000 as Mr. Wyndham put it, or the £180,000,000 as Mr. Birrell thinks it is. But remember this. If this is going to cost the British

577
taxpayer something, he is paying for his sins of the past. The object of land purchase is to get rid of dual ownership, and dual ownership was the mistake of a British Parliament in 1881. It is not the result of any indigenous growth in the Irish land system itself. But apart from that, I want to lay greater stress upon another aspect of the problem that I think is always forgotten in this matter. I know it is difficult to get money for financing these transactions because of the fall in Imperial credit. But if this reason causes difficulty to the British Treasury we must remember that also, as apart from Irish land, this reason has caused a considerable profit to the British Treasury. While it is difficult to raise money for Irish land with land stock at eighty-five, the Treasury is all the time redeeming Consols at eighty-two by the operation of the Sinking Fund. It would, I have no doubt, be scouted at the Treasury that the large profit made over the redemption of Consols should be in any way accounted as against the large loss made by reason of the Irish Land Stock, but it is not unfair to lay stress upon that point in commenting upon the general financial situation.
I will not at this late hour enter into the question of the Government estimate of £180,000,000. I believe that estimate to be hugely inflated and above the real necessities of the case, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. Remember that the ideal as shown in the Bill is very different from the ideal of the Wyndham Act. The object of that Act was the abolition of dual ownership. The present Chief Secretary seems to work on the principle that, if anybody has any land at all, that fact is prima facie evidence that the land ought to belong to somebody else. There are only 20,000,000 acres of agricultural land in Ireland, and that, under the census returns, includes land used for countless purposes, not strictly agricultural. Mr. Birrell estimates that 19,000,000 of this has got to come under the operations of the Purchase Act. I am perfectly certain the abolition of dual ownership would not have made it necessary for anything like that number of acres to be considered. Again, as judged by the Bill, there can be no denying the fact that the problem financially has been enormously increased by what it is now proposed should be done for the landless men. Under the 1903 Act it was solely intended that landless men should be dealt
578
with as ancillary to the doing away with dual ownership. This Bill, as I read it—I have no special knowledge of the intention of the Government behind the Bill—makes provision for landless men a primary object. I believe that if the landless men were excluded, as they ought to be, for they have no claim whatever on the British Treasury to set them up with land, Mr. Wyndham's original estimate, though it might not have been large enough, would have been very much nearer the mark than Mr. Birrell's estimate of £180,000,000.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships at this hour. Most of the other points I had hoped to refer to can be raised at a later stage when, probably, they will be raised with greater profit. I only desire to enforce one point now, and then I will sit down. I feel very seriously and sincerely the gravity of the present proposals for peace and order and contentment in Ireland. What we should be concerned with in these Purchase Acts is the settlement of the country in a contented manner. Lord Londonderry has explained at length how he believes that the principal result of the passing of this Bill in its present state must inevitably be infinitely greater discontent and more turmoil than we have seen even in the last two or three years under Mr. Birrell's—to put it mildly—not too keen repression of disorder. The peace and prosperity of the country are vastly greater than any other interest that can be considered by your Lordships, and believing, as I do, that this Bill if passed in its present form would be fatal to those interests, I most sincerely hope that the Bill will be very substantially amended in Committee if it is afterwards to be read a third time and passed by your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sorry that, owing to the absence from unavoidable causes, of some of my noble friends who sit on this side of the House, these Benches have not been so fully represented in the debate as they would otherwise have been. We are relieved to know that your Lordships do not intend to support the Amendment of Lord Dunraven. I rise to say a few words, which I will compress into as short a space as possible, to close the debate, and I will endeavour to deal generally with one or two points that have been raised in the course of it.
The whole case against the finance of

579
the Bill was put as well as it could be put by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven. He took the matter on the highest ground. He assumed that there was an absolute bargain or promise on the part of the British Parliament that, however large might be the sum to be raised in respect of land purchase in Ireland, however gross the miscalculation contained in the Act of 1903, equally favourable terms, whatever the cost to the Treasury and the United Kingdom, should be carried into effect, and with the somewhat significant exception of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, who certainly did not take that line of policy, and of a few sentences which fell from the noble Earl who has just sat down towards the close of his speech, the same note has run through all the speeches that have been made from the Benches opposite during the course of the debate. I think it is rather a good thing that a speech was made such as was made by Lord St. David's. I do not adopt all his arguments, and I do not profess to be an unbiassed critic. I have a warm affection for Ireland, dating from even before my official connection with the country, and I like to see Ireland absorbing public money within reason. But I think it is not a bad thing that noble Lords from Ireland should hear what is the view of an Englishman of business like Lord St. David's as to these transactions when we hear speech after speech made in which there is not a word of recognition of the enormous cost at which these transactions in the Bill are to be carried through.
