Sitting of 30 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bury Corporation Bill,—Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Board of Intermediate Education (Papers in Irish).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been drawn to the resolution passed by the recent meeting of the Catholic Headmasters' Association asking the Intermediate Board to order an independent re-examination of the papers in Irish in the senior and middle grades; whether his attention had also been called to the statement of the education committee of the Christian Brothers with respect to the awarding of the exhibitions, and the results arising out of the marking of the papers in Irish; and whether, with a view to having the whole question promptly settled, he would recommend to the Intermediate Board that the honours papers in German as well as Irish be re-examined by a competent authority?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My attention has been called to the resolution and statement in question as published in the newspapers. It is not for me to make any recommendation to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education on the subject, but I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the Board in order that it may be laid before them at their next meeting.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is it not a fact that the next meeting of the Intermediate Commissioners will not be held until 25th October, and in view of the very great interest in the subject would it not be possible to have a special meeting to deal with the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the hon. Member knows, I have no control over the Board of Intermediate Education; but his observations
  1402
  will undoubtedly be reported, and, having regard to the importance of the question, the Board will no doubt do their best to come to a decision at the earliest possible moment.

  Accidents with Locomotives (Spring Vale Furnaces, Wolverhampton).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the case of Charles Davies, stoker, who lost his life through being crushed between the buffers of two locomotives at Spring Vale Furnaces, Wolverhampton; whether he was aware that John Jones, the driver of the other engine to the one upon which Davies was employed, stated that he shouted three times to the other driver, that he himself took no notice of whistles because so many were blowing, and that no danger flag was in use; whether he would take steps to secure the removal of the ashpans from the engines, as this witness contended that such a method would prevent such accidents in the future; whether he could state if there was some method, approved and periodically inspected by the factory inspectors, for the prevention of such accidents; and what action, if any, did he intend taking in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have received a report of this accident from the District Inspector of Factories, which includes a report of the inquest. It seems to have been due, in the first place, to the failure of the deceased and of the driver of the engine at which he was working to notice the warning signal of the approaching engine; and, in the second place, to the failure of the driver of the moving engine to observe that his signal had not been understood. The regulations for the use of locomotives on factory premises require that the driver in charge of a locomative shall give an efficient sound signal as a warning on approaching any point of danger to persons employed. The sound signal was given in this case, but was not effectual, because so many whistles of similar sound were being blown at the works, and I will instruct the District Inspector to communicate with the firm with a view to seeing whether more efficacious means can be adopted. The regulations do not require the removal of engine ashpans, which I understand are in common use in railway engines, but the question shall be considered.

  Slaughter of Diseased Animals (Burden on Rates).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he had received a resolution from the county council of Orkney urging that the compulsory payment out of local rates for animals slaughtered under order recently issued would impose a serious burden on the county; and, in view of the fact that the order had been issued in the general interests of the country, would he endeavour to provide some contribution to mitigate the burden imposed by order upon local rates generally?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The operation of the Order has been postponed till 1st April next, and in the meantime the suggestion of my hon. Friend will receive careful consideration.

  Small Holdings and Allotments (Kent and Surrey).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that not one of the approved applicants for land in Westerham, Dunton Green, Edenbridge, Pembury, and Tonbridge had yet been provided with land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts; and whether he would consider the advisability of notifying the Kent County Council of the Board's intention to proceed under Section 3 of the Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The county council are prepared and are doing their best to obtain sufficient land to satisfy the demand, and this being the case the Board would not be justified at the present time in adopting the course suggested. I may add that land has been offered to several of the applicants, but it has been declined by them.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if his attention had been directed to the resolution passed by the Beddington Parish Council on 7th September, ordering the reduction of individual allotment holdings in that parish to one-fourth of an acre, and giving the present tenants notice to vacate
  1404
  all land in excess of that amount; whether the Board's inspector had assured the present occupants that they would not be disturbed till other land was found them; and would he take steps to secure that no ejection took place before such other land was provided?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have not received a copy of the resolution, but we are informed by the chairman of the parish council that at present it is only proposed to reduce by 30 rods the area of a single allotment, the holder of which holds at present 107 rods. This cannot, however, be done until Michaelmas, 1910. In the meantime we will cause further inquiry to be made, and do what is practicable to secure the provision of the land required to satisfy the existing demand. The inspector did not give any such assurance as is suggested in the question.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he could state what steps the Kent County Council had taken to provide land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act for the members of the Welling Small Holdings Association, whose applications had been duly approved; and, if it were found that the county council was not proceeding with the matter, would the Board exercise its powers by having a scheme prepared and negotiations entered into for the acquisition of land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No land has been at present obtained in the Welling district, and the county council state that they do not know of any land to which a Compulsory Order could suitably be applied, having regard to the restrictions imposed by Section 41 of the Small Holdings Act and also to the high rents which would have to be asked to recoup the council the heavy expenses and outgoings of any suitable land in the district which could be so acquired. We are sending an inspector to make full inquiry into the matter, and on receipt of his report I will communicate again with my hon. Friend.

  Imported Hops (Marking).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he would state what was the nature of the representations made by the Government of the United States of America as to the marking of imported hops, as indicated in the Bill introduced by the Government this year?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No such representations were received from the United States Government.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the Governments of Belgium, Austria, and Germany made representations to the Foreign Office against a detailed system of marking hops, as outlined in the Bill introduced by the Government this year?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer is in the affirmative.

  British Hop Cultivation.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he could give an estimate of the total yield of British hops this year; how much it would fall short of the quantity required for an average year's brewing; how much the deficiency would cost if purchased from foreign countries at the present average price; if he would state how many additional acres under cultivation in this country would render imports unnecessary; whether he could state the approximate cost of planting and bringing to maturity an acre of hops; and whether he could give an estimate of the total expenditure involved in cultivating the additional acreage necessary to produce sufficient to meet the demands of home brewers?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are not yet able to give an estimate of the British yield of hops this year. The average annual imports during the last five years have amounted to rather more than 227,000 cwt., which would represent the produce, at the average yield per acre in England during that period, of nearly 25,000 acres. The cost of production of hops varies considerably, but the Select Committee on the Hop Industry thought that £40 might be taken as the average annual cost of raising and placing on the market the produce of an acre of hops.

  Fishery Laws (Effect of Land Purchase).
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, in view of the fact that the operation of the Land Purchase Acts was raising difficulties in regard to the administration of the Fishery Laws, he proposed to take any steps to secure the rights of purchasing tenants in the rivers adjoining their holdings?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): This matter is now under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

  River Nore (Salmon Fisheries).
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention had been drawn to the action of Mr. Tighe in connection with the Salmon Fisheries on the River Nore; and whether he would see that the Fisheries Acts are strictly observed?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: No complaint has been recently received by the Department in this matter. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is not the complaint in this case that one end of the net is fast to the shore, and thus it becomes a fixed engine, which is against the Act of Parliament? Will further inquiries be made, and, if it is found that this gentleman is fishing with a fixed engine, which is illegal, will the law be enforced?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: That is what I mean by making inquiry.

  Department of Agriculture (Appointments in Veterinary Branch).
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention had been called to allegations of Episcopalian ascendancy in the appointments in the veterinary branch of his Department; whether he was aware that, although Catholics preponderated in the appointments given by competitive examination, they numbered only about one-fourth in the appointments conferred by nomination, and that the average salary of Episcopalian officials was £248, whilst that of Catholic officials was only £106; and what steps he proposed to take to secure the abolition of religious tests for such appointments, and to ensure that candidates should not be penalised because they belonged to the same religious denomination as the majority of their countrymen?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I have seen a printed statement containing allegations of the kind referred to. The Department, I am informed, has no means of telling the religious persuasion of any of the fourteen

  1407
  officers in question as no record whatever is kept of this nor are any inquiries made. But in regard to the charges made against the veterinary branch, it must be remembered, first, that on the formation of the Department the staff previously in charge of the work under the Privy Council was transferred to and incorporated with the Department. This accounts for almost the whole of the principal officers. And, secondly, that the main portion of the clerical staff of the Department, apart from the temporary clerks, is assigned by the Civil Service Commissioners, and the Department has nothing to do with these appointments. I regret that it should be possible for such charges to be made, and I can only say with confidence that no such bias has actuated me in making any appointment for which I have been responsible.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures contained in the question?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I have no means of informing myself on the point raised. I do not know the whole of the individual members of the veterinary staff. On a matter so delicate as this I must ask Irish Members to believe that, at all events, so far as I am concerned, and as long as I am in the Department, religious bias has not and will not influence me in any way.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. But from his long political experience has he not come to the conclusion that the maintenance of Episcopalian ascendancy is the be-all and end-all of Irish Unionism?

  Affairs in Morocco.
  Mr. F. J. MARNHAM (for Mr. Cowan)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any official information showing that the Sultan of Morocco had put the Pretender to death by torture; and whether, if he had not received such information, he would inquire of the British representative at Fez whether this had happened?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The last information is that there is no confirmation of the report. As soon as the European representatives at Fez have any information, they will no doubt report it.

  Skerries Islands (Postal Service).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General whether he would make inquiries as to whether it would be possible to give the inhabitants of the Skerries Islands, Shetland, a weekly steamer service during the winter months?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am having inquiry made in the matter.

  Marconi Company and Post Office.
  Sir WILLIAM HOLLAND (for Mr. Beauchamp)asked the Postmaster-General if he could make any statement in regard to his negotiations with the Marconi Company and with Lloyd's in reference to the acquisition by the Post Office of the radio-telegraphic shore stations?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am glad to say that arrangements have been completed with the Marconi Company for the transfer to the Post Office of all their coast stations for communication with ships, including all plant, machinery, buildings, land and leases, etc., and for the surrender of the rights which they enjoy under their agreement with the Post Office of August, 1904, for licences or facilities in respect of coast stations intended for such communication. In addition the Post Office secures the right of using, free of royalty, the existing Marconi patents, and any future patents or improvements, for a term of fourteen years, for the following purposes; communication for all purpose? between stations in the United Kingdom and ships, and between stations on the mainland of Great Britain and Ireland, on the one hand, and outlying islands, on the other hand, or between any two outlying islands; and (except for the transmission of public telegrams) between any two stations on the mainland; and on board Post Office cable ships. The inclusive consideration to be paid to the company is £15,000. The arrangement is in no sense an exclusive one. All the stations will, under the International Radio-telegraphic Convention, be open for communication equally to all ships, whatever system of wireless telegraphy they may carry; and the Post Office will be free to use or to experiment with any system of wireless telegraphy at its discretion. All inland communication of messages by wireless telegraphy will be entirely under the control of the Post Office. The company will retain the licence for their long-distance

  1409
  stations at Poldhu and Clifden, which are primarily intended for shore to shore communication with America. Arrangements have also been made with Lloyd's for the transfer to the Post Office of their wireless stations for communication with ships, and for the surrender of all claims to licences for such communication. In return Lloyd's will receive the plant value of their stations, and will have transmitted to them (with due regard to the secrecy of private telegrams) information received at the Post Office stations in regard to the position and movements of ships, and other maritime intelligence. Lloyd's and the Marconi Company have mutually arranged to cancel an agreement between themselves which was made in 1901, and which has proved a source of dispute, and, therefore, an obstacle to the development of wireless telegraphy. I am satisfied that it is to the public interest, both from a commercial and a strategical point of view, that the coast stations used for communication with ships should be in the hands of the Government, and should be worked as part and parcel of the general telegraphic system of the country. I think it important also that no private monopoly in wireless telegraphy should be allowed to glow up. I trust that the new arrangements will result in an even more rapid extension of the use of this important invention than has taken place in the past. I may add that the negotiations and arrangements have been conducted with the knowledge of, and in consultation with the Admiralty, who consider it important that the coast wireless stations should be in the hands of the Post Office.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask, in view of the great importance of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, that he will have it printed in the Papers?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir; I will do that. At the same time, in view of the importance of the matter, I am sending a statement to the Press, and it will doubtless appear in to-morrow morning's papers. But I will have it circulated.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask the Postmaster-General whether, if under these new arrangements, the Government staff has to be increased, the claims of those men who have been discharged for want of work by both Lloyd's and Marconi's will be taken up by the Government with a view to giving these men employment in work at which they are experts?
  Mr. BUXTON: Most certainly. That is a matter that has not escaped my attention. We will be able to take into employment every one of these men employed by Marconi or Lloyd's, subject, of course, to good character.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: In the event of the outbreak of war will the Government have any power to take possession of the long-distance stations which are not included in the present agreement?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think that is so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

  Labour Exchanges (Staff Appointments).
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS (for Mr. Jowett)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish particulars concerning the duties to be performed by, and the qualifications required of, the persons whom he deems suitable to fill the various positions under the new system of Labour Exchanges; and if he will postpone the consideration of all applications until some date, to be fixed at his earliest convenience, which will give a reasonable opportunity for suitable persons to apply after he has stated his requirements?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): In view of the fact that over 5,000 applications have been received for Labour Exchange posts, and of the desirability of opening the principal Exchanges at as early a date as possible, I do not consider that it is advisable to postpone the consideration of applications. It is not possible to make a hard and fast definition of the qualifications required for Labour Exchange managers, but the general nature of their duties must be widely known.

  London and North Western Railway Company (Subsidence near Oldbury).
  Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the admission by the London and North-Western Railway Company that a subsidence has taken place on their line near Oldbury owing to mining operations, and that in consequence trains have to continuously travel at a slow speed over the site of the workings, he will cause an inspection to be made on behalf of the Board of Trade in order that the travelling public may have the satisfaction of an independent report on a matter affecting their safety?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Board of Trade have no power to order such an inspection to be made, and I should deprecate taking any step which might seem in any way to relieve the railway company of the responsibility which rests on them to ensure the safe working of the line. I have no reason to doubt that the company are doing all that is necessary in the matter.

  S.S. "Changsha" (Suicide of Asiatic Seaman).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea, on 9th February, 1909, of an Asiatic trimmer named Fang Cho, whilst serving on the steamer "Changsha," of London; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; whether the engineer's log-book has been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any previous cases of death from suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Asiatic trimmer referred to joined the "Changsha" on the 21st November, 1908. He was on duty when he disappeared. The temperature of the engine-room was 107 degrees, and of the stokehold 100 degrees. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance, has occurred in this vessel during the last three years. As the "Changsha" has been trading abroad since the man's disappearance the Board of Trade surveyors have not had an opportunity of visiting her, and I am unable at present to give the other particulars asked for by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Have the Board of Trade ever considered the advisability of prosecuting the owners of these vessels where the temperature of these rooms is noted for being so high?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think we have power to prosecute. What power we have we exercise in endeavouring to get recommendations carried out. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put his question down.

  S.S. "Fultala" (Death of Asiatic Seaman).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention
  1412
  has been called to the death at sea from phthisis, on the 25th April, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman, named Baboojan Cadir Box, whilst serving on the steamer "Fultala," of Glasgow; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether steps were taken to isolate him from the rest of the crew; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: The seaman in question was being conveyed from Mauritius to Calcutta as a "distressed British seaman," and had gone on board suffering from phthisis in its last stage. He was attended by the ship's doctor. No other death from phthisis has occurred on this ship during the last three years. As the "Fultala" is regularly employed in Eastern waters and her crews are engaged and discharged in India, the other particulars asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

  Coal in United Kingdom (Approximate Price).
  Mr. WADSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the approximate price of coal in the United Kingdom is given in the General Report and Statistics for 1907 (Mines and Quarries, Part III.) at 9s. 4.41d.; and can he or his Department testify to the complete accuracy of the price given in the Report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I beg leave to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The approximate average price at the mines of coal in the United Kingdom for the year 1907, as given in the General Report and Statistics, is 9s., not 9s. 4.41d. The latter is the price for Ireland. As will be seen from the heading to the column in the Report, the prices given are only approximate. The figures are based on information supplied voluntarily by owners to the inspectors of mines, and their absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed, though there is good reason to think they are substantially correct.
  Mr. WADSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to whether the Board of Trade by Act of Parliament or otherwise has any authority to compel an owner, agent, or manager of a mine, or someone in charge of a mine to state

  1413
  upon oath if the various classes of coal raised, and the prices received by them—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members ought to give notice of some of these questions.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Licensed Houses).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can state the number of licensed houses owned or leased by them outside the area of the county of London?
  Mr. JAMES TOMKINSON: The number of public-houses on the estates vested in or managed by the Commissioners (outside the area of the county of London) is 192.

  Naval Floating Docks.
  Mr. GEORGE RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two floating docks for which tenders are now being asked are those for which a sum on account was provided in the Navy Estimates, 1909–10; and, if so, whether it is intended to also ask for tenders for two further floating docks, so that at least two such docks suitable for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type may be placed on the north-east coast with the least possible delay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the two floating docks for which tenders are being asked will be suitable for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type. It is not intended to ask for tenders for two further floating docks.
  Mr. RENWICK: Will one at least of these floating docks be placed on the North-East Coast?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think I can possibly add to the statement on this point which has been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in reply to questions and in Debate in this House.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Supply of Granite).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contracts for the supply of granite at Rosyth are under reconsideration; and whether Any decision has been arrived at as to whom the work is to be given to?
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether new tenders have been issued in connection with the granite required for the Rosyth naval base; whether, and in what respects, the terms of the new tender differ from those originally issued; and if he can state under what circumstances it has been found necessary to withdraw the contract from Norwegian quarry owners in order, if possible, that British firms may secure the contract?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In inviting tenders for the execution of the work at Rosyth, alternative tenders were asked for in connection with that part of the work for which granite would be required. The granite must come up to the standard of our requirements, and at the price offered foreign granite was selected. Subject to this, the Admiralty have nothing to do with the arrangements for procuring the granite, which are entirely in the hands of the main contractor.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: Is this granite dressed abroad or in the United Kingdom?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot tax my memory on that. The hon. Member might give me notice of it.
  Mr. H. CARLILE: Will the hon. Gentleman abate the amount of the two tenders?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Foreign granite up to our requirements was offered at £104,000, and British granite at £134,000.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Were tests made of the samples of Norwegian granite submitted by the contractors, and were they found to be efficient in quality?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There was an official report on the matter, I think, to the First Lord, and certainly the granite that we ultimately agreed upon was up to our requirements.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Was the granite ultimately agreed upon Norwegian granite?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It was foreign granite, certainly.
  An HON. MEMBER: "'Morning Post' granite."
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the contract is about to be issued, if not already issued, and will he give British contractors an opportunity of revising their tenders?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware of that, but subject to the granite being up to the Admiralty requirements and to the price already determined upon, I suppose the contractor will have to communicate with us in the matter, and it is scarcely likely that we should put any difficulty in their way.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: Has the Admiralty any evidence of the durability of Norwegian granite?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The granite we accepted was up to our requirements.
  Mr. FELL: It has not been in use so long?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It certainly lasted since the days of the last Government.

  Small Ownerships (Foreign Countries and British Colonies).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the working of land banks, credit societies, and agricultural co-operative associations, and their relation to the development of small ownership, in foreign countries and in our Colonies?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am disposed to think that this is a subject which has passed beyond the stage of inquiry, as the advantages of the institutions in question are generally understood and appreciated. My Noble Friend, the President of the Board of Agriculture, and his Department, is taking active steps in concert with certain voluntary organisations for the encouragement of co-operative associations.

  Organisation of Oriental Studies (Report of Treasury Committee).
  Mr. REESasked the Prime Minister if he can state when a Vote will be submitted to the House in connection with the Report of the Treasury Committee on the Organisation of Oriental Studies; whether an initial, as well as an annual, grant is proposed; and whether the House will be given any opportunity of discussing this subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Vote will be submitted to the House in this connection during the present Session. The details are still under consideration, and in the meantime I must refer my hon. Friend to what was said by my Noble Friend Lord Morley in another place, to which I have nothing at present to add.

  Fatal Shooting of Army Chaplain (Report of Inquiry).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for War whether an investigation is being made by the Army Council into the fatal shooting accident to the Rev. Mr. Hodgson in the Territorial camp at Guisborough; if so, when was the inquiry commenced; and can he state the probable time of its completion, and whether the report will be published in full when ready?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire in reply to a similar question.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is it the intention of the Department never to make any report?
  Mr. ACLAND: These reports, as I mentioned yesterday, are not for publication. Of course, the War Office are taking steps to prevent any such similar occurrence.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Has any communication-been made to the relatives of the gentleman who was shot? As I understand, they know nothing at all about what the War Office did or intends to do.
  Mr. ACLAND: The deep regret of all concerned was at once expressed to the relatives of the gentleman who was shot.

  Australian Commonwealth ("Colonies" and "Colonial").
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in Australia an objection exists to the terms Colonies and Colonial as applied to the Commonwealth or its component parts; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future in official documents and in oral references in Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government the employment of such terms as indicated will be avoided?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Yes, Sir; there is no doubt that such an objection exists, but certainly in the Colonial Office and, so far as I am aware, in all formal communications with or references to Australia, the practice is well settled of making use of the correct expressions Commonwealth or States as the case may be.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: May I ask for an answer to the second part of the question in reference to official documents and oral references in Parliament? I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that important.
  Colonel SEELY: Well, Sir, as to the substantive there is a synonym, but if the ton. Member will furnish me with an adjective to substitute for Colonial I will be glad.

  FINANCE BILL.

    CALCULATING INCOME FOR SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether interest paid on money borrowed from a bank against Stock Exchange securities is allowed as a deduction in calculating income for Super-tax; and, if not, will he explain why such deduction is not allowed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): For Super-tax purposes the income is to be estimated in the same manner as the total income is estimated for the purpose of exemption or abatement under the Income Tax Acts. Annual interest payable by the taxpayer would be deductible in estimating his income for Super-tax purposes, but not interest on short loans.
    Mr. REESasked whether the deductions from gross profit allowed in assessing to Super-tax under the Finance Bill will be confined to such as are allowed in assessing to ordinary Income Tax; whether in any case any person will be called upon to pay Super-tax in respect of income not actually received and available for expenditure; whether it is proposed to levy Super-tax for 1909–10 on the average income of the preceding three years, seeing that since the repeal of Section 133 of the Act of 1842 assesses may often be called on in that case to pay upon a larger income than they received in 1909–10?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The deductions to be allowed in calculating profits for the purpose of Super-tax are the same as those allowed for the purposes of the ordinary Income Tax, with the addition of the deductions specifically allowed by Clause 47 (2) of the Finance Bill. The question, therefore, whether the profits chargeable are available for expenditure will not arise. The Super-tax for 1909–10 will be chargeable on the total income for 1908–9, estimated in the same manner as the total income from all sources is estimated for the purposes of exemptions or abatements
    1418
    under the Income Tax Acts. With regard to trade or business profits, the basis of liability will accordingly in most cases be the average profits of the three years 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8.

    SUPER-TAX ("INDIVIDUALS" AND CORPORATIONS).
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether, having regard to the decision of the courts in the case of the Great Northern Railway Company v. Great Central Railway Company, reported in the Railway and Canal Traffic Cases, Volume 10, page 275, it is quite clear that the word "individuals" in Clause 47 of the Finance Bill, relative to Super-tax, does not include a corporation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are advised that it is clear that the word "individuals" in Clause 47 of the Finance Bill does not include a corporation.

    DUTIES ON LAND VALUES (PAYMENT TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say under what circumstances he has amended page 45, Clause 70, Sub-section (1), from the original Resolution, page 7018, giving a sum equal to the net proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities, to the Clause as appearing in Tuesday's Votes, page 7094, whereby the words "one-half of" have been introduced?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The circumstances under which the Amendment was made in the Clause originally put on the Paper were merely the necessity of correcting an obvious slip of the pen.

    SPIRITS CLEARED FROM BOND (PERCENTAGE REDUCTION).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the percentage reduction in spirits cleared from bond during the first five months of the present financial year compared with the same period last year; if the same decline should be shown in the remainder of the financial year, what would be the loss of the yield of that portion of the Spirit Duty which is allocated to local taxation accounts by 53 and 54 Vict., 1890; and whether any and, if so, what arrangements are being made to compensate the local taxation accounts for the loss in revenue involved?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As regards the first part of the question, the percentage reduction in spirits cleared from bond during the first five months of the present financial

    1419
    year, as compared with the same period of last year is 29.9 per cent., and, on the hypothesis stated in the second part of the question, the loss of yield for the local taxation accounts in respect of the total receipts for 1909–10, as compared with the estimated yield for that year on the old basis of taxation, would amount to £203,000. The actual loss, however, is likely to be very much smaller, because the duty payments in the five months April-August, 1909, have been greatly diminished by the forestalments in March last and by the reduction of duty-paid stocks which there is reason to believe has been taking place during the last two or three months. The grants to the local taxation accounts under this head are by the Acts 53 Vict., c. 8, and 7 Edw. VII., c. 13, expressly made to depend on the actual yield of the additional duties imposed by the former Act, without regard either to increased or to diminished productivity of the duties, whether due to variations of the general rate of duty or to other causes. The local taxation accounts have, therefore, no claim to special compensation in respect of the indirect effects of the recent increase in the general rates of duty.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, during each of the first three weeks of the present month and the amount of duty paid thereon; and whether he will give a similar return for the corresponding period of last year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, figures are not yet available up to the 21st instant. I can, however, give him the figures for 1st to 18th September, 1909, as compared with 1st to 19th September, 1908. These are as follows:—

    Quantity.

    Duty

    Proof Gallons.

    £

    Great Britain—

    Period from 1st to 18th September, 1909

    982,000

    …

    728,000

    Period from 1st to 19th September, 1908

    1,553,000

    …

    861,000

    Ireland—

    Period from 1st to 18th September, 1909

    210,000

    …

    156,000

    Period from 1st to 19th September, 1908

    386,000

    …

    213,000

    EARNED INCOMES.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of persons with incomes over £160 who claimed abatement with respect to earned incomes in the year 1908–9, the number of these whose total incomes from all sources was not exceeding £700, and the number of these whose incomes were entirely earned?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for is not available.

  Baggot Estate (Galway).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners intend to divide all the untenanted land upon the Baggot estate, Ballygar, county Galway, amongst the tenants who are in possession of uneconomic holdings; and will the tenants get possession of the game?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have already allotted over 3,000 acres of untenanted land and bog amongst the tenants on this estate. Arrangements have not yet been completed for the allotment of the residue of the lands.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: How much of the land still remains to be allotted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Some of the land still remains to be allotted.

  Evicted Tenants, County Wicklow.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, about a year ago, the Estates Commissioners noted 41 applications from evicted tenants in the county Wicklow as suitable to be provided with holdings; and can he say how many of these 41 applicants have since been provided with holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 19 county Wicklow evicted tenants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings by them, and six by landlords, and that 21 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land in respect of which purchase proceedings are pending before the Commissioners.
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased, or are negotiating for the purchase of, the

  1421
  Saunders Grove estate, at Baltinglass, county Wicklow; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners propose to sell to John Lee the farm on the Saunders estate from which he was evicted two years ago?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners had a preliminary inspection made of part of this estate with the consent of the late owner, but the present owner is not willing to sell, and no proceedings are now pending for the sale of the estate. The Commissioners received an application from John Lee for reinstatement in a holding from which, according to his statement, he was evicted in June, 1907. The holding is now in the occupation of Thomas Lee. The application does not come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.

  Indian Public Works Department (Assistant Engineers).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what method was adopted in the recent appointment of 39 assistant engineers to the Indian Public Works Department; were the vacancies advertised; was there a competitive examination, and, if so, where was it held; and what is the salary of an assistant engineer?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): I regret that in answering the hon. Member on this subject on 21st September I fell into an inaccuracy. The total number of appointments made this year was 30, not 39 as I then stated. The vacancies in question were widely advertised, and the applicants numbered over 230. There was no competitive examination; the selection was made by means of a committee, which included two eminent representatives of the engineering profession. The salary of an assistant engineer begins at £304 a year, and rises eventually to £528 a year. I shall be glad to supply the hon. Member, if he so desires, with a copy of the regulations giving full particulars of the method of appointment, qualifications, conditions of service, etc. The annual recruitment held in London is for the purpose of supplying what is essentially the European branch of the service; the essentially Indian branch, known as the Provincial Service, is recruited in India to the extent of fourteen appointments annually. These are made mainly from the Indian
  1422
  Engineering Colleges, supplemented by promotion from the Subordinate Establishment. Moreover, even in the case of the appointments made in England, the Secretary of State has directed that 10 per cent. of the total number of vacancies shall be filled each year by the appointment of Indians, should there be a sufficient number of qualified Indian applicants, and the full number of Indians were appointed under this rule this year.

  Wardrobe and Lavatory Accommodation for Workmen.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practice extensively carried on in Germany and America whereby wardrobe and lavatory accommodation is provided for workmen at the place of their employment; and whether, in view of the benefit in public health and cleanliness to be derived from such a practice, he will consider the advisability of securing the extension of the practice in this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): My attention has been called to this matter, and, in connection with mines, it has received the consideration of the Royal Commission on Mines. The hon. Member will find their recommendations on the subject in Part XVIII. of their recently issued Report. In the case of a number of trades where the conditions of work make the provision of lavatory and cloak-room accommodation especially important for the health of the workpeople, the employer is now required under the Factory Acts to provide it; and in many other cases such accommodation is supplied voluntarily by employers. The Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1908 notes, I am glad to say, a growing tendency to provide improved facilities for washing in many districts, and the question is receiving the constant attention of my Department.

  Postal Superintending Officers.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department has had under consideration the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee with respect to the positions of the postal superintending officers; and whether, in view of the delay in the determination of the future of these officers, he will do what he can to hasten a settlement?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, so far as they relate to the officers in question, have already been carried into effect.

  Superannuation Act.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the actuarial calculation upon which the scheme under the Superannuation Act is based?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The actuaries, on whose report the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, are based, were asked to advise whether the new scheme of superannuation recommended by the Courtney Commission in 1903 could be introduced for all future Civil servants without increasing the non-effective charge on public funds, and what modifications, if any, should be made in that scheme in order to satisfy this condition and to enable the scheme to be applied, with substantial justice, to existing Civil servants. The actuaries reported that somewhat more favourable terms than those contemplated by the Courtney Commission could be given, and they submitted alternative schemes for this purpose, one of which schemes was made the basis of the new Act. The Treasury is not, however, in possession of the calculations on which the report was based.

  Old Age Pensions (Suspension of Payment).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is the practice, when a pension committee grants an old age pension and an appeal is lodged by the pension officer, that payment of the pension is suspended; and, if so, by what authority, and under what power, and by whom is the payment of the pension so suspended?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under Section 7 (1) (c) of the old Age Pensions Act, the effect of an appeal being made is to render inoperative the decision appealed against and to transfer the duty of determining the claim or question to the central pension authority. There is thus in such circumstances no operative allowance of the claim until it has been allowed by the central pension authority, and under Section 5 (2) of the Act the pension does not commence to accrue until the first Friday following such allowance.
  Mr. MULDOON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other part of my question, and state whether this is done by the pension officer, the Treasury, or either, or both?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have already stated, there being no pension it cannot be suspended. A pension is inoperative until the claim has been allowed by the central pension authority.

  English and Foreign Hops (Duty).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the amount of duty imposed on English hops sent to the various countries which export hops to this country?
  Mr. TENNANT: The duties imposed on the importation of hops into the principal countries from which we receive hops are as follows:—The United States, 10 cents per lb., or £3 13s. 8d. per cwt.; Germany, 20 marks per 100 kilograms, or 10s. per cwt.; Canada, 4 cents per lb., or 18s. 5d. per cwt. No duty is imposed on hops imported into Belgium.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the names of the countries that send hops to Great Britain and the quantities received from each country; whether the pockets are marked with the name of the grower and the parish of origin; and will he state generally the system of marking enforced by this country on imported hops?
  Mr. TENNANT: In 1908 279,926 cwt. of hops were imported into the United Kingdom, of which 190,987 cwt. were consigned from the United States, 69,002 cwt. from Germany, 9,989 cwt. from Belgium, 6,025 cwt. from Canada and 3,923 cwt. from other countries. There are no regulations requiring the marking of imported hops either with the name of the grower or the parish of origin or in any other way. Imported hops are, however, subject to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts with regard to false marking.

  Public Schools (Accounts).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Education whether he would present to Parliament a Return of the annual expenditure and of the various sources of income of each of the secondary schools that are under the Charitable Trusts Act?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board are now taking steps to standardise and collect accounts of schools and institutions providing education other than elementary, and are about to issue forms of accounts to the various schools for this purpose. By this means it is hoped to secure a uniform basis and a uniform period. When a sufficient time has elapsed to enable the returns for a uniform year to be made up and examined, I hope it will be possible to publish some statistics on the subject. Any return based on the information at present in the Board's possession would be extremely incomplete and misleading.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will these returns be sent to the schools referred to in the question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that they will be sent to the whole of the schools under the Charitable Trusts Act. They will be sent to those schools which receive grants from the Board of Education.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get the information for which I ask?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I am taking steps, as far as I am able, to get the information.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will present to Parliament the accounts of Eton and Winchester Schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The powers of the Board of Education to require the delivery of accounts by the trustees of educational charities arise under Sections 10 and 61 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and Sections 44 and 45 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855. Eton and Winchester are, by Section 49 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855, outside the jurisdiction of the Board under the Charitable Trusts Acts, and are also under Section 8 (1) of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Board under the Endowed Schools Acts as being schools mentioned in Section 3 of the Public Schools Act, 1868.

  Education Department (Administrative Cost).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education what has been the annual increase in the administrative cost of his Department during each
  1426
  of the financial years 1906–7, 1907–8, 1908–9, and 1909–10; and what number of persons have been added to the staff in each of these years?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer must necessarily be rather long and complicated, and if the hon. Member will allow me I will circulate it with the Votes this evening.

  Non-Provided Schools.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of non-provided schools of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and other denominations in England and Wales which have been closed during 1907, 1908, and the first six months of 1909, because structural defects have not been remedied, and the number of schools which are threatened with the same treatment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate with the Votes a table giving the number of schools of the various denominations which have been closed during the period referred to in the question, but it is not possible to say in how many cases the closure was due to requirements as to structural alterations not having been complied with. Nor am I able to say how many schools are threatened with closure for the same reason. In the majority of cases the Board's requirements are duly carried out.

  Railway Trucks (Automatic Couplings).
  Mr. A. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Committee of the Board of Trade on the question of automatic couplings for railway trucks is dated the 1st June, 1908, whereas the statement by the French Minister of Public Works concerning the Boirault coupler was made in May, 1909, and the trials by the Swiss Federal Department of Posts and Railways took place in September, 1909, he will give instructions for a special Report to be made on the latter type of coupler and present such Report to the House?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I will take steps to obtain information in regard to the statement by the Minister of Public Works and the trials referred to by my hon. Friend. On receipt of this information I will consider whether it would be useful to call for a special Report on the type of coupler referred to.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope to the House that this life-saving apparatus will shortly be enforced on the British railways?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: No, Sir; I am not prepared to make any statement.

  Suffragettes in Prison (Supply of Food).
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Home Secretary if he has any information as to the state of health of the women Suffragettes in prison, and whether they are still being fed by force?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am glad to say that the steady improvement in the health of all the Suffragettes continues. I am not absolutely able to answer the question as to whether they are still fed by force. "Force," however, is hardly the right word, because, although, as I understand, three of them are being fed by the medical officers, they are, in a sense, fed without any resistance on the part of the prisoners. I may say that in no case has the stomach pump been used.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I addressed a question to the Under-Secretary a few days ago, and he was unable then to give me any reply. May I repeat it, and ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a fact that the women are handcuffed during the time food is administered?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, there is no truth whatever in that statement.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he so ostensibly puts forward the medical aspect of the case, and whether the medical officers in the prison have acted under his instructions and by his directions?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I put forward the medical officers because it is a medical question, and, as the hon. Member knows, or might know, heavy responsibility rests upon the medical officers.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: Is it usual for medical officers to act on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman or on their own initiative in such cases?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: What authority has the hon. Member for saying I have given instructions to the medical officers? I may tell him it is the duty of the medical officers to attend to the health of prisoners in their charge, and that is precisely what the medical officers have been doing in Birmingham Prison.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[38th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George) moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following:—

FINANCE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provision for Increment Value Duty in the case of Land used for Games and Recreation.)
  Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land which is held by any body corporate or unincorporate, without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof, bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which as originally made could not be determined for a period of at least five years or under other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used, without prejudice, however, to the collection of the duty on any other occasion.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: After the most careful reading and examination of this Clause, I am quite unable to see any meaning in it. It may be that I have been so long engaged in these Debates that I have lost the power of understanding; but the latter half of the Clause appears to me absolutely meaningless. The first part might exempt a corporate body, such as a club, which actually holds land on a long lease and uses it for the purposes of games and recreation; but as to what the latter half means, or to what it might apply, or with what object the words are added, is to me an absolute blank. I cannot understand it; and I should be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be kind enough to explain what it means.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. C. F. G. Masterman): I am in a difficulty in answering, because I cannot quite understand where the difficulty arises. The Clause is the result of considerable discussion, in which I was fortunate to take part, between the representatives of the Treasury, those who were engaged in the Finance Bill, and very important representatives of

  1429
  practically all games and sports in England and Scotland. The point, of course, especially put forward, and which this Clause was designed to meet, and which, I think, the representatives of games and recreations in this country have already agreed it has met, is the contention that it is undesirable that land in the neighbourhood of great towns where games and recreations are provided for the poorer districts—such as that of the London Playing Fields Society—should be built upon. It is the only place where physical exercise is possible for the poorer boys and men who come out from London; and, if the Corporation Tax was levied upon them every 15 years, they would have no funds available with which to pay unless they sold a piece of land, which is exactly what is not wanted in the interests of the community as a whole. The Clause wholly exempts them from the Corporation Tax. Let me take a case which will appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—the centre of English cricket—the ground at Lord's. The case of the Marylebone Cricket Club seems to be unanswerable. They say: "We get no dividend, and, if there is any surplus money, we give it to help cricket in poorer districts. The ground will probably increase in value, and you will take from us at the end of 15 years a considerable sum which we cannot pay unless we sell, which you do not want us to do." Under those circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that, until that land is sold, they might be excused the Corporation Tax. They are put in the same position as the charitable and friendly societies we have excluded before.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Why only bodies corporate?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It does not seem to us that an individual who has a private golf course of his own should come under the exemption. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there is a real distinction which should be made. The last words of the Clause are similar to the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to move on the Report stage in connection with the Undeveloped Land Tax. On Clause 11 it was arranged that, if the land was so used under some agreement with the owner which could not be determined for a period of at least five years, or under circumstances which rendered it probable that the land would continue to be so used, then the Undeveloped Land Duty should be excused. We propose
  1430
  to extend that to the Corporation Tax without prejudice to the occasion when the land may be sold. The Undeveloped Land Tax would be such institutions as the London Playing Fields Society, say, be a very considerable tax, because it is good building land they buy. It is, however, necessary that they should remain in that position to provide for clubs. It is quite impossible for London clubs to carry on such games as football in winter further out. The fixing of the term of the lease at five years is in order to ensure that it shall be a bonâ fide transaction, otherwise, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise, it might be possible for any one to declare that his ground was used for the purposes of sport, and thus escape the Undeveloped Land Duty. It was submitted to us, however, that in the case of the poorer clubs they might be unable to take a lease for five years, as they might not be able to guarantee the rent. Under such circumstances, we give the Commissioners power, where it is reasonably pobable that the land will continue to be used for these purposes, to grant exemption. This, I think, is the only method we could adopt in order to preserve these sporting rights for the poorer members of the community.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite understood all that. What I do not understand is how the second part of the Clause and the first part hang together. The first part clearly exempts from the periodic tax land held by a corporate body, but it does not apply to the private individual. The second part applies to the owner who holds the land bonâ fide for the purpose of games and recreation. But then no one except the corporate body pays periodic duty. What we understood the intention of the Clause to be was this: that where any body, whether a private individual or a corporation, has made any agreement to allow land to be used for the purpose of games or recreation, they should not, while the land is so used, be charged the Increment Value Duty until and unless they sell it. No doubt this does cover the case of a corporation, such as that referred to by the hon. Member, which holds lands specially for the purpose of games and recreation. But those cases are comparatively scarce. As regards the case of the private owner who allows his land to be used under an agreement, I think the words in the latter part of the Clause are perfectly satisfactory. In such case the land is to be exempt from this duty until it is sold.