I think if Irishmen, whether landlords or tenants, take up the position that the taxpayer of the United Kingdom is a sort of tame and rather stupid mulch cow who stands to be milked twice a day for their benefit, they must not be surprised if they hear somewhat hard words used by those who have no special sympathy with Ireland. I was very sorry the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, who is more an Englishman than an Irishman, seemed to take something of the same tone and to adopt what I may call the full Irish attitude in this matter. No more signal instance in that attitude has been seen on the opposite side of the House than the way in which the burden upon the guarantee fund has been spoken of throughout the debate, as though it was not a genuine section under under the Act of 1903 as much as any
580
other. I think it was Lord Curzon who said it had been inserted per incuriam. We have heard in private life of gentlemen who have written their name on bills per incuriam and been sadly shocked afterwards when they had been called upon to pay. But I think your Lordships will admit it ought not to appear as an excuse for the insertion of the clause in the Bill. It is true, as was said, that almost the only voice of Cassandra which was raised in the course of debate in another place was that of a gentleman well known for his knowledge of finance, Mr. Thomas Bowles. Who can say that if the House of Commons at large had taken the view of Mr. Bowles they would have passed that Act in its present form? It is impossible, of course, to prove it one way or the other, but when you talk of this being a mere paper guarantee it is fair to consider that, if the great majority who were wrong had happened to agree with Mr. Thomas Bowles who was right, perhaps the provisions of the Act would have been different. It is quite possible the tenants might have had to pay larger annuity, and consequently the number of years purchase obtained by landlords during the past six years might not have been as many as they have been.
There are one or two other points on which I desire to say a word. My noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack dealt, I think fully, with the question of compulsion. I noticed that speakers on the other side all through the debate said the Estates Commissioners could take land when they pleased. They did not trouble to mention the fact that there was an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner with assessors. That is a somewhat material fact. I might say, in passing, that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Curzon, seemed to think the Estates Commissioners were a creation of this Bill. He spoke of them as "these new Estates Commissioners." I do not know whether he has ever read the Act of 1903, but he seemed to consider the Estates Commissioners were a body of our creation. It is curious that one of the phrases used in regard to the compulsory clauses should have caused so much comment as it has from noble Lords opposite—the phrase in regard to the provision that the amount which the tenants or other person would be likely to give would be taken into account. I do not see how you can have any form of compulsory purchase without

581
taking into account what a willing buyer would be likely to give. It seems to me a natural element in the transaction, and I think it is not necessary to read into it the somewhat sinister meaning which has been ascribed to it by noble Lords opposite. As regards the whole of this question of compulsion, noble Lords opposite say it is impossible to have compulsion and voluntary purchase running concurrently. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack put that dictum into its proper form when he said they could not run concurrently in competition. That is perfectly true. But they do run concurrently, as your Lordships know very well, in a series of transactions with which we are all familiar. A great many of your Lordships have sold land to railway companies. In the last resort the railway company can get practically any piece of land it wants. But as a matter of fact it is the rarest thing in the world for things to go so far. I am sure Lord Cawdor knows that very well and would bear me out when I say that in the numerous transactions in which a great railway company is concerned every year in connection with the taking of land, the vastly larger proportion is acquired by agreement. That is all that was meant by the weapon of compulsion remaining in the background, the sentence which filled noble Lords with alarm. The power is the same as a railway company has in the last resort of acquiring compulsorily what is wanted for public purposes, a power which enables those transactions to be carried out between railway companies and private owners which I believe are generally satisfactory to both parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Oranmore and Browne, asked me whether I would lay down a rule, so far as I am competent, that all grass lands taken by compulsion ought to be bought at twenty years purchase on the average rent which had been obtained by public letting on the eleven months system for the last seven years. I am sure the noble Lord did not expect me to answer that question, although he had no doubt a full right to put it. I cannot recall any precedent for such a provision being inserted in an Act of Parliament. I can-not help thinking, however, that the fears which have been expressed that the price of grass land will be unscrupulously cut down are not justified. It is true there are certain considerations to be taken into account in determining the number of
582
years purchase which ought to be paid for any piece of land or indeed anything else, whether it is sold by compulsion or by agreement. The degree of certainty with which you can look forward to the permanency of the rent which you are receiving is a material factor in a matter of this kind. As I daresay the noble Lord knows very well, when royalty rents of mines are put up for auction, even though the mine, apparently, is going to last for a great number of years, they can hardly be made to realise more than half the number of years purchase which ground rents would effect, and so far as any element of uncertainty enters into the letting of grazing land, no doubt it would have, and I submit ought to have, seine effect on the member of years purchase to be given.