  1431
  But we also understood it was not to be charged—in the event of the death of the owner—the Death Duties. This Clause certainly does not enact that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I take it what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do is to safeguard football and cricket clubs or other clubs connected with games and recreation from having to pay this Undeveloped Land Duty or the Corporation Duty in respect of lands which they hold. Our intention is that such clubs shall be exempted, but I do not see why all private owners should be exempted, as it might make it worth an owner's while to enter into some agreement with a club until the time came round when his estate can be developed. The intention undoubtedly was to exempt those who were actually engaged in furnishing fields for sports and recreation during such time as the land is occupied and used for such purposes, but it was never intended to exempt these lands from the Death Duties.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: A man can only allow the land to be held for these purposes until his death. He cannot control the use after his death. If he has allowed the land to be so used free of charge during his lifetime, surely in such cases the exemption should apply. We certainly understood that that concession would be granted. There are innumerable cases where an owner has not only allowed use of the land free of charge but has incurred considerable expense in preparing the ground for the use of the people. He, at any rate, makes no profit out of it. But the land does and must increase in value. I quite agree he should pay the duty in full if he sells it. The periodic duty paid by corporations corresponds in his case to the Death Duty, and I ask why should a corporate body be treated more liberally in a case like this than the private individual who allows his land thus to be used? I can see no possible distinction between the two cases. The result of this proposal of the Government will be that either the clubs will be deprived of the ground or they will have to pay the Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is the first time that argument has been put forward. My hon. Friend was good enough to receive a deputation on this matter, and no speaker put forward such a claim. The hon. and gallant Member is the first to put forward this claim on behalf of the landowner. No one else ever thought of it.
  1432
  We are quite prepared to exempt the private owner from the Increment Value Duty so long as he allows his land to be used for games and recreation. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not mean to suggest he should be altogether exempt from the Death Duties?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I never suggested that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If you exempt him from one part of the Death Duties why not from the rest? This is the first time such a suggestion has been put forward. We have gone as far as we were asked.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: What would be done if the land were left in trust for a club; if it were left to somebody subject to the provision that the club should have the use of it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In a trust of that kind the club would have to pay.
  Mr. J. D. REES: What would be the position of the governors of Harrow School, or any other similar unincorporate body, in regard to their land? They might be forced in consequence of the Undeveloped Land Duty to sell it. I know that this case does not stand on all-fours with that put forward by the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman), but I should like to know how it will fare with bodies unincorporate which have bought land solely for the purposes of games and recreation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 25 he will find that Harrow School will not pay any duty at all as long as the land is actually in use for the purposes of games and recreation.
  Mr. REES: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very grateful to him, and I am quite sure that he is anxious to dissipate my doubts, but they still exist. I referred to land outside the fields actually used for the purpose of cricket or football.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that arises now. This land must be used bonâ fide for the purpose of games.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Do we understand that the Government have made up their mind that, assuming there were two pieces of land, one belonging to a limited company, and the other to a private individual, each allowed to be used

  1433
  by boys for the purpose of playing games, and the private individual died, and his successor went on in the same way, there would be this Increment Value Duty to pay, whereas the land which happened to be in the same category belonging to the limited company, which never dies, would entirely escape so long as the company continued to own and use it in that way? If we are right in understanding that that is the intention of the Government as expressed by this Clause, I suppose we can only comment upon it, we are bound to submit.
  Mr. REES: With great respect, Sir, I venture to ask whether or not the words used here are not "games and recreation," and whether those words are necessarily confined to such violent and concentrated efforts as are represented by cricket or football, and may not extend to country walks for which the lands I was referring to are purchased and maintained by the school?
  The CHAIRMAN: This land about which the hon. Member is inquiring, is kept for the purpose of the Harrow boys walking round it?
  Mr. REES: With respect, Sir, I submit it is to a great extent. If I may go on for a moment in regard to motives I would say there are always mixed motives, and the motives of the governors of Harrow School, may, like those of other individuals, be of that character. Of course there may be the wish to keep off the builder, which I submit to the Committee is a perfectly legitimate and laudable object. I cannot see why the builder who erects red brick houses for the few is a greater benefactor than the farmer who raises food for the many.
  The CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. Member is showing what he really means, and he is not in order.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: This is not a common case, but I know one in the north-west of London where the land has been let, but at a very low rent, because the club could not afford more for the purposes of sport. Suppose the owner dies and the property passes to trustees, if Increment Value Duty is to be paid I suppose the trustees would be in honour bound, as trustees, to get some return. Undoubtedly the land would fetch a higher rent, and they may have to exact it, or they may probably sacrifice a part of it, and the consequence will be that the land will pass
  1434
  away from the club and would be lost for the purposes of sport. I can imagine a case in which the point would be met if the right hon. Gentleman confined the Increment Value Duty to sales, but if there is that duty at death the result will not be so much to relieve the landlord as it will be to drive these clubs out of possession of ground very much against the interests of sport. Just one other question arises under this Clause. Under Clause 11, which deals with Undeveloped Land Duty, the Commissioners were not, I understood, to have anything like the same powers as they, are given under this Clause, but that there was to be an appeal to some form of referee; and I would ask whether it is right to give the Commissioners these powers without the same appeal that you have agreed to give in the case of parks and access to parks under Clause 11? If an appeal is good in one case it certainly should be good in the other.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We cannot let the individual off Death Duties in a case of this kind. After all, the case of the corporation and of the private individual is not on all fours. In the first place, a corporation does not pay Death Duty in the ordinary sense of the term, whereas the individual does. There is a nominal Death Duty against corporations, but it is only nominal. Moreover, the private individual might make arrangements of this kind to escape the duty altogether until he dies, but I cannot conceive that any corporation working for a profit would do so. Therefore in regard to corporations there is not the same danger of evasion which it is necessary to safeguard in cases of this kind with regard to individuals. All that is wanted is, as far as we possibly can, to encourage the owners giving the land for the purpose of games without charge, but, at the same time, not to open the door which might result in the loss of a considerable amount of revenue from which the taxpayer will escape. I must guard the safety of the revenue in that direction, and I am sure if the Clause were extended as proposed by the hon. Member we should be endangering a considerable portion of the revenue.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask about the appeal and that under Clause 11?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot remember the arrangement referred to. I do not think it is a case for judges to decide. If

  1435
  the hon. Member will look at the Clause he will see that it is a case which the Commissioners could be much better left to decide.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Clause 11 deals with access to parks, and I understood there was a distinct promise that there was to be an appeal, though the exact appeal was not determined; some suggested the Local Government Board and others special referees.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was not present when that particular matter was discussed. I believe there was considerable debate.
  Mr. REES: Am I right in supposing, Sir, that upon this Clause, which we are discussing before any Amendment is moved, it is competent to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to appeal to him to alter it in form so as to cover any particular case which would not now come within its purview?
  The CHAIRMAN: It depends upon whether I consider the point which is raised comes within the four corners of the Clause or not.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. REES: Am I in order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in regard to this Clause, he will consider whether the words cannot be so amended that they may expressly cover not only ground which is actually used for games, but whether they could be made to cover the larger and more extensive case of land used actually for recreation, though not in the actual sense of games? The reason I put this to you is that I gather I was ruled out because the lands to which I referred were used for recreation and not for games.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was not the point I ruled the hon. Member out for.
  Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the short case I put to him?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member wants to exempt land which is not used for football or cricket, but on which boys may have a sort of paper-chase. That would cover the whole of the land in the neighbourhood of London.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Crown Lands, etc.)
  (1) Any Increment Value Duty in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land held by or in trust for His Majesty or any Department of Government, which would have been collected on any occasion had it been held by a private person, shall for the purposes of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of Increment Value Duty be deemed to have been paid.
  (2) Neither Section seventy-seven of The Crown Lands Act, 1829, nor Section thirty-eight of The Post Office Act, 1908, nor any other enactment exempting from Stamp Duty any document made or executed on behalf of or for the purpose of the Crown or any Government Department, shall apply so as to prevent Increment Value Duty being collected on any instrument by which the transfer on sale of the fee simple of or any interest in any land, or the grant of any lease of any land, to the Crown or to any Government Department, or to any officer on behalf of or for the purposes of the Crown or any Government Department, is effected or agreed to be effected.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provision as to Flats.)
  Where a building is used for the purpose of separate tenements, flats, or dwellings, the grant of a lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, and the transfer on sale or passing on death of any lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, shall not be an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected under this Act, nor shall duty be collected on any periodical occasion from a body corporate or unincorporate where the interest held by the body is only a leasehold interest in any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling.
  Clause read a second time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely what he has in view in moving this Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under the Bill as drafted it is conceivable that in the case of a suite of chambers in a building you would have to go through the whole process of valuing the site value and finding

  1437
  the proportion of the site value referable to that particular flat. In order to avoid that it is proposed that there should be no Increment Duty whenever you let, say, a separate suite of chambers, and it is only either on the death of the owner that the tax is collected or, if a corporation owns the whole of the flats, there will be a Corporation Tax.
  Mr. BALFOUR: You may have very costly flats owned absolutely as freeholds, and they may have all the peculiarities of augmentation of value through the efforts of the community, and they may be far more valuable than houses situated not very far from them. As I understand the wording of the Clause, a person who happens to own house property in the form of flats will escape all these duties.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
  Mr. BALFOUR: He will escape Increment Duty.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I thought, reading the Clause, that if the owner of a flat lets it he does not pay Increment Duty, but if he lets a house of precisely the same magnitude and cost he would pay duty. I want to know whether that is the effect of the Clause, and, if it is, what argument the Government have in its favour?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): The effect of the Clause is to make an exemption of leasehold and not of freehold. I speak with some diffidence on the point, but there can be no freehold in these separate tenements in England. I am speaking for a subordinate part of the United Kingdom. In England the only freeholds in these tenements that I think exist at all are in Lincoln's Inn. You cannot, according to our law, make freeholds in flats. What the Clause does is to put the burden of the duty upon the owner of the fee simple of the whole block. The duty is collected at his death or, if the ownership be in the hands of a corporation, then, of course, Corporation Duty is paid, but if the land is let on lease then the granting of the lease or the transfer of the lease is not made an occasion upon which the duty is paid. It cuts leases out of the interests in land on the transfer or creation of which the Increment Value Duty is collected. It confines the collection of the duty to the owner of the freehold or fee simple of the whole block, because it would
  1438
  be an extremely inconvenient and a very difficult process indeed to try and ascertain the site value of a leasehold interest in flats or tenements.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then I understand that the justification of this exemption has nothing to do with the equities of the case or the magnitude of the property in question. The exemption is simply based upon a certain difficulty of assessment which may really exist, and as long as the Government admits that they have no justification for their Clause except the practical difficulties, of course, I leave it there. But let us understand exactly where we are. Where one man has a long lease of a house and another of a flat, both grown in value, and they sell their leases, one pays Increment Duty and the other does not. That is an anomaly which it is extremely difficult to justify, and as long as the Government admit that it is an anomaly and that they cannot defend it except on the practical ground of the difficulty of equitable valuation, I do not propose to argue the matter any more. I only want to have it cleared up.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: So do I, but I cannot leave it quite where the right hon. Gentleman has left it. It is true that we narrow the number of occasions on which you collect duty, but the amount which you collect is exactly the same in the long run. As far as flat property is concerned, you collect it first of all on the death of the owner of all the block, or, if it is a corporation, then you charge it every 15 years.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If the lease of a flat is more than 50 years the tenant becomes the owner. How is that treated?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: How can he be the owner of the block? There may be a person who is the owner of the block who has 50 years to run. Then he pays. Flat property does not escape. That is all I wanted to point out.
  Mr. BALFOUR: But it does. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it escapes in Scotland.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I do not.
  Mr. BALFOUR: There is no owner of a block in Scotland, and the owners of the flats escape; and in most cases I am uncommonly glad they should escape. The right hon. Gentleman says in England ultimately the Exchequer gets the money, but he does not get it from the man who

  1439
  has a long lease of the flat, while he does get it from the man who has a long lease of a house. I will repeat again, even after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, indeed, in consequence of that explanation, that there is a totally different incidence of this tax on flats from the incidence of the tax on houses. A man who leases a house and sells the lease for an augmented sum pays Increment Duty. A man who leases a flat which increases in value and sells the lease does not pay duty. Someone else pays it. That is the obvious and plain distinction for which there is apparently no justification whatever given by the Government—certainly not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to know how the valuation is to be made. I take it that on transfer or on passing at death the owner of a block has to pay Increment Duty. What is the valuation on which he pays? Is it the amount for which he lets the whole block added together, or are the different separate values of each flat in that block taken into consideration? It is quite possible that the separate value of a flat might be more than it was let for by the original owner of the block. The leasehold might have been sold for a higher sum than was originally paid for it by the man who first took it. Which of these sums is to be the valuation on which he pays Increment Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He does not pay on the flat at all, but on the increase of the value of the site. It is an increment value on the site, and not on the bricks and mortar.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Clause 2, paragraph (b), says the site value is ascertained by the amount of the transfer: "Where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease." What is the grant of the lease? Which lease does it refer to—the whole block or the buildings which comprise it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the Noble Lord has read the Clause I have put down he would realise that on the occasion of the lease of a flat there is no charge made, and that is the point of the whole Clause. If there is a sale of the whole block, surely it is known what the increase of the site
  1440
  value is which is in the consideration. It is on the occasion of sale or death only that you charge it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am alluding to the case of death. You have to find out what is the value of the building at that time in order to get at the Increment Value Duty which is due. Do you take the rents which are paid in the aggregate to the owner of the block, or do you take into account the sub-leases of the various flats which may have been let?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not know what the Noble Lord means. On the death of the owner the whole block would be valued. The value so ascertained would show whether there was any increment of site value, and the duty would be charged upon that.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: How does he get at the value of the site? That is what I mean. When there is a transfer on sale, or a lease, that is what he has to go upon.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon. When property passes at death there may be no lease at all, and the value of the property at death is ascertained in the same way, whether it is a flat or any other form of property.
  Mr. C. SCOTT DICKSON: This deals only with site value, and you may have a block of buildings consisting of flats, each flat belonging to a separate proprietor. When one of the flats is sold, how do you ascertain the site value, that flat being only one of a number in the same block of buildings? Take the case of a flat on the top of a four-storey tenement, and suppose you sell that, what duty has to be paid? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that there is a great deal of property held in Scotland in that position, and I confess I was absolutely unable to understand, from what was said by the Attorney-General, how you would ascertain the site value in a case of that kind, and I am still less able to understand from the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising a totally different point. The Scottish case is a totally different case, and we thought that, on the whole, it would not be worth while, on account of the trouble and expense of collecting the duty, to ascertain the site value in each case.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am dealing with a fourteen years' lease that would fall under the scope of the Bill in Scotland. There is no such thing in England.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is why I say that, so far as the majority of flats are concerned, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be worth while to ascertain the site value in each case. I agree that there are cases in Scotland in one or two towns.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: In all the large towns.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, there are not very many altogether. There are Edinburgh, Glasgow, and three or four other towns. We want to narrow the thing as much as possible, so far as this difficulty is concerned. There is a difficulty, I agree, in the case of Scotland, where we have got to ascertain the site value. But I do not think the difficulty there will be quite as great as is suggested. There is not the same difficulty when you come to sell a flat as when you come to lease it. Let me put this case to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Supposing there is a flat which is sold to-day at, say, £1,000, and the same flat is sold 10 years hence at £1,500. Unless there has bean an improvement in the flat itself, and a lot of money spent upon it in the way of providing fittings, which would have to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners, the improved value means that the increment must be due to an improvement in the value of the neighbourhood. That is the increment of the site value.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONindicated dissent.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman smiles at that. What other suggestion will he make? The improvement in the value of flats in that neighbourhood is exactly the same thing as the improvement in the site value of a house. If there is any other suggestion he can put forward to account for the increase in the value that will be taken into consideration by the Commissioners. We make no provision for the Scottish case. The Commissioners have come to the conclusion that they can get at the value of the Scottish freehold. All this was argued by the right hon. Gentlemen when appealing to the Government to deal with leases for flats, and now he turns round and says, Why do you do this? It is for the very
  1442
  reasons that he advanced a while ago when we were dealing with Clauses 1 and 2. Now he turns round and questions his own reasons. It is rather an interesting exhibition. If I had time to read up his speeches I could quote them to him, and so save all the time we are spending over the discussion of this Clause.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As I understand, Increment Value Duty is charged upon the interest of the owner. Where the owner has parted with a portion of his interest by long leases, the only thing he would be charged upon would be the interest he retains, and therefore a large part of the duty would be lost.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have made about fifty explanations of this matter. The hon. and gallant Member talked as if the leases of flats were for 99 years. That is not the way in which flats or chambers are let. If he will make inquiry he will find that they are let on much shorter leases, the periods being seven, 14, and 21 years as a rule.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask a question as to the meaning of the Clause. Supposing there are in a neighbourhood two shops with houses above them; in one case a man resides in the house and works the shop, and therefore he has a lease of the whole place. In the other case, the house and the shop are leased to different tenants. In the event of the owner of the house and shop, which are leased separately, dying, or selling his interest, there is, I understand, no duty to pay. In the case of the next-door house and shop, which are let to one tenant, if the owner dies or sells his interest, is there duty to pay? Another point is this: Supposing you have a ground-floor flat, or a first-floor flat let at £500 a year, and the lessee dies, or sells it, there is no duty to pay, whereas the lessee of a small house of £25 a year has got to pay duty. If we are to understand that that is the meaning of the Clause, we will have little to do except to form a judgment as to whether it is equitable.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman formed his judgment two or three months ago. He thought then it was inequitable that we should not do this; and now that we propose to do it he says it is inequitable.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Claims for Deductions not Allowed except on First Occasions on which Deduction could be Made.)
  A person shall not be entitled to claim any deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of land on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes payable if the deduction is one which could have been, but was not, claimed for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land, or was one which could have been, but was not, claimed by that person or a predecessor in title of that person for the purpose of ascertaining the site value of the land on any previous occasion for the collection of Increment Value Duty in respect of the land.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is perfectly clear that this Clause will not prevent a man from obtaining a larger allowance on the second occasion than on the first occasion? What I mean is this: There are different stages in the development of a property. A man plants a tree, makes a railway, or does something which starts development. On the first occasion of collecting Increment Duty, at an early stage of its growth, the tree is valueless. At that time the land is valued at £200 an acre. The owner has created a considerable portion of that value, say £150. Ten years pass, and the second occasion arises to value the land. It is valued at £500. It is perfectly clear that that is laregly due to the original expenditure, which had only partially fructified at the time of the first valuation. Does the Clause mean that the owner will be entitled to claim the same actual allowance, namely, £150, which he claimed in the first place? On the second occasion of valuing for Increment Duty, the tree which he himself planted would have grown and become more valuable. Would the owner be debarred from getting a larger allowance on the second occasion, or would the amount which would be charged depend on the stage of development when the first valuation took place? When a man undertakes large expenditure for the purpose of improving the value of a certain amount of land, and the value grows as the result of his expenditure, he should, it appears to
  1444
  me, get an allowance in proportion to the increase in the value. The Commissioners will have the whole facts before them at each stage. They will know how much of the improved value was due to the original expenditure, and how much was due to the action of the community. What I want to make clear is whether there is anything in the Clause which will in any way hamper the full jurisdiction of the Commissioners to give whatever allowance may be due on a later occasion—however much larger it may be—to the original improvement executed one or two occasions back. There is another comparatively small point arises upon that. You may be dealing with property which is leased, and it may be the lessor under a long lease would be the person who would have to pay, for instance, on an occasion, and he might neglect or not be aware of something done by the owner. And on a subsequent occasion it might be for the owner to raise a just claim. There is provision, I know, in the Bill that accounts of any adjudication must be sent on application to an owner, but that would be too late in this case, because in order to protect himself the owner would have to have cognisance of the case before the claim is made; otherwise he would be debarred from raising it later. All I suggest is that some machinery should be provided by which in a case like that the owner might make a claim.
  Sir W. ROBSON: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which no doubt is important, I think the Clause is clear enough. The value which would be ascribed to any such matter of deduction is the value it has at the time the valuation is being made. It would be impossible to expect that the value should in all cases take into account prospective value when the prospects of improvement can scarcely be estimated at all. Therefore the further improvements that take place would not be a deduction that could have been made at the time of the original valuation, because the value had not accrued. The second point, I confess, gives rise to a little difficulty, but still I think it is fairly covered.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Have you answered my first point?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think so. The increased value, the subject-matter of the claim for deduction later on, could not have been taken into account in the first instance, and the owner is therefore not

  1445
  precluded from making a second claim. We must distinguish between the subject-matter of deduction and the increased value after the original site value has been fixed. In the case taken the site value was fixed when the tree was young, and afterwards when the tree has increased in size and stature there is an increased value attaching to it which could not have been claimed when the original site value was fixed, because the value had not arisen. The value of the infant tree is one of the recorded deductions in the original site value. Afterwards when they came to a subsequent occasion, and it is decided to make a claim for further deduction on the ground of increased value, then that increased value under this Clause can be deduction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman took a tree as an illustration.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It was figurative.
  Sir W. ROBSON: For the purpose of the argument the value to be taken on the original site value is the value of the infant tree. Twenty years afterwards when the tree has increased in size and stature then the owner of the land may say, "I am not content with the deduction originally made; I want a deduction for increased value," and he will, under this Clause, be entitled to get it. The second point was in reference to a case in which the lessor had failed to claim some deduction, but the owner afterwards desired to put up a claim. I have not in my mind at the moment the clauses relating to notices to the lessor, but I think such a case would scarcely arise. The owner would get notices of the assessment as well as of the adjudication, but if he did not that is certainly a point that has to be looked up. I think it is met by the Bill. I have not tried to look through all the clauses, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see whether it is covered by the other clauses, and if not it can be put right.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not see why, because no claim for deduction was made when the original site value was fixed, that therefore for all time afterwards no claim can be made.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It can be made and always is.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I quite realise that the additional value can be claimed as in the illustration of the trees; but, to pursue the illustration, if you had planted the tree when a sapling, and had not made
  1446
  any claim, though you might have done so, no matter what value accrued in future, and no matter how careful the next man may be when the next occasion arises, he cannot claim that portion of the value of the tree which could have been claimed before. I think that is rather hard. It should be allowable on a subsequent occasion to make that deduction and at the same time to make a coresponding deduction from the original site value.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved after Clause 11 to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Small Holdings from Undeveloped Land Duty.)
  Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any agricultural land, occupied and cultivated by the owner thereof, where the total value of that land, together with any other land belonging to the same owner, does not exceed five hundred pounds.
  For the purposes of this provision the expression "owner" includes a person who holds land under a lease which was originally granted for a term of fifty years or more.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT Mr. ROWLAND HUNT moved, at the end of the first paragraph of the proposed Clause, to insert "nor shall any small holding of ten acres or less, let at three pounds an acre or more, as long as it is used entirely for agricultural purposes, be subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, nor shall any owner of land, owning not more than ten acres of land, cultivating them himself and using them entirely for agricultural purposes, be liable to pay Undeveloped Land Duty."
  I do not think that the exemption proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sufficient. It is only in particular cases where a man owns a piece of land within £500 in value that it is granted. A man may have £500 in the bank and still get an old age pension. I do not think that this Clause of the Chancellor's is a good one. It leaves all the small holders and market gardners and all the people who own land of over £500 in value subject to Undeveloped Land Duty. The effect is that under this Clause you are putting extra taxation on agricultural land in this country, and you are making it more difficult to those people whom I have described to cultivate the land as they do near the towns. They

  1447
  must be as a rule near the towns or big villages, and you are now making it more difficult for them to compete with the small owners in France, Belgium, and Denmark, where the rates and taxes are very much lower Than in this country, and where the people have also got the advantage of cheap sea carriage. To put a tax on agricultural land as this Clause proposes to do, is a very bad thing, because, as I understand it, it is necessary for the preservation of this country that we should get a great many more people back on the land, who will be employed on and supported by the land. If landlords go on strict business principles, then they will increase the charge on the small holders, to recoup themselves for the Undeveloped Land Duty. The effect must be to drive small holders further out into the country, away from their markets. To avoid this result, I think that the Chancellor might very well exempt all small holdings under a certain acreage. It cannot do any harm, and it will remove this grievance.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask a question with reference to this Clause, which may save the trouble of my moving an Amendment. The Clause is to the effect that there should be no Undeveloped Land Duty on property that does not exceed £500 in value where it is owned or where it is leased for over 50 years by a person who occupies and cultivates. I propose to read into this that the Clause should apply, together with any other land belonging to the same owner. I have given what I, at any rate, understand to be the effect of the Clause. Supposing there are two people, each of them owning land that is worth something under £500 in value, and cultivated and occupied. One happens to own a cottage in an adjoining parish, or some other part of the country—Scotland or Wales, or somewhere else. The other has got a large sum of money in railway stocks, or some other security. If I understand the effect of the Clause aright, the man who has got the enormous fortune invested, if he does not happen to own another yard of land, will get off paying any Undeveloped Land Duty on the piece of land he occupies and cultivates, and which is less than £500 in value; whereas the other man, who happens to own a scrap of land, or, say, a cottage in the adjoining parish, will have to pay, and he will not come under the exemption. If that is the effect of the Clause, and I think it is, and if I
  1448
  am right that this is the real intention of the Government, I would only make this comment upon it—that I think before the Clause is put to the Committee we should be informed as to what is precisely the meaning of the provisions with which we have to deal.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the object of this Clause is to prevent a man who happens to hold land worth perhaps £500, but who may have land worth £500,000 in another locality, from getting the benefit of this exemption, which is purely for the purpose of protecting small owners. I should have thought that there are very few market gardeners whose land would be worth more than £500, and I should say that in very many cases the market gardens, with the buildings and structures, are not worth £500. If they are worth more than £500, then the owners are in a good position, and will have to take their chance with the general community. I think the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Hunt) may rest assured that the small owner is amply protected by this Clause. We only want to protect the small owner, and we do not wish very considerable owners, purely because they own a very small quantity of land in a particular parish, to benefit by the Clause.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the land cultivated include buildings?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so, and I do not think it would make any substantial difference. As a rule the market gardener has not got his house upon the particular land he cultivates. At least, that is not my experience, and whatever structures there may be upon the market garden would not be of very much consequence. It really means £500 as the full value of the land.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has got any answer to the point I put about the small holder.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the small holders of France, the foreign competitors. I should not have thought that very many of these small holders would have land worth more than 12,500fr., which is about equivalent to the sum mentioned in this Clause. The hon. Gentleman assumes that all small holders are in the neighbourhood of towns. If land has a purely agricultural value there is no charge at all. It is only where there is building value in excess of the

  1449
  agricultural value that a duty will be charged, and, taking the small holders of the country where there is no building value, they are protected without any reference at all to the value of their holdings. This is purely a case relating to small holdings in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, where the land has a building value in excess of the agricultural value, and in that case the small owner, to the extent of £500, is protected by this Clause.
  Mr. HUNT: There are numbers of small holdings close to towns and villages which would be subject to this Undeveloped Land Duty, so that the small holders are not protected.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member had really read the Bill he would hardly think it necessary to put such a question to me. The small holder who is not the owner does not pay the tax at all. It is only the owner of the land who pays, and we are protecting the owner of the land by this provision. If the small holder is holding land from a landowner, I do not see why the landowner should be protected when probably the small holder is paying a rack rent for the particular property. All we do is to charge the owner of the land who receives the rack rent the Undeveloped Land Duty. What does it matter to the small holder whether the man who takes a rent has to pay contribution out of that rent to the State? If the small holder happens also to be the owner, then this Clause protects him.
  Mr. HUNT: Take a landlord who owns land let to small farmers or small holders. As I take it, if the landlord acts on strictly business principles he will at all events naturally try to get back some part of this tax from the tenant. He naturally would say to the small holder, "Here I have got an extra tax; you must pay a little more rent." Or he might be foolish enough to build a lot of jerry-built cottages on his land and turn the small holders out, compelling them to go further away from the market, and begin to get fresh land into cultivation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has a poorer opinion of landlords than I have. If I had made such an attack on landlords it would have been regarded as a most pernicious policy. He says that the small holders would be driven out, but the landlords are permissibly getting higher rents—I do not say extravagant rents—than before the land was split up
  1450
  into small holdings. There are cases where the whole of the expense has been incurred by the county council in which they are getting bigger rents. The tax of ½d. in the £ on land over and above the agricultural value is paid by the landowners, and the hon. Member says that they will give notice to get rid of all the small men. If that be so, I think it would be disgraceful that they should endeavour to put the tax on those whom the law did not intend that it should be put.
  Mr. HUNT: I particularly meant that they would act on strictly business principles.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not call it strictly business principles; I should call it by another name myself.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: "Limehouse."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I accept that. I think I have said more than once that I am not going to say one thing at Limehouse and another thing in the House of Commons, and if I am challenged as to any particular case given at Limehouse I have stated more than once that I am prepared to meet it. I have also said more than once that the hon. Member should choose the proper occasion—and he will find plenty of them before this is over—to challenge any particular part of that speech, and I am perfectly prepared to give an answer. If the hon. Member says that the landowner, purely and simply because he has to pay an extra ½d. in the £ Undeveloped Land Duty, will give notice to the small holder to quit, or will raise the small holder's rent with a view to getting back part of the tax, then his opinion of landowners is one which I should be very sorry to hold.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be very deplorable if the landlords did give notice in the way suggested, but I think that in the majority of cases they would not. The only object, as I understand, for which the Undeveloped Land Tax was imposed was to drive into the building market land which, it was said, was being held up from builders; yet when it is suggested that the result of this tax would be to do the very thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired, he turns round and says it would be disgraceful on the part of the landlord to do it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not what I said. I do not mind criticism, but I

  1451
  should like to have exactly repeated what I did say. The hon. Member for Shropshire said that the halfpenny tax would fall on the small holder. I was dealing purely with that statement, and I said it would be a very disgraceful thing that the landlord should seek to get back from the small holder a tax which it was not intended should be put upon him.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I, too, think it would be very unfortunate if the tax was put on the small holder, and I hope it will not be, but I do not think it is the business of the Government to say that no tax shall be shifted from a person on whom it is put by law. There are economic conditions to be considered, and the first tendency on the part of the persons on whom taxes are imposed is to shift them on to somebody else. All I can say is I hope that will not arise in this case. I think there is a great deal in this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed this Undeveloped Land Tax with the avowed object, in Lime-house and everywhere else, of inducing people to build on their land, and now he turns round and says that in a great many instances, if the land is built upon, the landlords will be doing something which is quite disgraceful, and which they should not be allowed to do under any circumstances.
  Mr. HUNT: I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is all very well to say it would be disgraceful if the landlord tried to put this tax on the small holder. Suppose it was the case of a small Radical landlord. This tax would amount, it may be, to 1s. in the £ on the annual value, or it might be a great deal more. Certainly there are people who can ill afford that amount, yet this tax is imposed upon them. I do not think the Government have any business to practically say to a landlord that you are not to get as much as you can for your land, because that is really what it comes to. On the other hand, supposing the landlord wanted to get a part of the tax back, and he turns out the tenants and builds cottages on the land, or he puts up the rent of the tenant in order to get part of the tax back, in these circumstances, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a tax on agricultural land, and it will have the effect of driving small holders out of their holdings.
  Mr. J. POINTER: It is rather amusing to listen to the efforts of hon. Gentlemen
  1452
  who sit above the Gangway to prove that they are the working man's friend, and the laboured efforts they have indulged in all through the discussions on the Finance Bill as the special protectors of the small holder afford the height of amusement. In the first place they protest very strongly that the small holder has got very rough treatment indeed, and that the small man is going to be utterly crushed by these taxes. Now that the Government have met them on this point they are equally emphatic; and it appears to me that the reason they are protesting so much at present is because they are robbed of the shelter which was afforded by the apparent hardship on the small holder. I have been listening to the protestations emanating from those benches, and I have been reminded of the saying, "He doth protest too much." [An HON. MEMBER: "It was a lady said it."] The position is pretty much that of the old lady—they are protesting too much. [An HON. MEMBER: "She was not old."] She ought to have been old to make a statement like that. What they are protesting against is in actual operation at the present time. As a matter of fact, landowners do not scruple to turn out small holders in order to build a cottage or any other property if it suits their purpose. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) that they act on business principles, and that is what they have always done, when they have the intelligence to do it, and on anything which will bring them in a better return for the money which they have invested in the shape of land, and put their land to the best use. There is another objection which ought not to pass unchallenged, and that is the statement that in fixing the amount of £500 the Government have not been liberal enough. In order to prove that statements have been made not only this evening, but on previous occasions, that no man holding land valued at £500, especially if it includes his house, could possibly by any means make a living upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody said that."] That has been said on several occasions in this House, and I think it ought not to pass unchallenged.
  There are many cases in which men owning land of much less value than £500 have made what may be termed, in common parlance, a decent living. I have one case in mind in that part of England which is known as the Dukeries, where a certain head market gardener was turned out of

  1453
  his employment. His late employer persecuted him, and tried to get him out of the neighbourhood altogether. This market gardener bought a piece of land, about a quarter of an acre, I believe, and certainly not half an acre. He proceeded to cultivate it, and at the present moment he is making a very good living indeed out of that quarter-acre. I admit of course the man was an expert. No doubt he knew his business probably better than ninety-nine per cent. of the men who may be engaged in market gardening, but even with his expert knowledge, if he can do this on a quarter acre, surely the ordinary man with ordinary capacity and intelligence, and with a display of an ordinary amount of energy, might possibly, and I think very probably, earn a living upon land which is of the value of £500. As a matter of fact, we cannot afford in these days to believe the protests that are coming from those Benches. For my part, and it may appear ungenerous, but I am bound to say exactly what I think, I believe that the statements, disingenuous as they appear, are made to cover up the untenable position which the Members above the Gangway have taken up upon this question. I hope the Government will push forward this Amendment unless it might suit their purpose better, in order to test the sincerity of the Gentlemen who are protesting so much, to withdraw it, and show that even under those
  circumstances they would not be satisfied. It appears to me they are very hard to satisfy. Before the alteration everything was wrong, and when the alteration was made everything is still wrong. The best thing to do is to take no notice of the protests from those Benches, but to do what the Government think is best in the public interest.
  Mr. HUNT Mr. HUNT moved, after the words "does not exceed five hundred pounds," to insert the words "nor shall any small holding of ten acres or less, let at three pounds an acre or more, as long as it is used entirely for agricultural purposes, be subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, nor shall any owner of land, owning not more than ten acres of land, cultivating them himself and using them entirely for agricultural purposes, be liable to pay Undeveloped Land Duty."
  The CHAIRMAN: Only the first part of the Amendment is in order.
  Question put, "That the words, 'nor shall any small holding of ten acres or less, let at three pounds an acre or more, as long as it is used entirely for agricultural purposes, be subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty,' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 157.

  Division No. 749.]

  AYES.

  [5.8 p.m.

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

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Renwick, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Faher, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Winterton, Earl

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Helmsley and Mr. Rowland Hunt

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Armitage, K.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bennett, E. N.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Borridge, T. H. D.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Barker, Sir John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Branch, James

  Brigg, John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Seely, Colonel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Crossley, William J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Snowden, P.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elibank, Master of

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Verney, F. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mend, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gulland, John W.

  Pointer, J.

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Winfrey, R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

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

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Richardson, A.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Land to Extent of Sum Paid to Bating Authority in Respect of Increase in Value.)
  Where in pursuance of any public, general, or local Act any capital sum or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any rating authority in respect of the increased or enhanced value of any land due to any improvements made or other action taken by the authority, the amount of that capital sum or instalment shall be deducted from any increment value of the land for the purposes of the collection of Increment Value Duty, and from the site value of the land for the purposes of the collection of Undeveloped Land Duty, and in the case of Increment Value Duty the duty on the amount deducted shall be deemed to have been paid.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I wish to ask the Government whether, in connection with this Clause, they have considered the case of the Reversion Duty. The Clause appears to me to deal quite fairly and adequately with the point so far as regards Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. But I wish to ask whether, in the view of the law officers, the question of Reversion Duty does not require to be dealt with, and, if so, in what way they propose to deal with it. Take a case of betterment, such as the making of a road like Kingsway. While land is under a lease extending over 21 years, a sum is exacted in respect of that betterment, and certainly the larger part, probably almost the whole, would be exacted from the reversioner. In due course the lease would come to an end, and if Reversion Duty was payable he would be called upon to pay it. Reversion Duty would be payable if the total

  1457
  value of the land at the end of the lease was greater than its total value at the beginning, and, having regard to what had happened during the currency of the lease, it is certain that the total value would be greater, and consequently Reversion Duty would be payable. Therefore, the owner would be called upon to pay twice over in respect to the betterment. It appears to me that this case has been omitted, and unless there is something to which my attention has not been called, it is necessary to do in this Clause for the Reversion Duty what is done for Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. I would suggest the insertion of the words "and from the total value of the land for the purposes of the collection of Reversion Duty."
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause goes far enough in the case of Increment Value Duty. The concession is certainly better than nothing, but I think a substantial injustice will still remain in the case of those who hold land liable to betterment charges under private Acts of certain local authorities. I do not think it is enough that the actual capital betterment charge should be deducted. The fact that the betterment charge has been paid should frank the whole increment in respect of which betterment has been paid. If the Town Planning Bill becomes law cases will hardly arise under that Act, because it is laid down in Clause 59 that the local authority is to take the whole of the betterment arising, and there will be nothing for the Exchequer to levy Increment Duty upon at all. The hardship will arise in the case of certain private Acts, I think in Manchester, and certainly in London, where improvements have been carried out, and a betterment charge of one-half of the increased value has been levied, either annually or in a capital sum, on the whole of the property. It is very hard that people who by accident have been made liable to this charge should not only pay half of the increased value to the local authority, but be charged an additional one-fifth of the remainder by the State. I think that is a very real hardship; but, in view of the fact that the Clause is a concession, I shall not ask the Committee to divide against it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it necessary to insert the words "provisional order" here? The Clause says, "any public, general, or local Act," while in the next Clause the words "special Act" are used. Possibly the words "provisional order"
  1458
  are not necessary, but if it is possible that betterment might be levied under a provisional order it seems to be that some provision is required.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It would hardly be made unless it comes under some public, general, or local Act. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) expressed the view that Reversion Duty ought to be comprised within the scope of this exemption. I would remind him that Reversion Duty stands upon a somewhat different footing from and is independent of Increment Value Duty. We do not at all admit that a man may not be called upon to pay Increment Value Duty upon property comprised in a lease upon which he may be called upon to pay a betterment charge. It is the old case which we have had so often, where undoubtedly different burdens are laid upon a man. It is not always making the same payment twice over, although it is undoubtedly making two payments on the same property. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) does not think the Clause goes far enough. Take the case mentioned by the hon. Member, where the municipality takes half the increment. If on a property worth £1,000 the municipality consider that some improvement which they have made has increased its value by £100, they may take £50. The result is that £950 remains. What we have done is to allow for the deduction before we assess the Increment Value, but we do not allow that to be a deduction from the duty. Of course, if we made it a deduction from the duty, we might recover much more than we ought to recover, because, in addition to the £100 increment in connection with the improvement, there might be some other increment of a considerably larger amount. If the property becomes worth £1,200 we should then ask for a duty upon increment of £250, and there is no reason at all why we should not have the duty on that increment. The £50 is deducted from the assessment.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: It would be quite possible to deduct the capital value of the improvement on which the betterment charge was levied. That would not in any way prevent any further increment due to other local circumstances being made liable to Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I must enter a protest in connection with the Reversion Duty, although I think such a protest is hardly

  1459
  needed after the Attorney-General's defence. The very capable way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman makes a defence where there is one is well known; but the defence he has just made really amounted to no defence at all. It was merely a few bewildering sentences, with very little meaning. It is desirable that we should put the case exactly as it will happen. A Reversion Duty is a duty of 10 per cent. on the difference in the capital value of the subject of a lease at the end and at the beginning of the lease. What happens in this case? You have a property leased a long time ago. Subsequently the local authority makes an improvement which increases the value of that property. Under an Act such as one connected with housing and town planning, the local authority claims the whole of the betterment from the owner. It may be the whole, or it may be a half; but the value of the improvement which has been paid for to that extent by the owner to the public inures to the property which is the subject of the lease. The lease then falls in, and the Government say, "We will assess this property again. We find it has increased in value. It is perfectly true that for that increase in value you have already paid the local authority, but we are going to charge 10 per cent. upon it." Is that a defensible proposition? On what possible ground can the Attorney-General defend it? I can see no ground of either equity or justice. It may be right to take unearned increment in any form from any individual; but can it be right to take it twice? We really must have a new defence. Taking increment once has been defended many times, but so far we have had no defence of taking the same increment twice. I hope the Attorney-General will explain the grounds on which in this particular case betterment is first to be taken from the proprietor, and then, when he happens to let the land, he is to be asked to pay it over again.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, after the word "paid" ["any capital sum, or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any rating authority"], to insert the words "or any charge based on a capital sum is or has been payable."
  This is intended to meet the case of betterment charges in London. Of course, in drafting this Clause, the Government has apparently chiefly had consideration of cases which, may arise
  1460
  under the Town Planning Bill. This Clause especially mentions where "in pursuance of any public, general, or local Act, any capital sum or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any rating authority." That will arise under Clause 58 of the Town Planning Bill. An Amendment in the direction put down is necessary to meet the case of betterment charges under local Acts, because in general—in fact, in all cases so far as I know—there is no provision in the first case for a capital charge or instalment. The charge is made on the annual basis. In the Tower Bridge Act there is, I think, a provision where, if it is desired to redeem this charge on the annual value it can be done at 33 times the annual charge. But the charge is primary an annual one, and would not come in under this Clause unless the words I have just moved are accepted. I cannot help thinking the Government wish to include these betterment charges, because they are just on the same principle as general betterment charges.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think this Section ought to be clear—that annual payments are conducted for the same benefit of the taxpayer as the capital sum. I think that might be done on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved, after the word "duty" ["the collection of Undeveloped Land Duty"], to insert the words "and from the total value of the land for the purposes of the collection of the Reversion Duty."
  I move my Amendment in order to raise a point to which I called the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure if there is a point which ought to be raised, apart from the second reading Clause, it is this. I must say that I think it is a striking commentary on the condition to which we are reduced, and the condition to which the Committee is reduced, after a few months' discussion on this Bill, that an attempt to remedy so plain an injustice as this—an injustice that would never be supported in private conversation for one single moment—by any Liberal Member, any more than by any other Member, dealt with as it has been by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and calmly put aside. In a few moments we shall be swarming in to the House from the tea room. Hon. Members opposite will answer to the bell. Not only will they know nothing whatever of the point

  1461
  on which they will Vote, but nine-tenths of them will have no conception as to what Clause we are on. They will be headed off by their drovers into the appropriate pen, counted as they go through the gate, and that will be the end of it. Not one of them, if he were to apply his mind to this point, would attempt for a moment to defend the injustice which this Amendment seeks to remedy.
  Mr. NEWMAN ROGERS: May we have the Amendment read, as it is not on the Paper?
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for mentioning that matter, for I am dealing with a point of great importance. The point is this: Hon. Members will see that this Clause has been introduced to remedy what is an obvious injustice. That injustice is that where a man has paid the betterment on his land to some local authority that he should be charged again in the Land Taxes for that betterment. The Clause recognises the injustice, and it is introduced for the purpose of remedying it. It is not confined to any particular duty. That hon. Members will see from the marginal note which says, "Exemption of land to the extent of sum paid to rating authority in respect of increase in value." Hon. Members will remember that the principle is followed consistently throughout the Bill, because elaborate pains are taken to see that these Land Taxes can never be duplicated—that a man shall never pay twice over. This Clause deals—in my judgment, admirably—with two of these three duties. Under this Clause a man who has paid betterment will not have to pay Increment Duty on the same increase of value, nor will he have to pay Undeveloped Duty. But there is no doubt whatever that he will have to pay Reversion Duty. The definition of that duty was permanently modified in the discussions here by the adoption of an Amendment which I had the honour to bring forward, and which was accepted by the Government. It has, in fact, become merely another form of Increment Duty. The increment now is on the total value instead of on the site value. Now the case I put is this: Suppose betterment to take place through some street improvements in respect of land which is under a current lease for 21 years, so that the freeholder will have to pay probably almost the whole of the betterment money. It is quite right that he should do so. He does it. He has paid for that improvement. A few years
  1462
  later the lease comes to an end. He will then have to reckon with the Government as to whether Revision Duty has to be paid. It will have to be paid if the land has a bigger value at the end of the lease than at the beginning. He will have to pay Reversion Duty on every fraction of that increased value which he has already paid over to the local authorities. That is a crying injustice. No one here or outside would in private conversation defend it for one moment. It cannot be defended. The point, in my humble judgment, has been overlooked. I do not think the Government remembered the Reversion Duty has been altered, and I think it just possible that when this Clause was prepared that the thing was overlooked.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have dealt with this suggestion before. I do not know any case in which the whole of the increment is paid to the local authority. I wish to acknowledge the force with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point. I should have been glad if he had been a little less expansive upon the mechanical weight of the Government majority. It is not a very simple matter adjusting on the spur of the moment the relation of these three taxes. He says that a difficulty has arisen owing to the definition of the Reversion Duty. It is rather owing to the adoption by us of an Amendment of the mode in which the value is to be ascertained at the termination of the lease. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the value of the land on the determination of the lease includes increments which the owner has already paid away. He says that the man ought not at all events to pay Reversion Duty on that increment. He ought not certainly to pay Reversion Duty upon increment that he has paid away. That I think is quite clear. It would only be within the spirit—I am afraid it is not within the letter—indicated in Sub-section (2) Clause 7 of the Bill. In choosing our new statement as to how the duty payable upon the determination of the lease is to be ascertained, what is said there is this: "For the purpose of this Sub-section the value…shall be deemed to be the amount by which the total value of the land at the time of the determination of the lease exceeds that at the creation of the lease, subject to deduction of any part of the value which is attributable to works of a permanent character…executed.…" That shows our intention to try to prevent any undue burden falling upon the lessor, by giving