Now, my Lords one word about zones. Noble Lords have gone on reiterating, with a persistence which I admire, that we are trying to abolish zones. I think my noble friend on the Woolsack made it clear what it is we desire to do with the zones. Perhaps I might make one more attempt by illustration to do it again. The effect of land purchase is to divorce the landlord from the land, and divorce, as we know, is a process of law. But collusive divorce is forbidden, and there is an official whose business it is to find out if divorce is collusively obtained. The Estates Commissioners for this particular purpose, are placed therefore in the position of the King's Proctor, who has to intervene if he conceives that the legal process is being carried tint by improper collusion. Beyond that, as regards the zones, we do not go. The matter was fully developed by my noble and learned friend, and I will not dwell upon it further.
One word about the problem of congestion and its bearing on the question, to a certain extent, of compulsory purchase and the question of the landless men. In his speech yesterday the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition broke into something almost approaching rhapsody when he spoke of some parts at any rate of the congested districts in Ireland. He said, which I am not concerned to deny, that it is possible to overstate the magnitude of the problem and of the grievance, and he pointed out, what is perfectly true, that if you take a year or two before the great

583
famine and compare the number and size of the holdings with what obtains to-day the comparison is all in favour of the present time. That there has been a real and progressive improvement we all of us, I think, would admit. Rut I do think the noble Marquess overstated his case a little when he dwelt upon the charms of the small holdings in the west of Ireland. I felt almost alarmed that some of the noble Marquess's Wiltshire small tenants, whom I know to be both unusually numerous and unusually prosperous on an admirably managed estate, might be so inspired by the noble Marguess's description of holdings in the west of Ireland that they might turn their faces to the setting sun and desire to exchange their English home for other homes in County Kerry. But, my Lords, however that may be, and I do admit that there is a real improvement, yet, at the same time, there is a real problem, the problem of what is to be done to secure larger holdings, or, in some cases, other holdings, for a certain portion of those who live in the congested districts and cannot eke out their small means by other work such as fishing.
Consider this in its bearing, in the first place, on compulsory purchase. So far as I have been able, I have followed through the various speeches the different steps of the argument which I conceive to be used by noble Lords opposite, and what I desire to show is that it is barren and leads absolutely nowhere. Those steps are these. The argument against compulsion is that there is plenty of land to be got somewhere—that argument was freelyused—and therefore that there being plenty of land to be got there was no need to buy it forcibly. Well the conclusion to be drawn from that is, of course, that a general system of migration must be necessary, because the principal need of compulsion, as has often been pointed out, is not to get land anywhere but to get particular land in the immediate neighbourhood of the people for whom it is required. Then there is a further statement laid down forcibly by Lord Ashbourne and confirmed by other speakers that under no circumstances is a landless man to have any land. What is the result of that? It is generally agreed that, unfortunate though you may think it, there is a large body of these landless men who desire to obtain some farm. We have been told over and over again—we were told yesterday—that if congests
584
attempted to appear on untenanted land at any distance from their own neighbourhood there would be extraordinary danger. I am bound to say I am inclined to agree with the view, that, unless you can arrive at some agreement in the matter, if you dumped down a number of men from Connemara in County Clare their lives might be exciting but they might also be brief.
Where are we in that case? You must not take land close to those congests' homes because you might have to take it by compulsion. Therefore you have to migrate. But if you migrate then you run up against the landless men. It is all very well to say you can protect your migrating bodies, but everybody will agree that that makes the proposition of migration on a large scale impossible. It is, of course, the duty of the Government in Ireland to protect, sometimes for twenty years it may be, the lives of those who are supposed to be in danger. But it would be a farcical proceeding to deport people from a place where they are safe and set them in a position where they will have to be guarded for an indefinite number of years by police. That means that migration transactions are impossible. That is to say, you are left with no remedy at all for the relief of congestion. I have wearied your Lordships by indicating the series of steps, but the only conclusion I can arrive at is that the whole problem of the remedy of congestion is regarded by noble Lords opposite as completely insoluble, because at every point we are met by one or other of these objections.