  1463
  him credit for so much of the increment as is due to the permanent work executed by himself. I think the same principle would apply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We certainly do not want him to pay on an increment which in truth he has not received. I would rather not frame words at the moment. We need to consider the phraseology to be employed in a case of this sort. I promise him this, we shall certainly reconsider possibly Clause 7, but with the Clause which is now under consideration, and we shall take care to note the particular case he has pointed out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption for Statutory Companies.)
  (1) Neither Increment Value Duty, Reversion Duty, nor Undeveloped Land Duty shall be charged in respect of any land whilst it is held by a statutory company for the purposes of their undertaking and cannot be appropriated by the company except to those purposes; but nothing in this provision shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty when any such land is sold or ceases to be so held.
  This provision shall not be construed so as to exclude from the benefit thereof land held by a statutory company which is intended to be ultimately appropriated for the purpose of works forming or to form part of the company's undertaking but, pending the carrying out of these works, is used for other purposes.
  (2) The Commissioners shall not require a statutory company to make any returns with respect to any such land for the purpose of the Provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation other than as to the actual cost to the company of the land, and that cost shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be substituted for the original site value of the land.
  (3) For the purposes of the Lands Clauses Acts, as incorporated with any special Act, the amount (if any) payable by the transferor as Increment Value Duty shall not be treated as part of the costs or expenses of a conveyance of land, and shall not be taken into account in assessing the compensation to be paid to the transferor.
  (4) For the purposes of this Section the expression "statutory company" means any railway company, canal company, dock company, water company, or other company who are for the time being authorised under any special Act to construct, work, or carry on any railway, canal, dock, water, or other public undertaking, and includes any person or body of persons so authorised; and the expression "special Act" includes any Provisional Order or Order having the force of an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. RENWICK: I wish to say a few words with regard to this Clause, because it raises a point which I raised earlier in the proceedings in an important question on behalf of the commercial community. That was to exempt from Undevelopment Duty surplus land belonging to manufacturers and others, which had been secured with a view to the extension of their factories or works in future. It is very extraordinary that while the commercial and manufacturing classes have been left out, yet this new Clause is to provide that statutory companies holding similar land shall be exempt, not only from the Undevelopment Land Tax, but also from Increment and Reversion Duties. I cannot for the life of me understand why if it is equitable and proper that surplus land belonging to a statutory company shall be exempt, why similar land belonging to a manufacturing or trading company shall not be equally exempt? I do not see what virtue there is that a company is a statutory company, because my experience is that statutory companies in many cases are keen competitors of the ordinary trading companies.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill to insert words giving some concession to the ordinary trading companies or to limited liability companies registered under the Companies Act. He is giving these concessions to statutory companies, but I cannot see much virtue in the fact that a company is a statutory company. Might I remind the Committee what a statutory company at the present time does? Statutory companies, such as railway companies, become keen competitors of private shipowners. They own harbours and wharves and warehouses, they build engines, carriages and wagons, they own hotels and restaurants, and they are the keen competitors of licensed victuallers, who have to pay heavy duties. They own horses, they build lorries, they have motors and char-a-bancs;

  1465
  yet because they have the foresight to provide a piece of extra land for the extension of accommodation of their carriages and their horses, that piece of land is not to be subjected to the Undeveloped Land Duty. But if an ordinary owner of lorries or horses or carriages had the equal foresight to provide himself with a piece of land for the extension of his business he is to be subjected to this tax. Where is the equity of that? I do not see why the Government should meet the case of statutory companies and leave out all other companies. In the city of Newcastle, which I represent, the water company and the gas company are both statutory companies; they pay large dividends, if not enormous dividends, and their shares are at a very high premium. I took the trouble this morning to go through the list of the companies on the local Stock Exchange list, and I found that almost without exception all the statutory companies had their shares at a premium, while those of nearly all the ordinary private companies registered were at a discount. Therefore, the statutory company is better able to pay this duty than the private company.
  Are the statutory companies exempted because they are more liberal employers of labour? Is it not the fact that the ordinary employer is better than the statutory company? There can be no doubt whatever but it is so. And is not the private employer much more enterprising than the statutory company. The statutory company has practically a monopoly, and it is to be protected by this Clause. The Attorney-General represents the town of South Shields, and he must know that very much of the property there belongs to the North-Eastern. Is he willing that that should escape while the land of the private owner should be taxed? This is a very important point for all private owners and manufacturers, for engine builders and boiler-makers, and all other works where they very probably require a certain amount of land for the extension of their business in the future. This may be a very serious matter also for the local authority, because if land is not available the owner of such works has to consider whether it may not be much better for him to remove his workshops or his factory. For instance, in a town like Jarrow, which has to depend entirely upon one industry, if there is not room for expansion in a town like that, the factory has to be taken away. It is a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it is
  1466
  a very serious one for the ratepayers. Under this Clause, by which statutory companies escape, private owners who have taken the precaution to provide more land than was immediately required in the laying out of their works, will have to pay this tax. I earnestly hope that the Government will see their way to give the same treatment to the private owner as they are willing to extend to the statutory company.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, misconceived the purpose both of the Undeveloped Land Duty and the particular exemption which is the subject of this Clause. We exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty statutory companies not for any of the reasons that occur to the hon. Member. They may be excellent employers, but it is not the excellency of their conduct as employers that secures them this exemption. They may have shares at a premium, but that is not a consideration that need be taken into account in a matter of this kind. The reason why they are exempted is because they hold their land for a specific purpose, and they cannot apply it to any other purpose. They are only allowed to hold it for that purpose, and if they have any excess over that which is required they are under statutory obligation to sell it. In these circumstances it would be intolerable that they should be charged Undeveloped Land Duty upon land which, although it may be vacant, is ex hypothesi necessary for the purposes of their undertaking. If they have land that is not necessary it will be sold, and if not it will become subject to Undeveloped Land Tax.
  If a private employer buys land he wants for the purposes of his business it is exempt from Undeveloped Land Tax, but says the hon. Gentleman, he may want to look ahead. He may buy land not for the purposes at present of his business, but he may desire to hold it up for that purpose in future. That is eminently the case in which he should pay the charge. Supposing he held up land not being used for the purposes of his business, but very necessary for the purpose of the population. Is he to be exempt from paying the tax although the land near him awaiting its purchase at higher prices is subjected to the Undeveloped Land Tax? I must defend the Clause as a whole, and I may point out that it is put down in deference to the wishes and requests of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not rise to oppose the second reading of the Clause, but I am surprised at the defence made by the hon. Gentleman against the criticism of it by my hon. Friend. The Attorney-General's view is that a statutory company may hold land which it does not require provided that it will some day require it. He is of opinion, and no doubt his opinion is correct, that because it is a statutory company it is precluded from holding land not necessary for its business, which I think is a very doubtful limitation, but that is not the question. Under the existing law these companies may hold land for the purpose of their business. But the purposes of their business is denned so as to include future business, and therefore they may hold land for the purposes of their future business, but the hon. Gentleman says they are in no circumstances to be subject to the tax. If the tax is iniquitous the iniquity is precisely the same both in quality and in quantity, which you propose to put upon that portion of private property which is held up for precisely the same reason as a statutory company holds its land, namely, for the purpose of development. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown the slightest distinction between the two I should have not made these observations, but he has shown none. It is, of course, quite true you may imagine a case in which a private company may add to its legitimate business, the business of land speculator, and may buy land for that purpose, as much as a business man may hold it up to sell it for building land, or for some other purpose wholly unconnected with the original purpose for which the business is carried on. By all means tax that man. If big owners of land are to be subjected to the tax, then by all means put a tax on that land. It is not for that kind of transaction that my hon. Friend pleads. He is pleading for transactions which are wholly and in every particular on all fours with the ownership of land by a statutory company, which is not being used at the time, with the object that it might be some day used for some purpose. There is no difference. If it is wrong to tax a statutory company it is wrong to tax a private company, and if it is right to tax a private company it is right to tax a statutory company, and not one syllable that fell from the hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between the two cases, which, on his own admission, he must grant are identical if he says there is no
  1468
  machinery by which you can get a distinction between land properly held up and land improperly held up. My reply is that that very distinction can be drawn, because it is drawn in the case of these statutory companies. The Legislature says that a statutory company may hold land for certain purposes. Therefore it is quite possible to draw a distinction between the two cases. But we say if that distinction can be drawn in the case of one set of companies it should be drawn in the case of another, and that where land is ultimately used by private companies in precisely the same way as it is by statutory companies they should have the same privilege. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not see the force of that argument, or does not mean to concede it, but I think I have made it quite clear that he has really given no answer to my hon. Friend.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I think in this case the Attorney-General's answer is quite unsatisfactory, because if we read the words of the Section to exempt land they are "in respect of any land held by statutory companies for the purpose of their undertaking, and cannot be appropriated by the company except to those purposes." There is nothing in those words to prevent a statutory company holding the land for any number of years, providing they hold it for the purposes of their undertaking. Supposing a water company wanted to build a reservoir. They might buy sufficient land to build a second reservoir or to enable them to enlarge the first one. That would be holding land for the purposes of their undertaking. A private company does precisely the same thing. If a man is going to start a business he does not as a rule confine himself to buying just sufficient land to enable him to build a small factory, but naturally he buys a sufficient quantity to enable him to greatly extend his factory, and he buys the land when he can get it comparatively cheap. He will probably buy extra land in order to put up houses for his workmen. I cannot see on what principle the Government draw a distinction in this matter between a limited liability company or a private individual and public statutory companies. The hon. Member for Newcastle drew attention to the fact that these statutory companies are increasingly competing with private enterprise. Railway companies are starting hotels, refreshment rooms, omnibuses, and ships, and all kinds of enterprises

  1469
  to work in connection with their original undertakings, and, as far as I can gather, any land held for any of those purposes will be exempted from taxation. When railway companies or other statutory companies are allowed to carry on such a system of very severe competition with private enterprise or with limited liability companies, it seems to me rather cruel that they should be exempt from taxation on all lands which they allege they are holding for the purposes of their undertaking, which might be held for years, whilst a private employer holding land under similar conditions would be subject to this tax. I do not see any reason why statutory companies should be favoured in this matter over private enterprise or limited liability companies.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has objected to the principle of exemption altogether, and he thinks the statutory companies should have no benefit which would give them an unfair advantage in trade competition. The hon. Member does not think my observations were satisfactory on that point, but I must leave the Committee to judge. It appears to me to be somewhat hard that a statutory company should be taxed on land which is to be regarded as undeveloped when it has no power to use it except for statutory purposes, and when it is compelled by statute to devote the land to purposes laid down by statute, and especially when it is obliged to do so within such a time as is considered reasonably necessary for the purposes of the undertaking. The Leader of the Opposition challenged the Government to indicate any distinction between the private and the statutory owner, and he said that a statutory owner is allowed to purchase land in advance of his immediate requirements. He is undoubtedly entitled to purchase land in advance of his immediate requirements, but he is not compelled immediately to build upon the land or use it for the purposes of the undertaking. He cannot hold it up indefinitely, otherwise it might be treated as surplus land, and he must devote it to the purposes of the undertaking. Those purposes are definite. There is no obligation on the private owner to devote his land to the purposes of his business, and he is not compelled to devote it to any particular purpose. Therefore he does not differ from other persons who for their own purposes are holding up the land. Under these circumstances I claim that there is a marked distinction,
  1470
  and one which justifies the line that has been drawn.
  Mr. RENWICK: The Attorney-General appears to have lost sight of the second portion of the Sub-section, which reads:—"This provision shall not be construed so as to exclude from the benefit thereof land held by a statutory company which is intended to be ultimately appropriated for the purpose of works forming or to form part of the company's undertaking but, pending the carrying out of those works, is used for other purposes." That shows distinctly that the land can be used for other purposes, and I cannot see the difference between a piece of land which is bought for the extension of a factory and a piece of land bought for a railway. Why land should be allowed to lie idle for four, five, or ten years awaiting the extension of an undertaking I cannot understand. Why should such land belonging to statutory companies go free whilst land belonging to a private company is subject to this tax? Subsection (2) further provides that "the Commissioners shall not require a statutory company to make any returns with respect to any such land for the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation other than as to the actual cost to the company of the land, and that cost shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be substituted for the original site value of the land." It is a gross injustice that the private owner should be made to suffer whilst the statutory company is exempt. I think the two cases ought to be treated in the same way, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a large and important body, representing the trading and commercial classes of this country, to meet us in regard to this point.
  Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: It may be just that this exemption ought to be extended to private owners, but I hope there will be no opposition to this proposal on its merits, because it meets the necessities of a very large and important number of public bodies. Public bodies acquire land under Act of Parliament with a view to the extension of their undertakings. I will give the Committee one case. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in Liverpool acquire land with a view to the development of their system of docks, and the same thing applies to railways. They cannot sell that land, and they have to keep it, and they can only use it themselves for the purposes of their own particular business and undertaking. Of

  1471
  course, if this land is being used as a field under cultivation there is no reason why that should be put a stop to. If there happens to be houses on the land, there is no reason why they should be pulled down until the land is wanted. In the meantime, however, the land has to be kept in their possession until the circumstances of the undertaking require that it should be used for the purposes of that undertaking. That being so, it differs entirely, in my opinion, from the land which is used by a private owner who possesses a certain amount of control over it. I am not saying that this concession ought not to be made in the case of the private owner, but if any distinction is going to be drawn it should be in favour of those holding land under an Act of Parliament for public purposes.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON Mr. STANLEY WILSON moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "held" ["any such land is sold or ceases to be so held"], to insert the words "except in the case of land so held by a statutory company not carrying on their undertaking with a view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof." I have put down this Amendment for the specific purpose of calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of the Humber Conservancy, which is a statutory company under this Act. This company is in a unique position as compared with any other river authority. It holds a part of the foreshore under the Crown on a 999 years' lease, and in the agreement if any of that land is sold by the Humber Conservancy one-third of the sum paid for the land has to go to the Board of Trade, and two-thirds to the Humber Conservancy. They do not sell a very great deal of land, but quite recently they sold a large portion of the foreshore for railway purposes. It seems to me to be rather a hardship if a company such as this is compelled to pay this tax upon money accruing from a sale of this character when the land is used solely for the benefit of the navigation of the River Humber. As I have already stated the Crown receives a benefit to the extent of one-third of the money received, and I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government to tax a company such as this which is run not for private profit but solely in the interests of the community.
  1472
  This Amendment has been submitted to the Board of Trade, and I have not heard that that Department disapproves of it. It is a very small point. It would not cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lose a very great deal of revenue, and this concession would be of great assistance to the Humber Conservancy. There may be other companies in a similar position, and if so I think they ought to receive a similar benefit.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member has given the Committee a very special case where one-third of the profits already go to the Government Department. I think this is a case which ought to be met, but I am very much afraid that the words he has proposed would bring in many more cases than the one he has mentioned. This Amendment would not limit the exemption to the particular case he has described, and therefore I could not possibly accept this proposal in its present form. I will, however, undertake to look into the case and see what the conditions are, and I will communicate with the hon. Member later on.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RENWICK: It seems utterly hopeless to get any concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I decline to move my Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" ["or other company who are for the time being authorised"], to insert the words "or public body incorporated by Act of Parliament or Royal Charter and."
  I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that his intention is that this Clause should apply to public authorities incorporated by Act of Parliament or Royal Charter which are not designated as companies. There is, for instance, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Derwent Valley Water Board, and a number of other authorities which are incorporated by special charter or by Act of Parliament, and which are not companies at all. It has been held that those bodies are not companies for other purposes, and I think it is clearly the intention of the Government that they should be included in this Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not had time to go into it, but I am informed that these words are much too wide. I think the kind of case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred ought to be included, and I am advised they are included. I agree with him in substance that those cases ought to be covered, and I will promise to look into the matter, and, if there is any doubt about that class of case being included, I shall certainly see that words are inserted to cover them.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We cannot be expected to think of every possible contingency, and it is conceivable that under some circumstances the words might be too wide. We both have the same intention that bodies like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Derwent Valley Water Board should have the same rights as statutory companies under this Clause, and I gladly accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Derwent Valley Water Board is a special case. It is not a company, and it is not a rating authority. It is very difficult to say what it is, and we do not think it is covered. It is essentially an authority for a public object, namely, to supply water to large towns.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very case which I was assured would come within the words of the Clause. At any rate, it ought to come within them. I think it would be covered by the words, "and includes any person or body of persons so authorised," but, if there is any doubt at all, we will make it quite clear. Certainly the Derwent Valley Water Board is one of the cases which I was assured would come within those words. They were intended to cover such a case.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are there any cases where these public bodies exist under a charter, because, if there are, they are not covered by this Clause at all? My own impression is there are some old cases which would be done by Royal Charter prior to the time of Railway Acts and general Acts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There will be plenty of time before the Report stage, and if anyone happens to know of a case of that kind which they imagine is not covered by the words of this Clause, I shall be very happy to have words inserted to protect them.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: My words, of course, would include all those cases.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Part I. To Copyholds.)
  The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the application of this Part of this Act to copyholds, including customary freeholds:—
  (1) In the case of copyholds of inheritance, and copyholds held for a life or lives or for years where the tenant has a right of renewal, and customary freeholds—

  (a) The total and site values of the land shall be ascertained as if the land were freehold land, subject to a deduction of such an amount as is proved to the Commissioners to be equal to the capital value of the interest of the lord of the manor;

  (b) References to the fee simple of land shall be treated as references to the whole copyhold or customary interest or estate;

  (c) In the definition of "owner," a reference to the person entitled to the rents and profits of the land as tenant by copy of court roll or customary tenure shall be substituted for the reference to the person entitled to the rents and profits of the land in virtue of an estate of freehold;

  (2) In the case of copyhold land held for a life or lives, or for years where the tenant has not a right of renewal, this Part of this Act shall have effect as if the land were freehold land and the copyhold interest were a leasehold interest.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duties of Commissioners as to Keeping Records and Giving Information.)
  (1) The Commissioners shall record particulars of all valuations, apportionments, re-apportionments, and assessments made

  1475
  by them under this Part of this Act, and of any deductions allowed in determining any value, and of the amount of any duty paid under this Part of this Act in respect of any land.
  (2) The Commissioners shall furnish to any person interested in any land, or to any person authorised by any person so interested, on his application and on payment of such fee, not exceeding two shillings and sixpence, as the Commissioners may fix with the approval of the Treasury, copies of any particulars so recorded by them relating to the land, certified, if required, by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary to the Commissioners.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I want to take the opportunity of the second reading of this Clause to ask a question or two about this valuation. It is a very large matter indeed. There never was before such a cost as will attend this valuation, nor was there ever before in the history of the world such a document as this valuation will be if ever it is completed. Those who perhaps in an official position, have had to do with the valuation of land on a microscopic scale may form some idea of what this portentous work will be like. I should be glad to know if the Government have formed any kind of estimate of how many separate valuations there will be. Every piece of land separately occupied in the United Kingdom is to be separately valued. Have the Government formed any estimate of the original number of areas or items which would appear in this record? Have they formed any idea as to the length of time which the 1909 register will take to compile, and have they formed any idea of the cost which it will involve? I see they do not either in this Clause or any other part of the Bill give the Commissioners any power to revise this register. It must be obvious to everyone who has thought about the matter at all that, as soon as the register is completed, there will set in a very rapid process of sub-division. We shall start with many millions of separate items, and we have not been given any information as to the form in which this register is to be kept.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that what the hon. Member is now saying is relevant to this Clause. This is a Clause which imposes upon the Commissioners the duty of keeping a record. It is a perfectly proper question to ask what statistical material they will have to deal
  1476
  with, but I think the other matters to which the hon. Member referred are outside the scope of the Clause.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: May I ask if the Government propose to give the Commissioners any power to revise this register from time to time, and to aggregate into manageable units the enormous number of subdivided areas which will necessarily appear? Is any power of aggregation or revision to be given to the Commissioners at all?
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of the powers of the Commissioners does not arise under this Clause. The question of the statistical means of keeping the records does arise.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): The object of this Clause does not comprise any of the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The object of the first Sub-section is to place an obligation upon the Commissioners to keep a record of all particulars of all valuations, apportionments, re-apportionments, and assessments made by them under this Part of this Act, and of any deductions allowed in determining any value, and of the amount of any duty paid under this Part of this Act in respect of any land. The second Sub-Clause contains a very reasonable proposal, namely, that the Commissioners are bound, on the payment of a very small fee indeed, to give any information in their power to any person interested in the land. I should imagine the Commissioners will bring common-sense to bear upon the arrangement of their books containing these particulars in the form of a register, so that it will be convenient to find out any particular item.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I asked a definite question whether the Government have formed any estimate of the number of items, the cost, and the length of time which it will take to prepare the register?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I understood those were matters which were ruled as being outside the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: The number of settlements does arise, because that is part of the statistical matter the Commissioners have to keep; but the cost and the time I do not think do arise.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The number of valuations will equal the number of occupations the Commissioners have to separately value.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: The number may be more. Any person may sub-divide, and the Commissioners may sub-divide.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In the first place, it must be that number. Whatever the number may be, the Commissioners have to keep an account of the valuations and all the particulars on the register.
  Sir E. CARSON: There has been an estimate made by the Government that the cost will be £2,000,000, so I suppose they could probably give us an approximate idea of the number of interests they are going to value. That is a very important matter.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We have not the information here at the present moment, and I am not able now to communicate with anybody who has got it. I have no doubt there are some figures.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It appears to me that these records should be treated as confidential. I do not think there is anything in the Clause which binds the Commissioners to refuse information to persons not interested in the land, but will instructions be issued, as a matter of administrative practice, to prevent curious persons not entitled to the information learning about the private affairs of their neighbours?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Clause provides that the Commissioners shall furnish information to any persons interested in the land or any person authorised by any person so interested. It is not so wide a power as that given in the case of a limited company. Anybody, I think, can on the payment of 1s. see the shareholders' list, and the other matters which have to be filed in Somerset House in connection with the affairs of limited companies. I have no doubt instructions will be given to the Commissioners that they are not to allow this register to be used for the mere purpose of satisfying the curiosity of people who have no interest in the land. They are only compelled to give information to persons interested, their agents, or solicitors authorised by them, and that implies they are not to give information except to such persons as are comprised in this category.
  Sir E. CARSON: This is a point of considerable importance, and the learned Solicitor-General will see that, supposing a man is trying to dispose of his interest in certain land, it might be open to the intending purchaser to see the valuation which had been put upon it. I suggest
  1478
  that these records should not be available to parsons other than those actually interested in the land, and, therefore, I will later on propose to introduce after "interested" the words "to any other person." It is quite true there is a right in the person interested to ask the information, but we want to prevent the Commissioners giving it to any other persons. It may be the case that in connection with public companies there is a statutory right to inspect the share lists, but we want to prevent the Commissioners in this case giving information to persons other than those authorised under the Act to receive it. Take the case of a man who wants to sell his property and to get a good price for it. He is in negotiation with a purchaser. I want to know whether the person who is negotiating to buy is to be deemed a person "interested," and, as such, would he be able to get this information from the Commissioners in any way?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think the person who is negotiating for the possible purchase of the land, until he enters into a contract, is not a person interested in the land within the meaning of this Clause, but, immediately he enters into a contract, although the conveyance may not be completed, clearly he does become a person interested, and, as such, he would be entitled to ask for this information. But the phrase "interested in the land" does not cover the case of a man who is simply curious to see what the value is. It is only if he has a legal or equitable interest in the land that he will have a right to obtain this information from the Commissioners.
  Sir E. CARSON Sir E. CARSON then moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "interested" ["any person so interested"], to insert the words "and to no other person." My object is simply to prevent the Commissioners having the right to furnish information to others than those interested in the land.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot accept those words. I am not complaining that they do not appear on the Paper, but I hold that, certainly, in a case of compulsory purchase, the Commissioners ought to be in a position to supply information of this kind.
  Sir E. CARSON: Why?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to exclude cases of that kind, I object to the

  1479
  Amendment on its merits. If a municipality is buying land for a public improvement, and there is an arbitration to decide the value of the land, I hold that the municipality is entitled to know upon what value taxation has been paid. Really one reason why I do not accept the Amendment is that I am afraid it is intended to exclude cases of that kind.
  Sir E. CARSON: But in the case of the compulsory purchase of land you ought to fix the price according to the market value at the moment. I do not consider the right hon. Gentleman has given me an answer to my question. The view expressed by the Solicitor-General does not accord with that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: But I noticed the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite accept that view.
  Sir E. CARSON: That does not matter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it makes a serious difference. When two Gentlemen so learned in the law disagree on so important a matter I, as a simple, uninstructed layman, must fall back on the words of the Clause and allow the Commissioners perfect freedom to furnish the municipalities with the information.
  Sir E. CARSON: Or the ordinary individual?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is a case of compulsory purchase I think the State valuation should be at the disposal of the parties. It is a proof of what the individual himself thought was the value of his land at the time. Suppose he put that value at £1,000, and paid upon that? The
  Commissioners may have thought that the value was £1,500, but the matter was fought out, and the owner successfully demonstrated that his view of the value was the correct one. Then a municipality came along and wanted to buy the land for the purpose of waterworks or housing, and the owner at once declared it to be worth £3,000! I think it is perfectly right that the municipality should be in a position to ask for a certificate from the Commissioners of the value upon which the owner has chosen to pay taxation. Under these circumstances I cannot accept this Amendment.
  Sir E. CARSON: I look upon this as extremely unfortunate. This power may be very grossly used by this system of officialdom which you are setting up in relation to all business arising under this Bill. I cannot see what right a person negotiating with another for the purchase of land has to obtain this information. He should get his information elsewhere. This valuation is kept for an entirely different purpose, and it should be only at the disposal of those who are immediately interested. I am afraid it may lead to great abuse. When one raises points of this nature the Chancellor of the Exchequer always falls back on the case of municipal bodies acquiring land under their compulsory powers, and, if this information is to be available in cases like this, it may render it almost intolerable, because anybody may be able to get the information out of the Commissioners.
  Question put, "That the words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 750.]

  AYES.

  [6.42 p.m.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull, Sir Wiliam James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.

  NOES.

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hall, Frederick

  Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, J.

  Alden, Percy

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Reddy, M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hazleton, Richard

  Rees, J. D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barker, Sir John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hodge, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Brodie, H. C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Seddon, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clough, William

  Keating, M.

  Silcock, Thomas Bali

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Snowden, P.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lundon, T.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Massie, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mond, A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Muldoon, John

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Myer, Horatio

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Transfer Land in Satisfaction of Estate Duty, Settlement Estate Duty, or Succession Duty.)
  (1) The Commissioners may, if they think fit, on the application of any person liable to pay Estate Duty or Settlement Estate Duty or Succession Duty in respect of any real (including leasehold) property, accept
  1482
  in satisfaction of the whole or any part of such duty such part of the property as may be agreed upon between the Commissioners and that person.
  (2) The Commissioners may hold any property transferred to them under this Section and shall deal with it in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Clause from

  1483
  the Government. Something like this, though not in these words, was moved in 1894 on Sir William Harcourt's Death Duties, and was rejected with considerable contumely by the Government of that day. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman bases his present policy upon a change of view or whether he bases it on the fact that it is not precisely the same Amendment which is moved and there is some difference. At any rate, I think we should have the views of the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am putting forward the proposition on its merits. I have just looked at the Amendments on the Paper, and I see one in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), and another in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman)—I have looked at those two Amendments, and I think on the whole they contain a fair proposal. I am aware that something like this or on the whole sufficiently near to quite justify the right hon. Gentleman in saying it was substantially the same proposal was put forward in 1894, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to accept it. I do not know on what grounds he did not accept it, I have not examined. All I know is that there is now at any rate a reason why the Clause may be useful if it was not useful then. I do not know any reason why the Government should not have regarded it with favour at that time, but now I can quite understand that it might be useful to the Government and to the persons paying Death Duties. At that time if the successors offered a piece of land in exchange for Death Duty, Sir William Harcourt might have said, "What on earth am I to do with it?" But I cannot say that. For instance, now you have a Development Bill for afforestation purposes and experimental farms, and supposing a man who was paying Death Duties said, "I have a large tract of country here; why do you not take that?" it may be very suitable land for those purposes, and there is no reason why the Government should not take it, seeing that it would suit the Government and the particular individual who was paying Death Duties. It might have no market except for that particular purchaser, the Government, and it would be a mutual convenience to both parties. If Sir William Harcourt had taken £100,000 worth of land he would have been £100,000 worse in cash, but in this case, although the Government will have to take £100,000
  1484
  worth of land, they will not have to pay out for land they require.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and perhaps I am much more in accord with him than I usually am on the Finance Bill. I know that the view I hold is not universal among my friends, and it is understood that I speak for myself alone, but I defended these proposals in 1894. I defended them last year or the year before when they came up in a similar form, and I still hold the view which I then held, especially if you are going to have these heavy death and other duties upon a commodity which in the nature of the case is not necessarily saleable. It may have a market price, but that is a most ambiguous phrase upon the difficulty of which I have before spoken to the Committee, and very often you have a market price, and no market, a paradoxical state of things, but which everybody knows sometimes represents the state of facts not only with regard to land, but to other sources of wealth. I think this proposal is fair in the interests of the taxpayer, but I go further than that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a very convenient and cheap way, as I believe of obtaining land for public purposes which will not cause either loss or inconvenience to the person from whom the land is taken or who passes the land and will not put the Government to any great cost in the way of litigation or compulsion and all the rest of it. The land which changes hands under this Clause will do so without that difficulty or friction or question as to the price which has hitherto been the case. That is a prodigious advantage. We have always had, we have had over and over again in this House, prejudices aroused by charges thrown across the floor of this House against those who own land in this country that when they have sold that land they have got an exorbitant price. I think often the prices have been far higher than the value of the land, but that is not due to the owners of the land—they are not to blame, and it is a common jury which has to decide, and I do not know whether it is my business or anybody else's business in this House to abuse a common jury. I am quite aware that it is done by means of arbitration, but a common jury has been behind it, and I do not think that those who have sold the land, so far as I am aware, have ever been accused of any wrong-doing, but the results have been most unsatisfactory.

  1485
  Here we have an opportunity of obtaining any land wanted for public purposes without any of that difficulty, friction, or power of raising prejudices in regard to questions of price, whether too much is asked or given. I think that is a great advantage if there are any public purposes to which you can put the land. I do not much believe in afforestation. I hope it will succeed, but I cannot get rid of a certain amount of scepticism on that point. I have known too many who have tried to make a large amount of money in this way, and have failed, to be very confident that the Government are going to make a much better job of it than others have made before them. But let them try. Let us see whether it is going to produce these wonderful results. But there is something I attach very much greater value to than afforestation, and that is the increase in the number of small owners in this country, and I believe this will be a method by which the land for that purpose can be easily and simply acquired without undue loss and undue friction. There are those who believe that when the land has been acquired by the State it will be far more valuable in the hands of the community, that they will get all the unearned increment, and all the rest of it, which would otherwise go to the private owner, and I daresay there are those who support this proposal on a semi-Socialistic basis. I think they will very soon discover that the owner of land in this country is not the otiose vampire receiving vast revenues to which he contributes nothing—that he is pictured in cartoons which find favour with some hon. Gentlemen in this House and many persons outside it. I do not see any harm in that being brought home to anyone. They will discover that, if you want to get the best out of land, ownership is the way to do it. It is only by ownership that you will get the sacrifices in order to make the land of any value to anyone. That is true of the small owner and of the big owner. I look at this both from the side of the public and from the side of the tax-payer. If you take a great slice of the landowner's capital, leaving him his land, it is extremely difficult for him to do justice to the land. If you allow him to keep the capital, and diminish the land it is better for the land he retains. There is the other point of view, that we want land for the purpose of augmenting the number of small owners. We may want it possibly also for the purpose of afforesta-
  1486
  tion, and for both of those reasons, though in a very unequal measure, as far as I am concerned, I should like to see a natural process by which more land will be made available for these general social objects. Therefore, speaking individually and for myself alone, I shall support the Government.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I personally take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman. I am very pleased to see that this new Clause is to be put into the Bill. I fully recognise that a certain number of hon. Members on this side of the House look upon this Clause with a certain amount of distrust, and I can easily understand that it may be a very easy weapon for absolute State Socialism, and that instead of taking only one-sixth or one-fifth of a man's property at death it might be raised to half, three-quarters, or the whole. Therefore undoubtedly it is an easy method of expropriation, but at the same time one has on these occasions to trust to the good sense and the honesty of the electors, and to trust that we shall not have a Government in power which will practically confiscate the whole of a man's property at death. With Death Duties raised to the height at which they are at present it is almost an absolute necessity, as regards their real estate, that some provision such as this should be inserted in the Bill. As long as the Death Duties were at a considerably lower level it might not be difficult to find ready money to pay the Death Duties, but at the present height it is an extremely difficult thing indeed, and I feel quite certain that unless this provision is inserted in the Bill it must lead to the greatest disaster which can possibly happen to landed estates, which is that they should become heavily mortgaged. The simple alternative, where an estate falls in and there is no ready money, is to raise a mortgage on the property. Those properties which are hampered with heavy mortgages are almost invariably those on which the tenants have the worst buildings and farmhouses, are subject to a far greater amount of screwing, as regards their rents, and probably the cottages and everything connected with the estate are in not as good a condition as on those estates which are entirely free of mortgage. I therefore think that unless some such provision as this had been inserted in the Bill, with Death Duties at their present level, it must be perfectly certain in the course of a not very long period of time to have resulted in the greater part of the estates in this country being heavily mortgaged.

  1487
  Throughout the whole of these Debates there has been a very considerable difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the possibility of putting a price upon land. I think it is not an easy thing to do. The animal which is most like land is a horse. If you wish to dispose of a horse, and no one seems to fancy it, you will probably have to send it up for auction, and you might be happy to get £10 or £12 for it, even though you may think it is very valuable. But the moment you have one man who is a bit sweet on the horse, what was 10 or 12 guineas at auction becomes very likely 30 or 40, and if you are in the happy position of having more than one gentleman after it—many times have I been told to be up and doing, because there is another man after the horse—the price very likely becomes 120 or 150 guineas. Though hon. Gentlemen opposite think this form of trading is an exceedingly wicked and grasping one, unfortunately it is in human nature, and when you have a piece of land which no one seems to require it is not very valuable. When one man is after it it becomes considerably more valuable, and if you have two or three it is a very valuable plot indeed. There is no doubt that if, all of a sudden, a large amount of money has to be found for Death Duties, it is a very great chance indeed if at that moment the plot of land has many gentlemen after it. Perhaps there is no one after it at all, and it is exceedingly difficult to raise the money. It would be ridiculous to say the land is only worth £10 and acre, because perhaps in 10 years it might be worth £25. It is not at all an easy matter. With this arrangement it seems to me it is on a better footing, because it is a tossup which piece of land on the estate there will be a large demand for in the near future, and it will be more or less of a gamble between the heir and the State as to which gets the good part. It may happen that the man who has inherited the estate may pass on to the State a farm or a portion of a farm which may become very valuable in a few years, and he will be the loser. But as long as Death Duties remain no higher he will still have five or six chances to one in his favour to select the right spot. Therefore, with the probability of chances, I think this is a good addition to the Bill.
  I suppose in the case of the owner and the Commissioners agreeing to take payment in a piece of the land, there would be no further expenses connected with it
  1488
  so long as the owner can show that he has a good title—there will be no Transfer Duty or Conveyancing Duty and no further taxes to pay. It may, perhaps, have the effect of doing away with some of those extra charges and duties which a person having to pay Death Duties is called upon to pay in addition to the charges he has to pay to the State. I hope this Clause may be incorporated with the Bill, and I am certain it will be far better for the future of land in this country than to insist on a large payment of ready money, which must cripple the part of the estate which is left or else be the means of making it an encumbered estate, which has been in some parts of the country ruinous to agriculture.
  Sir E. CARSON: I cannot see, as the Clause is at present drawn, how it can be worked as a revenue matter. The object we are supposed to be at is to see how we can raise revenue. I have the misfortune to differ from my Leader as to the value of the Clause. Supposing a person says, "I have not the money, but here is an outlying part of the property." I suppose they mean to take it at a price fixed by the Commissioners, though it does not say so here. The whole Clause has no details in it at all. Supposing they have come to an arrangement, and the price fixed is £100,000. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, if this is a revenue Bill, is £100,000. He gets this land, what is he going to do when he gets it? Is he going to sell it to the Army or Navy? Supposing he cannot sell it, what will be the result? At the end of the year you will have a deficit of £100,000 upon the estimate you made at the commencement of the year, and you will have to put that into next year's estimate for the purpose of paying for the land. That is not a Budget transaction at all. If the right hon. Gentleman has three or four transactions of this kind, and there may be a dozen of them, representing sums of from £20,000 to £100,000, he does not imagine that he can immediately dispose of all the properties. If that were possible, the owners would do the same thing. Therefore, what I should like to know is how the matter is to be worked out. If the land remains upon the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are you going to raise by the next year's Budget money to meet the deficit which these properties represent? If so, you are really setting up a system by which the Government are allowed to become purchasers of land. It

  1489
  is not really a revenue matter, in the course of a year, at all. It is not a matter out of which revenue necessarily will arise, and my main objection to the Clause is that it is not a proper way of applying the revenue of the year. If you want to take power for purchasing land, which is quite a different thing, and for purchasing land in cases of death, thereby transferring money from one department to another, you can do so, but it should not be done in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this Clause was important now that you have the Development Bill. Where is there any provision in the Development Bill, or in this Bill, which enables you, if you take land in lieu of Death Duties, to transfer any money which this House has voted into the Exchequer for the year with a view to making good the deficiency which may arise by reason of taking over these estates? I see no such provision, and until some further machinery is set up, and a further Clause is passed, I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make these estates available as revenue for the purpose of paying the liabilities of the country during the year.
  It will be observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean that an estate obtained in this way should be disposed of. He means to keep it. Sub-Section (2) says: "The Commissioners may hold any property transferred to them under this Section and shall deal with it in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine." If that is so, until we pass some subsequent Act of Parliament, I suppose in another Session, we do not even know how these estates are going to be dealt with. It is left for another Parliament, and I ask what is to become of the revenue meanwhile? The truth of the matter is that this Bill shows every day we go on with it that it is not a Budget Bill at all. Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting up a kind of land court, which is to take over an estate and deal with it in one way or another which will not be indicated until next Session of Parliament, or, at all events, until something is done subsequent to the passing of this Bill. I think the Committee, before agreeing to a Clause of this kind, ought to keep their eye on the revenue, and to see that we are really treating this as a revenue matter, and in a way which will make this land easily available as revenue for the State. The acquisition of land for the purpose of allotments is
  1490
  very important, and if you are going to set up a scheme for allotting any of these properties in the country, that is not a matter you can do the day after you get an estate. It cannot be done by a stroke of the pen. It will require elaborate machinery, and until you make provision as to how the estates taken over are to be liquefied you will find yourselves with a deficit at the end of the year—if you do take over estates which I very much doubt—which you must make up by some method which will make money easily available for the revenue.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised all sorts of difficulties which will have no existence whatever in fact. He asked first of all: How are you going to deal with the land? This is a purely voluntary section. The Commissioners do not buy unless there is an application by a person liable to pay duty, nor do they buy except by agreement. There is no difficulty at all about it. The Commissioners and the owners of the land come to terms exactly as if they were private parties. The Commissioners need not buy, and the others need not sell. It is entirely a matter where there must be agreement between the parties. Therefore, if the owner says: "I cannot give you all that land for £100,000," the Commissioners may reply: "Very well, we will not take less than that." There must be agreement on both sides before the transaction can go through. If it were a compulsory purchase on a valuation by the State, there might be something to be said against the proposal, but it is not. So far as that is concerned, there is no difficulty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "If £100,000 is spent in buying land, that has to be liquidated. It is not part of the revenue of the year, and the sum will have to be made up next year." Nothing of the kind. If he has followed the Development Bill, he will know that that is not the case. That is why I am able to introduce this Clause.
  Sir E. CARSON: How do you work it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is nothing easier. Supposing the Development Commissioners come to the conclusion that they want land for small holdings, or for any of the purposes enumerated in the Development Bill, and there is an estate in Lincolnshire or elsewhere, the proprietors of which say to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, "We cannot pay the Death Duties, but we offer you this land." The