I think it would be a pity if I were to attempt to detain the House any longer at this, for us unusually late hour. I merely desire to comment on one statement made by Lord Donoughmore, who was good enough to speak of the Amendments he assumed we were going to introduce and which he said he desired to see. I did not gather from the speech of my noble and learned friend that he said the Government were going to introduce Amendments. Lord Donoughmore, though he spoke of his limited experience, knows the House as well as any man, and what the Government have done is what is frequently done from this side of the House—that is, we have expressed ourselves desirous to meet certain objections if noble Lords would indicate the manner in which

585
they wished the clauses to be amended. The noble Earl was quite right when he said that he never knew a case in which the Government, having conceived a Bill, proceeded to amend it. We have no intention of doing anything of the kind. The Bill as it stands is our Bill, but we admit that there are clauses which are widely drawn and where it would be possible if the Estates Commissioners were to behave in an absolutely reckless way for the principles in those clauses to be carried further than is our desire or intention. That both my noble and learned friend and I have admitted. Noble Lords wish to see the words narrowed and we profess our willingness to meet them on that point, and I have no doubt when the time comes in Committee by putting our heads together we shall be able on one or two of these points to arrive at a conclusion which will not be unsatisfactory to one side of the House or the other.
I have nothing further to add except once more to repeat that, although I do not admit that the time given to this Bill in another place was in itself insufficient, I fully agree that there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should, give it the fullest consideration here in Committee. I was made a little nervous by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack when he indicated what an imitation of the proceedings in another place would involve here. I am afraid it would involve longer consideration than any Bill has received in your Lordships House for the last 600 years, except the Education Bill of 1906 of deplorable memory. Of course, we must leave it to your Lordships to put down such Amendments as you please, and we will, of course, see so far as we can that they have the fullest consideration.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I gather from this interesting debate that with, I think, the exception of four noble Lords, your Lordships are all of opinion that though this Bill is an exceedingly bad Bill it ought to be read a second time. Under those circumstances I have, of course, no desire to press my Amendment, and that being so I should be only wasting the time of your Lordships unnecessarily if I were to traverse, or attempt to traverse, any of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the Bill, that is supposing I could discover any. Nor would I attempt
586
to do what would be much more difficult, and ask your Lordships to try and harden your hearts against the sweet persuasiveness of the Lord Chancellor. There are only two points I should like to mention; they are not really important points, but they might lead to misunderstanding. One is in connection with Clause 17. Lord Granard attributed to me an objection to subsection (e) of that clause. As a matter of fact I do not think I mentioned the subsection at all in my speech. As any rate, what I do object to is not subsection (e), which I could agree to, but subsection (b). So far as I am concerned, subsection (e) is quite satisfactory. It is subsection (b) which to my mind is dangerous as introducing the landless men.
The only other observation I would make is in reference to the very interesting speech we heard from Lord St. David's. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has alluded to it as a wholesome tonic and as a speech from which we can learn what the commonsense businesslike Englishman thinks of the finance of the Irish Land Bill; but I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord St. David's, was mistaken as to his facts. In the first place he spoke purely and merely of the English taxpayer, he being apparently under the delusion—I am very sorry to say it is a delusion—that the people of Ireland pay no taxes. On the contrary, they pay taxes which they think press unduly upon them according to their relative capacity to bear taxation. The noble Lord said British taxpayers made the whole advance without any margin. Of course they make the whole advance, but there is a very good margin, as I am sure the noble Earl opposite knows. The advance is made upon the landlord's interest only. The value of the landlord's interest can be best computed by the judicial rent, and there is a margin of about twenty-five per cent. on that alone. Besides that, the whole holding forms, of course, the security, and the tenant's interest is worth as much as the landlord's, so that there is really a margin of anything between fifty and seventy-five per cent. on the transaction. Moreover, Lord St. David's was unaware, I think, that any default on the annuity is a charge upon the whole county rates, and therefore not only is the capital well secured but the interest also. I think probably if the noble

587
Lord had known those facts he might perhaps have modified a little the opinion he expressed concerning Irish land.
Now, my Lords, I think that is all I wish to say. Of course I do not press my Amendment. The general opinion of your Lordships is that this Bill can be so amended as to be made a workable measure. Naturally I was much impressed by what fell from the lips of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and by what fell from Lord MacDonnell, who gave it as his opinion that the Bill could be made a beneficient measure. With all my heart, my Lords, I hope so, and I confess I am rather cheered and consoled by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. If he will allow me to epitomise it, it was to the effect that the real
588
intentions of His Majesty's Government as expressed in this House are absolutely different from the intentions of His Majesty's Government as expressed in the Bill. I could not have foreseen that when I made my speech asking the House to reject the Bill. But that being so, I am not myself without hope that possibly the Bill may be made into a workable measure. With the leave of the House I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn: Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.