  1491
  Commissioners of Inland Revenue at once communicate with the Development Commissioners, and say, "We have had land offered to us." The Development Commissioners would examine it, and they would see that it was very suitable for the purpose for which they require land. The Development Commissioners will have funds. What happens is that the land is transferred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the Development Commissioners, who buy it from them.
  Sir E. CARSON: What about the power to hold property in Sub-section (2)?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will come to that. I am dealing with the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be a deficit arising out of these transactions. There will be no deficit. I am assuming that the Development Bill will go through. There is nothing in that bogey of the right hon. Gentleman. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue want cash, and the Development Commissioners want land, and if the proprietor of an estate says to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, "I do not wish to mortgage my property, and, therefore, I offer you land," and if it suits everybody that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should take that land, why on earth should it not be done? It suits all parties—the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Development Commissioners, and the general interests of the public—and I would ask whether the transaction should not go through simply because there is, I will not say some sort of pedantic objection, but because somebody may abuse it? That is going too far and carrying suspicion up to the point of being morbid.
  I come to the next point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He asked, What do you want under Sub-section (2)? All we want is that, if it is found that the Development Commissioners for the moment do not require the land, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be able to hold it. It is simply a proviso that the Commissioners shall have power to hold land—they have not at present power to hold it—until the Development Commissioners or some people wish to take it up. A county council may want it for small holdings.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is that in the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a trans action which will be possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the
  1492
  words are very vague. The words are very simple, and I think for that reason they are infinitely better than the words that are to be found in most Acts of Parliament. The machinery, which is very simple, enables the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to take over the land, and if any county council come along and say, "We wish to have that land," they can sell it to them. The Inland Revenue Commissioners do not want to hold property. That is the last thing in the world they want to do. It is desirable that landowners should be able to pay Death Duties in the way provided in this Clause, and if it is in the interest of the State and in the interest of landowners to do so, why should the revenue not have some means devised for the purpose of carrying out what is in the interest of the State and of all parties concerned?
  I think that this must receive the assent of all sections in this House. There may be one or two who dissent, and, as regards them, in fact, if they did not dissent, I should begin to think there must be something wrong. I agree in thinking with the right hon. Gentleman that this would be really applicable to what may be called the lean end of the property except to this extent. I can quite understand the landowners saying, "Here is this property, which is of no use to me, but it may be of use to you." To that extent it may be a convenience to many landowners who could not develop property of this kind themselves, and could not reclaim it, and therefore they might say that this is a valuable estate, and I do not see why the State should not meet them to that extent, especially when the State wants land of that kind. When you require land for small holdings there will be a better market for it and a better chance of the landowners disposing of it, but when there is a want of small holdings it is more necessary that every facility should be given in that case. Now as to the stamps. The Noble Lords knows that stamps are always paid by the purchaser, and in this case the State will be in the position of purchaser. The State will be buying the horse. Let me be quite clear. Increment Duty would be valued before the land was offered, and whatever it would be the State certainly would not let that off. But I would like to reassure him on this point, that whatever the value is it will not put on anything in the way of Stamp Duty. If necessary I would not object to words like this being added, "That no Stamp Duty of any kind will be payable on any transfer

  1493
  of land under this provision either by the landowner or by the State." If it is necessary to add these words it can be done either now or on Report.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: In discussing this matter in the House of Commons the only person who has been consistent throughout is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the present Opposition. The first time that this proposition or any proposition approaching that which is contained in this new Clause came up before the House of Commons, as has been stated, Was in 1894, when it was made from this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about morbid suspicion and pedantic objections on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir Edward Carson). I think it is worth while for a moment to consider what views the great Radical of those days, the late Sir William Harcourt, took in the matter. I know that many years have elapsed since then, but still Sir William Harcourt spoke in strong terms against the proposition, and I think it is worth while to remind the Committee of what that distinguished gentleman said. Sir William Harcourt said:—
  "The state of mind of gentlemen who seriously make a proposition of that kind"—
  the proposition was that the individual should be entitled to make payment in land. That is a distinction, I know—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is a very different proposition.
  Mr. G. D. FABER:
  "The state of mind of gentlemen who seriously make a proposition of that kind is to me wholly unintelligible. They really seem as if they were inhabitants of a different planet altogether. They expect to be placed under different conditions from everybody else. What is the Inland Revenue to do with this land when they get it? The right hon. Gentleman says it may be sold. But if the Inland Revenue can sell it, why cannot the owners? Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously in the House of Commons make the proposal that the Inland Revenue authorities are to take this land all over the country? I have the highest respect for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but this is about the last work I should be disposed to ask them to engage in."
  Then came the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition, who favoured the idea then and who consistently favoured it in 1907 and who favoured it again this evening. What did the present Lord Wolverhampton, Mr. H. H. Fowler, say on that occasion? He said:
  "I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A J. Balfour) lending his great weight to the fallacy which underlies this matter."
  1494
  What would the shades of the late Sir William Harcourt, if sitting this evening in the Strangers' Gallery, say after hearing the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now? I now come to two years ago. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not present, but perhaps for the sake of the consistency of Radical policy I should be glad that he is not here. Two years ago I suppose the Radical Government then had in their minds some sort of idea of land nationalisation. But the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, said on that occasion:—
  "The subject of this Clause was last brought forward in 1894, when it seemed to be lightly brushed aside by the late Sir William Harcourt. He did not recollect it having again appeared since. It was quite impossible for him to accept the clause in any shape or form. It was absolutely without precedent, so far as he was aware, in the whole of our legislation that a man should pay his taxes in kind."
  The whole speech, even what I have quoted, shows that the present Prime Minister, objected on principle to the payment of taxes in kind. He points out that the State is not in the habit of receiving taxes in kind either in land or in any other form, and goes on
  "as this proposal would work out, the taxpayer could go about and pick out a little bit of land here and a little bit there to be handed over to whom he did not know. Whom was it to be vested in? The Crown, the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They were entirely in the dark. It was to be handed over to some person representative of the State, and a nice job that person would have."
  That is not quite the kind of speech that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening. I might go so far as to say that it is diametrically opposite. So much for the consistency of the Radical Front Bench. We are accustomed by this time to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer throwing over the Prime Minister on every possible occasion. I am glad for the sake of the Prime Minister that he has not been here this evening to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer throw him over on this matter. And now about the merits of the proposition. Here I quite agree that I find myself in some difficulty not for the reasons which I presume are being cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am in a difficulty because in 1907, although the proposition then took a compulsory shape that the persons should be entitled to pay in land, I find on consulting the division list that my humble name does appear in favour of

  1495
  the proposition. The two propositions are different I know, but at the same time I do feel that here the Chancellor of the Exchequer does give a certain amount of free play on both sides, that the State cannot compel the individuals to hand over the land in payment of taxes, and neither can the individual compel the State to take the land. This does seem to me to be a proposition which as so far an easier one both for the State, and certainly for the individuals than it was as put either in 1894 or in 1907. Therefore, for that reason, because I am in all things a loyal follower of the right hon. Gentleman my Leader on the Front Opposition Bench, much as it grieves me, and much as it wounds me to take up a position in any way antagonistic to that of the right hon. Gentleman for whom I have almost if not quite the same respect, the learned Member for Dublin University, still when I have to make the choice I feel that I must follow my leader.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I voted I find, and spoke in favour of the proposition in the year 1907, but the proposition made in 1907 was absolutely different from the proposition made to-day. The proposition made in 1907 was a reasonable one, because it provided that where a man had a large estate of land, and could not find the ready money he should be entitled to take that land at the value which was put upon it by the Commissioners for the purpose of Death Duties, and hand it over to the State instead of the money which he could not find. It gave the landowner the power of saying, "You have chosen to assess my estate at such and such a price. I have not got the money to pay the assessment. I will hand you the land at the value which you have put on it." That is a very different thing from the proposition before the Committee just now, and I should like to say to my Noble Friend that if he thinks the owners of great estates will find much consolation in this Clause I believe he is absolutely in error. What will happen? First of all the amount, though it is not in the Clause, according to the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is limited to the money at the disposal of the Development Fund Commissioners or at the disposal of county councils who want to buy it. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is that the State should set up as land jobbers in order
  1496
  to provide land for county councils and for the Development Commissioners. The money which the Development Commissioners are to have is £2,500,000. That is the money in the Bill which has not yet become law, though it has nearly passed a Grand Committee. One of the projects of the Development Bill is the promotion of anything which tends to the economic development of the United Kingdom. I ask the Committee if there is to be a promotion of economic development of the United Kingdom how much money is likely to be left to assist the landowners who have got the Land Duty to pay? The amount would be absolutely infinitesimal. Then, again, the Commissioners are not to be obliged to take the land at the price which they put upon it for the purpose of the Death Duties. They can take it at any price they choose to agree upon. They may say to the landowner, "It is quite true that we have assessed you at £30 an acre as the value of your land, but, in our opinion, it is only worth £20, though we assess the Death Duty on £30, and all we can give you is £20 for your land." The thing seems to me to be absolutely absurd. It is not going to do what we all want it to do, to give the landowner the option of paying with the only property which he has. The Commissioners take the land; they buy it cheap, and they sell it again to the county council or to the Commissioners of Land Development. There is nothing in the Clause, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, to limit it in the direction the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested; and I must say, with my knowledge of the procedure of the present Government, that I am morbid; I am very sceptical as to whether or not the present Government will confine themselves to this particular proposal. I believe they would obtain the money on easy terms for the purpose of indulging in all sorts of mad enterprises, foolish experiments in afforestation, and other matters.
  Sir E. CARSON: Though I may not be in that morbid condition which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of, yet I may say that I am convinced that this Clause will have no effect at all until, at all events, another Act of Parliament is passed. I feel perfectly certain that I may rest quite happy in the thought that we are going through a useless performance in passing this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says there are two ways in which

  1497
  land can be dealt with. First, county councils all over the country are only too anxious to buy land; and, secondly, the Development Commissioners can take any amount of land they want. If I understand the wording of the second Sub-section aright—"The Commissioners may hold any property transferred to them under this Section, and shall deal with it in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine"—they will have no effect, and it is quite clear that another Act of Parliament will be necessary to put the provision into operation. That being so, I would point out that where you are proposing to take land for purposes of revenue you will have no revenue out of it in the end, and if you deal at all—and I know you will not—in these transactions, it is perfectly clear that there must be a, subsequent Act of Parliament. To me it is plain that this is one of these show clauses, something to indicate that a small commencement is being made towards the nationalisation of the land and other matters so much desired by some supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as I am concerned, I cannot see any possible way in which the Sub-section can be worked until another Act is passed.
  Clause read a second time.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2), to add the words "No Stamp Duty shall be payable on any conveyance or transfer of land to the Commissioners under this Section."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 44, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction of Amount Paid for Increment Value Duty from Value of Estate for Purposes of Estate Duty.)
  Where Increment Value Duty is to be collected on the occasion of the death of any person in respect of any land or interest in land comprised in the property passing on the death of that person, allowance shall be made in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of Estate Duty under Section seven of The Finance Act, 1894, for the amount of Increment Value Duty so to be collected as if it were a debt.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 45, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Protection of Purchasers and Mortgagees of Interests in Expectancy.)
  Where an interest in expectancy within the meaning of Part I. of the principal Act in any property has, before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, been bonâ fide sold or mortgaged for full consideration in money or money's worth, then no other duty on that property shall be payable by the purchaser or mortgagee when the interest falls into possession than would have been payable if this Part of this Act had not been passed, and, in the case of a mortgage, any higher duty payable by the mortgagor shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER moved to leave out the word "full" ["sold or mortgaged for full consideration"], and to insert instead thereof the word "valuable."
  "Valuable" is a legal term, and I should have thought it would be better than to use the word "full." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I can say is that this is a drafting point, and that we are following precedent in the use of the word "full." That is the reason why I do not like to accept the Amendment and depart from precedent, unless good reason could be shown for doing so. There is no other reason than that of following precedent for using the word "valuable."
  Mr. G. D. FABER: It sounds strange to use the word "full," and I think the Solicitor-General will be in accord with me in saying that "full consideration" is not a legal term, but "valuable consideration" is. However, if the right hon. Gentleman says he is following precedent, I do not press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after Clause 49, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Relief from Income Tax Under Schedule A.)
  (1) If the owner of any land or houses to which this Section applies shows that the cost to him of maintenance, repairs,

  1499
  insurance, and management, according to the average of the preceding three years, has exceeded, in the case of land, one-eighth part of the annual value of the land as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, and in the case of houses one-sixth part of that value, he shall be entitled, in addition to any reduction of the assessment under Section thirty-five of The Finance Act, 1894, on making a claim for the purpose, to repayment of the amount of the duty on the excess, not exceeding in the case of land one-eighth part and in the case of houses one-twelfth part of the duty on an amount equal to the annual value.
  (2) This Section shall apply to any land (inclusive of farmhouses and other buildings, if any) the assessment on which is, for the purpose of collection, reduced under Section thirty-five of The Finance Act, 1894, and to any houses the annual value of which, as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, does not exceed eight pounds, the assessment on which is so reduced.
  (3) In comparing the cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management of any land or houses for the purpose of this Section with the annual value of the land or houses, the total cost of the maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management on any land managed as one estate, or of any houses on any such land, shall be compared with the total annual value of the land or houses as the case may be.
  (4) All the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to claims for exemption, relief, or abatement, or the proof to be given with respect to those claims, shall apply to claims for repayment under this Section and the proof to be given with respect to those claims.
  Provided that if the owner of any land or house makes and delivers to the surveyor of taxes of any district in which the land or house is wholly or partly situate a declaration as to the cost to him of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management, and the surveyor is satisfied as to the correctness of the declaration, the amount of the allowance to which the owner is entitled under this Section shall be certified by the surveyor, and repayment shall thereupon be made in accordance with his certificate.
  (5) In computing the three-year average for the purposes of this Section, the year shall be taken to be the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, or such other
  1500
  date as may be adopted by the owner of the land or houses with the consent of the surveyor of taxes of the district, and the three preceding years shall be taken to be those preceding the commencement of the year for which the duty in respect of which a claim for repayment is made is charged.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have already had a discussion on this Clause which is a valuable concession, and I do not mean to repeat the remarks which have been made in Committee. I would just say this, however, that when this Clause was last mentioned in Debate it was discussed whether it was to apply all over the country, and now I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer has inserted words providing that it only applies to houses of less value than £8 a year. I agree that that value will mainly confine it to agricultural property, because there are very few houses, in urban districts at any rate, which are valued at less than £8 a year, equivalent to a rent of something like 3s. a week. I take it that rent is hardly ever paid in towns for houses. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the meantime considered the point which I referred to, and which is now embodied in the Amendment, as to the effect and meaning of the word "repairs." The Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to consider that question, and I think he agreed with the point which I raised, and of which I gave an example, that what are technically known as repairs cannot properly include renewals, so far as those renewals do not involve any increase of rent. That is the general principle which, I think, is followed on estates. Where a pair of cottages or a set of farm buildings are very old and past repair, and are reconstructed and no additional rent is received by the owner in consequence of that reconstruction, they should be dealt with as repairs. It is obvious, and I think the remark which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made upon that was that there should be a term of years—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Spread over.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong, but the remark which I think he made was that it would involve spreading the expenditure over a period of years. With that I entirely agree. It is quite obvious that it would be impossible to allow a deduction over the whole estate

  1501
  for one year only on the scale which is suggested here, and which might amount, in the case of a large estate, to a considerable sum. It is obvious, where you have to rebuild one pair of cottages or one set of farm buildings; that it would be clearly unfair that that should be treated as a deduction for a particular year covering the whole estate. With that I entirely concur. The owner of the land may find that the estate is in bad order, and he may also find that for a considerable number of years a large proportion of the income of the estate, in some cases nearly the whole of it, will have to be spent in repairs and renewals—I am not speaking of entirely new works—and it is quite clear, therefore, that if the thing is to be fairly measured from that point of view, and the two others I have named—limiting the occupation and spreading it over a number of years—a considerable number of years will be required to average out the cost in order to give fair treatment to the owner and lessee, and fair treatment to the State. The Amendments on the Paper suggest that the relief shall be spread over a period of years—seven or ten years. I should be perfectly satisfied with a 10 years' average. I think that would be a reasonable period, fair to the owner and fair to the State. These, so far as I am aware, are the principal points. What I cannot follow is why this relief would have to cost the State such a very large sum. It seems to me that half a million would go a very long way if this relief is confined to purely agricultural value. If you take Income Tax at 1s., where there is a relief of expenditure, if you multiply that by 20, or, say, about 19, for the Income Tax is rather more than 1s. in the £, the relief being half a million, the actual reduction of the tax can only be obtained by an extra outlay of maintenance and repairs roughly speaking of ten millions, but not a total outlay of ten millions, but an additional outlay of ten millions over and above that allowed already. I understand it was mentioned to a deputation that to transfer from Schedule A to Schedule D would cost three millions, but that would mean an expenditure of sixty millions in order to get three millions relief from the State. Our original proposal was to transfer to Schedule D, but at the same time we are glad to accept the Chancellor's proposal. I do not think the proposal from this side would have been so expensive,
  1502
  or so very different from this proposal as the Treasury officials seem to think.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I want to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer against taking so long a period as ten years. I quite agree with the extension of it to the whole property, but to extend the period to ten years would cause a very great deal of trouble as to the account keeping. It would be a very considerable difficulty even for five years.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The computation of two or three millions means the transfer of all property under Schedule A to Schedule D. It referred to the whole of Schedule A.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: You mean town property as well?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes. Of course I agree if it referred to agricultural property it would have been absurd. If we began to abolish part of Schedule A we have to abolish the whole of it. We could not have Schedule A for town property if we had taken the country property away. Therefore I was advised against the taking of it out of Schedule A. If we did we could not possibly resist the demand for town property to be taken also. Therefore we were bound to stand by it altogether or abolish it. For that reason we proceeded on these lines.
  The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) wants to know, and has expressed doubts as to whether £500,000 would go with this concession. It is very difficult to tell. It all depends on the declarations of the landowners. There are cases in which over 25 per cent. is spent, and, on the other hand, there are many cases in which it is perfectly well known that the landowners are not spending 25 per cent. In many cases the property is not of a character that demands all that expenditure on it. I have no doubt those cases will be checked. It is, as I have pointed out, difficult to say how the thing will turn out, but we say we are prepared to set aside £500,000 for this purpose. Suppose we find £500,000 does not go this year, we are perfectly prepared to extend the concession next year, so as to give more to the landlords who are spending more upon the improvement of their property. I think it is very desirable to encourage agricultural improvements. I think it is a real bonâ fide encouragement to agriculture this £500,000 given in respect of

  1503
  money spent on cottages and generally improving estates and making it more fruitful and not only in the interests of agriculture but in the interests of the whole community that it should be done. Therefore I am very pleased to take part in doing so. The way I calculate it is this, and I am speaking from memory as to the figures: I take the gross upon which you base your tax as from 50 to 52 millions. Take 12½ per cent. of that, and then take 1s. 2d. upon that, which will give about £375,000. The cottage property—and here again I am speaking from memory—would add from £80,000 to £100,000 running the amount up to £450,000. Then we come to the very speculative question as to the extent to which these deductions will affect the Super-tax, because they will affect the Super-tax in two ways. First of all, they will take some landowners completely out of the range of the Super-tax. Supposing a landlord has a rental of £5,500. Then the 12½ per cent. will take him outside of it. You cannot say at present how many there are, nor how many landlords who will be paying the Super-tax who will claim the 12½ per cent. in respect of the additional sixpence. That is a speculative element. Therefore, taking all these things into account, I think on the whole it will probably cover the Super-tax cases, but it must for the first year be experimental. Next year we may have something to spare, and we may increase the allowance, maybe to 30 per cent., if the £500,000 runs to that extent, to the improving landlord. Then as to the number of years, I am afraid of taking a period of ten years as it is so difficult to examine the accounts. I am not sure that the accounts will be kept. I know great landowners keep their accounts.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Seven years is the time for Schedule A.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It must be either five or ten, and I am very much disturbed as to which of the two would be preferable. I would rather keep it to five, and if it does not meet the case we shall be prepared to consider an extension later on.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion as to repairs, I think there is a strong objection on principle. It might be given to cottage property, but I do not think it could be given all round. If capital expenditure of this kind were deducted it would wreck Schedule A altogether,
  1504
  and have a serious effect on Schedule D as well. The suggestion I would make is that the proposal should be confined to repairs to cottages. I should then be disposed to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because it is very desirable that every encouragement should be given to landowners to look after their cottages. After all, they are not a paying property. Landlords build them really for the accommodation of their labourers, and not because they will get 2 per cent. Therefore, if the Amendment is limited, say, to houses of under £8, instead of applying to the whole of the farm buildings, I shall be disposed to accept it. When cottages, although reconstructed and renovated simply let at the same rent, I think the landlord ought to be entitled to deduct the amount, taken over a number of years.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: While I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees, that three years is too short a period, I do not feel quite satisfied that a five years period is enough. The expenditure on an agricultural estate is apt for various reasons to be spasmodic. After an estate has paid Death Duties, substantial repairs practically cease for five, six, or eight years, or an even longer period, until the burden of the Death Duties is cleared off and then the repairs begin with redoubled vigour. That is a reason for having a; longer period than three or even five years. With regard to the Amendment on the matter of repairs, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the question further consideration before he makes up his mind that it must be confined to small cottages. What we have in mind is not really capital expenditure at all, in the proper sense of the word.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What sort of expenditure have you in mind?
  Mr. COURTHOPE: What are sometimes termed necessary repairs to maintain rent.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Surely that expenditure would be deducted.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: But is that perfectly clear? Repairs to maintain rent often involve rebuilding or the conversion of the building into a building of a totally different kind. For instance, in my part of the country a very large proportion of the farms have been hop-farms. If hops are grubbed, in order to maintain anything approaching the rent, it is necessary entirely to transform the buildings on the

  1505
  farm. That may be done on an estate on farm after farm, spread over a number of years. But the expenditure is not charged to capital account. It is charged to the annual expenditure, and unless some words such as my hon. Friend proposes are inserted, I do not think that such expenditure would come within the clause. I do not for a moment ask that anything which is really capital expenditure should be put in. Take another case. On an estate there are certain dairy farms. Owing to the adoption of a dairy and cowsheds Order, in order to maintain the rents at all, it is necessary to alter the cowsheds, from considerations of air space or sanitation, to comply with the Order. That is not capital expenditure in any real sense of the word. It is simply current expenditure necessary to maintain rent. Is it clear that that is included in the Clause at present?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Then would not the Government consider whether it should be put in? I think that all expenses of this kind should be clearly included within the repairs and maintenance covered by the Clause.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: I am very sorry to disturb the harmonious conversation which has been going on across the Table, but I strongly object to this Clause altogether on many grounds. In the first place, I think we cannot afford it; £500,000 a year is a very serious matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been obliged to meet many appeals with the answer, "We want the money; we must have it; and we cannot afford to do what is asked." Here at the same time, with both hands, we are simply handing over half a million every year to the landowners of England. I also object to it because I think it is a part of our general stupid policy in dealing with all reforms of local taxation and rating. We all know that our system of, rating and local taxation is about as bad and complicated as anything can be. It is a matter of a certain amount of surprise to me that the Government have been in four years and have not made any attempt to reform it. This concession will only add to the complication and difficulty when the whole question of reform is taken up. When the late Government were in power their simple solution of dealing with these matters was to give a dole of half the rates to the landlords. We objected very strongly at the time to that. We came in. We did not remedy that. We did not alter
  1506
  it in the least. We add a further concession of half a million a year. The Conservatives and hon. Members opposite were in power for about ten years. Although they gave these doles of half the rates, even they never thought of altering the basis of the Income Tax. It was therefore left to us to do it. I, for my part, do not understand why we should have given this concession. It was not asked for. I have no doubt hon. Members interested in land are very glad to get it. There is no doubt about that. It was a voluntary concession, and why so I have never been able to understand. It may help this Bill in another place, but I think it is rather a large sum of money to pay for that. I think the smooth passage of the Finance Bill in another place is hardly worth half a million a year to us. I venture to think that what I said expresses the views of a good many hon. Members on this side of the House. Although I may in this matter be vox clamantis in deserto, what I have said is, I think, in accordance with the views of many Members of the party. The concession is a thing which will not be appreciated in the country. I do not know whether there will be a Division on this Clause, or whether my views will receive much support. At all events, I have made my protest, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take this matter into consideration. I do not approve of this concession, and I wish he had not seen his way to give it. I am extremely reluctant to disturb the harmony of the proceedings, but I feel it necessary to say what I have done.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I am thankful to the Government—and I am sure all owners of agricultural land who wish to keep their houses and buildings in order are thankful—for this concession. At the same time, I wish the concession had been under Schedule D. If the concession had been given to landowners, like it would have been given to manufacturers, that is under Schedule D, there could have been nothing thrown either in the teeth of the Government or in the teeth of the landowners, to the effect that this was a dole and a present out of the pocket of the people. But the chief reason that I have risen is on an important point that ought to be settled. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has raised it by his Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted that he would accept

  1507
  that Amendment with the word "cottagers" instead of "buildings." In my opinion, this important matter entirely turns upon the interpretation of the word "maintenance." An ordinary individual reading "maintenance" would imagine that "maintenance" was any money spent on maintaining the business or rent at its present position. One class of expenditure may be "maintenance," and another, hardly distinguishable from it, "capital expenditure." If, in the word "maintenance," new buildings are not to be included, the concession will not amount to anything at all. To do repairs, as everybody knows, in certain cases is throwing away money. There comes a moment, whether it be a large or small farm, say, in the case of a small holding, where the landlord has to spend 10 or 20 years' rent. The small holder pays £10 a year rent. He goes to his landlord and says: "My cottage is absolutely done." Very likely it is. The landlord says: "Very well, you will have to have a new cottage." He spends £200—that is, 20 years' rent on a cottage. To my mind, that is maintenance. Of course, if he had said to the small holder: "You must pay some pounds extra per year for a holding," that would not be maintenance. But, if the cottage is put up and no extra rent is charged, that is maintenance.
  Mr. R. L. EVERETT: The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) objects to this concession being made because he says it has not been asked for. I can bear witness that it was asked for. It was asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford on the ground that landowners were now paying on income which they did not receive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that that was so. This alteration being made now is not made as a favour in any sense, but it is made that the taxation under Schedule A upon agricultural property shall be fair and equitable. I am very glad to think that the Chancellor has given ear and listened to the complaints made, and acknowledged the justice of that complaint and the equity of it, and expressed his willingness on the part of the Government to make the necessary alterations. In my opinion to complete what he has done, renewal of the premises should be included. All who are engaged in the dairy industry which is a growing one, know the changes that have to be made, and the alterations in structures in
  1508
  order that that industry may be properly carried out. It is better to be able to build new accommodation for cattle than to repair old and almost useless ones. I think the demands which have been made in the interests of agriculture are perfectly reasonable and just, and I am glad we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer so sympathetic, and so desirous to act fairly and equitably to all parties, and I only hops that he will enlarge the Clause so that the renewal of old buildings, and the necessary alterations to fit them up to modem requirements shall come in also. That would make the concession fair and equitable.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on having been the first Minister to tackle this burning question which has been neglected for such a long time. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horncastle (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) that the grant is too small, that it is made in an unfortunate form, and that it would have been better in some sort of way to have these interests placed under Schedule D. I quite agree it is a pity that the Chancellor was not able to go the full length. I am sure, however, those who own agricultural land and who carry it on under adverse circumstances, will gratefully thank him for what he has done. His courage is exemplified by the unfortunate speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies), and I think it a pity that that discordant note should be introduced into the Debate. I am sure the hon. Member has not been engaged in business that will have brought him in under Schedule A and Schedule D. I have been engaged in both, and I have experienced the burden of both Schedule A and Schedule D. I know an estate in which the landlord has not received a shilling for the last five years, every penny having beer, spent upon it. That man has had to pay his full Income Tax all the time. He would have been called upon to pay very little Income Tax if he had been carrying on ordinary business having spent his money in that way. I think it is a little ungenerous, and I believe it arises from ignorance that the hon. Member should have made the attack he did, and should have introduced this discordant note into our discussion. I am sure if he knew the circumstances, and felt the pressure, and realised the hardships, he would agree that this is not a full measure of justice by

  1509
  any means, and that it is only an instalment, and I hope some day or other the Chancellor of the Exchequer—preferably a Liberal Chancellor—will put agriculture under Schedule D, as other businesses are, because any proposal made by a Chancellor who belongs to the Unionist Party would be received not as a concession to justice, but would be regarded by many Gentleman merely as a dole. I was a little sorry that the Chancellor has not seen his way to extend the period of years longer than five years. We have 19-year leases in Scotland—a system which works well—which, I hope, will continue for a long time. We have very often most substantial repairs made at the beginning which run over the whole period of the lease. To take an average of three years in a case of that kind is not fair, and I do not think it is much fairer to take only five years. I accept the Clause merely as an instalment due to agricultural owners, but I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer very cordially for having recognised the necessity for doing something in the matter, and I hope that in the near future it will be further extended.
  Mr. T. G. ASHTON: May I appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to give us some little hope that he is going to extend the provision to buildings as well as to cottages. We admit it is a very important matter that there should be good cottages on estates, but I think it will also be admitted that it is equally important to have good farm buildings, and that they should be kept in good repair. It is admitted that the cottages should be good with a view to preserving the health of the labourers. It is almost equally important that farm buildings should be good in order that the animals should be kept in good condition. Reference was made by an hon. Member opposite to the question of cow houses. It is of enormous importance that cow houses should be kept in a thoroughly good and healthy condition. Everybody knows that one of the main causes of tuberculosis in cattle arises from defective cow houses. People demand non-tuberculose cattle and non-tuberculose milk. You cannot have them unless you have good buildings in which to house the cattle, and it is only fair and just that we should be allowed to put up buildings and that they should rank as part of the repairs to the farm just as well as the putting up of cottages.
  Clause read a second time.
  Viscount DALRYMPLE Viscount DALRYMPLE moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "three" ["according to the average of the preceding three years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "nineteen."
  In Scotland the usual custom is for leases to run for 19 years, and the greater part of the expenditure on improvements would run through the whole of the lease. When a lease is granted it is generally on condition that certain repairs and improvements are made, and they are made to cover the whole of the lease. Although the farmer will feel the benefit of those improvements, the landlord will get no deduction after the first three years, and for these reasons I move my Amendment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Noble Lord has referred to the case of farming in the South of Scotland, and he has alluded to the fact that they are generally 19 years' leases. He appears to have forgotten that the words of the Clause are: "In comparing the cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management of any land or houses for the purpose of this Section with the annual value of the land or houses, the total cost of the maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management on any land managed as one estate." It is quite clear that the leases of the farms will overlap one another, and, therefore, the repairs upon one farm will be merged in the repairs of the whole estate. Therefore it will not be necessary to consider the returns of Farm A because they will be taken with the repairs of Farm B, which will be in its seventh year, and they would take also Farm C, which may be in its eleventh or twelfth year. Therefore you cannot insist upon the point that leases are for 19 years. The repairs will be determined in the first three years and not in the last 16 years.
  Viscount DALRYMPLE: If the right hon. Gentleman works out the difference of deduction, averaging it for three years, between one farm where all the expenditure is incurred one year in 19, and another where the same expenditure is spread over the 19, he will find that the former is allowed much less deduction.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not my own experience. May I remind the Noble Lord that in the West of England, which I know best, often there is no lease at all and no written document. The farms are held on verbal agreements in a number of

  1511
  cases I know of. I do not think we can accept the Amendment to change the period from three to 19 years, because that would be very inconvenient. I may state, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to accept an alteration from three years to five years, and if the hon. Member will withdraw his proposal I will move an Amendment to insert five years.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken instanced the case of the West of England and the annual tenancies there. That is exactly where the case differs from ours. I have in mind a farm rented at £200 and the lease is just about to expire, and the new tenant is coming in at the same rent. The sum of £1,000 is going to be spent upon buildings, and that is equivalent to an expenditure of five years' rent to be spent straight away. That is being done because it is a 19 years' lease, and that is what is generally done in Scotland, because it is important that a farm should be properly equipped to start with. The repairs during the currency of the lease are made by the tenant, for which no claim will be, made in regard to this question of the Income Tax. It would be the tenant's duty to do that. If you want to be fair you should spread this large expenditure over the period of 19 years. If the right hon. Gentleman figures it out he will find that, spreading it over five years, you will not get full allowance, because you must not assume that these are all large estates. Some of them have a couple of farms upon them, and if you spend £1,000 upon such estates how is it possible to get it back in three years? It is no use talking about dukes here, because they are not in point. The dukes will come out all right, but the small proprietor will not. I think we owe the Chancellor of the Exchequer a debt of gratitude for what he has done in regard to this question.
  Viscount DALRYMPLE: After the explanation which has been given, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "three" ["according to the average of the preceding three years"] and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We agree to this Amendment, although most of us prefer a longer period. If it is a tentative proposal we accept it as such, on the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the matter on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will cause the question of the present tenure to be examined, and my suggestion may be regarded as purely tentative.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. COURTHOPE Mr. COURTHOPE moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "is, for the purpose of collection, reduced under Section thirty-five of the Finance Act, 1894, and to any houses the annual value of which, as adopted." The Sub-section will then read: "(2) This Section shall apply to any land (inclusive of farmhouses and other buildings, if any) the assessment on which, for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, does not exceed eight pounds, the assessment on which is so reduced." I do not move this Amendment in any spirit of hostility to this Clause, but quite the reverse. I only want to remove an objection which I hold to the Clause itself. It is quite possible that the words I suggest are not in the best form, but my objection to the Clause as it stands is that in the case of cottages the relief is confined to those who adopt the compounding system, and I think that is a mistake. I hardly need to point out that the compounding system has been condemned by every Commission and Committee of recent years which has considered the question.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. Member object to the £8 limit? There is nothing about compound in it at all.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: It is not very easy to find out what it means, but, as I read Subjection (2), it confines this matter to cottages to which the compounding system applies.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. It confines the operation to cottages whose rent is £8 a year or under. It is quite true cottages of £8 or under come under the compounding system, but that is not the object with which the limitation is placed upon the rent. It is a pure accident that the rent of £8 per year and the compounding system coincide. The maximum rent, as a rule, of agricultural cottages used for

  1513
  labourers is 3s. per week, or £7 16s. per year. It is better to put it £8 than £7 16s., which is a very inconvenient sum.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that is so, it makes my Amendment unnecessary. I wish to avoid any direct encouragement being given to the extension of the compounding system.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is intended to apply to agricultural cottages, and it has nothing to do with the compounding system.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has nothing on earth to do with the compounding system.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Then it is a misapprehension on my part, and my fears are removed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "three" ["in computing the three-year average"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "three" ["and the three preceding years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words: "The expression 'repairs' shall for the purposes of this Section be taken so include the enlargement, reconstruction, or conversion of buildings so far as is proved to be reasonably necessary for their beneficial occupation and to be unproductive of any additional rent."
  It would be quite ridiculous for me to criticise points on which the right hon. Gentleman has been advised by his Treasury advisers as to what the effect of this Clause might be with regard to other assessments under Schedule B. I know he will between now and Report further consider the matter, and I do not propose to deal with it. May I, however, give a case I have in mind? It is a case where a 40 acre farm is let for £25 a year. When the present owner purchased it both the farm buildings and cottages were in a shocking state of repair. He has completely rebuilt both the house and the set of buildings at a cost of £450, and he has left the rent at £25 a year. There are considerable outgoings in the matter of tithe, land taxes, and other necessary outgoings,
  1514
  and the net result is that there is only about £15 rent received. If that expenditure is to be barred, it really nullifies the concession to an extent that, although something might be obtained, it would be extremely small.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I suggest the hon. Member should not move his Amendment, and that we should consider the matter before the Report stage. The last thing in the world I wish is to limit the scope of the Amendment as far as cottages are concerned.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I was going to make that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will move my Amendment pro formâ in order to allow any other Members to say anything they may wish to say. I think the Chancellor of the Ex chequer will see that it might do so. We shall have to take our chance at present of the legal interpretation of maintenance and repairs, which might include a considerable proportion of reconstruction. If it is to be accepted in the case of a cottage it might also be taken as an instruction in the case of farm buildings, and we might lose more in one direction than we gain in another. Although I appreciate the spirit in which the suggestion has been met, I am afraid that the actual words hardly meet our case. I quite agree, however, that the matters may be considered between this and Report.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I wish to support what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will really see, on further consideration, even if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, that there are grounds for the objections which have been urged, and that it would be a much more valuable concession if this Amendment were included. No fresh principle would be involved. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he wishes to include cottages, and I would like to point out that there are buildings which closely approximate to the nature of cottages in some parts of the country which would be excluded unless we have these additional words. There are a great many very poor holdings at a rental of, perhaps, £20 per year, and consisting of from 40 to 50 acres. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will readily recognise that it is a very serious expense having regard to the rental when one of these houses has to be rebuilt. I am afraid if he only mentions cottages that these buildings

  1515
  will be excluded from the benefit of this concession. I do not think, having regard to the general feeling on both sides of the House in respect of small holdings, it would be advisable to eliminate those other classes to which I have referred. If they are included in the benefit of this concession it would enable the owner of land who has to make these very expensive repairs, amounting almost to rebuilding, to do so without the present temptation to charge something in the way of interest to the tenant. It is a thing commonly done not so much on rebuilding as in adding to old buildings. It is frequently felt to be necessary to charge something in the way of interest on the amount expended. I think if this exemption were further extended, as suggested, the tendency would be to prevent that and to enlarge these very beneficent rebuilding operations by landlords.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As it stands now there would be great practical difficulties as between the landlord and the Treasury in settling where repairs ended and this kind of work began. That would be a practical difficulty, but if something in the nature of this Amendment were accepted it would be obviated. It would be extremely difficult for the Treasury officials to check the statement furnished by landlords if they were obliged to investigate whether any particular item of expenditure consisted merely of repairs or amounted to reconstruction.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed at the present stage. I do not want to be forced now to enter into an argument. Undoubtedly there are real administrative difficulties, and I should like to go into the matter more carefully than, so far, I have been able to do, before I express an opinion one way or another. I do not want to disorganise the present machinery. This Amendment involves an extension in principle, as well as in fact, of the concession already made, and before I express a final opinion I want further time. I therefore hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and not force the Government to prematurely declare its views. I will consider, before Report stage, if the Government can make this concession.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I only desire to put my case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he will undertake to consider
  1516
  it I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. J. S. AINSWORTH: May I suggest that the words at the beginning of the Clause might be amplified so as to cover the buildings which are proposed to be dealt with by this Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We must dispose of this Amendment first.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN: It seems tome that this concession is one of a very long line of similar concessions which have been made, and which have had the result of relieving the landed interest of this country of a very considerable part of the taxation which it ought to bear for local and national objects. There was a time when land had to bear the entire cost of the defence of the country and of the judiciary, as well as other national and local expenditure. In his Budget 15 years ago Sir William Harcourt gave a concession somewhat similar to this, and he estimated at the time that it involved a sacrifice of revenue to the extent of £800,000 a year. It seems to me rather singular that another concession of this character should have to be made by another Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before Sir William Harcourt made his concession the Tories had been in office seven or eight years, and they had made no attempt whatever to deal with the alleged grievance. After the last Liberal Government the Tories again came into office, and were in power for something like eight years. This grievance was in existence during the whole of that time, and, again, a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a period when he is hard up for money, and hardly knows where to turn for it, listens to the importunities of rich landowners and makes a further concession which he admits is going to cost half a million of money. I do not say that I am so much opposed to this concession on principle as I am to the time selected for giving effect to it. But I think it cannot altogether be regarded without taking into consideration other concessions which have been made to the landed interest since this Finance Bill first came before this House. When the Prime Minister was speaking at Birmingham recently he said the owners of agricultural land would be better off after the passing of this Finance

  1517
  Bill than they are at present. I believe that statement has been disputed. I cannot charge my memory, however, with recapitulating all the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to landowners during the passage of this Bill through Committee. That, I think, has a very pertinent bearing upon the matter before the Committee. I refer to the proposal—again I do not object to it—the proposal to give half of the revenues of the Land Taxes to the municipalities and the public bodies of the country. It will not be disputed, I think, that if that money be given to the local authorities without being earmarked for some special purpose that it will go to the relief of rates, and if it goes to the relief of rates it will go into the pockets of the landowners. We have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman who, I think, represents Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) for that, because I think when he was introducing the Agricultural Bating Act under the last Tory Government he stated very definitely that any remission of rates or taxes will go ultimately into the pockets of the landowner in the form of increased rent. I assume that we are going to give Land Taxes to the local authority amounting to £300,000, and that capitalised at 25 years' purchase means a gift to the landowners of between seven and eight million pounds. Suppose that we also capitalise this gift that we are now considering of £500,000 a year at 25 years' purchase, it would amount to 12½ millions, and, adding these two concessions together, you get a gift to the landowner of £20,000,000. I want to ask who are the landowners that they should receive the special consideration of this House, especially at the hands of this Government. Why, these landowners are the men who made up a deputation to the Chancellor and presented this request. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said last week they were headed by the Earl of Onslow. Well, who is the Earl of Onslow?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling very much beyond the scope of the Clause.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am putting it, Sir, that the men who preferred this request are very rich men.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no objection to stating that as a fact in general terms, but it is not in order to go into the details which the hon. Member is giving.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: My point is this, that the class who are going to benefit from this concession are not the most needy, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has half a million of money which he does not know what to do with he might have put it to a much better purpose than give it to the relief of the landowner. I put before him the other day an appeal, from a class who are often in want of food, in regard to the Tea Duty. He is in the same position there. He did not object to the reduction of the Tea Duty in principle, and he would have been very glad indeed to reduce it, but he could not afford to do so. If he cannot afford to reduce the Tea Duty, which bears hardly upon the poorest part of the population, he certainly cannot afford to give such a gift as this to a class many of whose rent rolls reach into the tens of thousands a year. He should not do that without at the same time doing something to remove the scandalous injustice, from the taxpayers' point of view, of the assessments for Income Tax in regard to farmers under Schedule B. I will show you the connection between the landowner and the farmer in a moment. Under Schedule B the farmer is not required to return his profits which he makes, and his profits are taken at one-third of his rental. The absurdity of this was very often borne in upon me in my native village. It is a farming district, and the farmers used to come to me and ask me to assist them in filling up their Income Tax returns, and all I had to ask them was what rent they were paying. Supposing a man was paying £30 a year, I knew that he was keeping himself and his family out of the farm, and yet under the law I had to return his profits as being £10. Take the case of a farmer whose rental is over £400. He does not pay Income Tax at all under Schedule B, as a matter of fact, but the farmer who is paying a rent of £400 a year and upwards is living in the style of a country gentleman, and lives in a mansion house and keeps many domestic servants. Yet he does not pay a single penny to the Income Tax, and what is the result? The result of that is that he pays more rent, and, therefore, this method of assessment under Schedule B is simply an inducement to landlords to keep the rents high. It has been given as a reason for supporting this concession that the landowning class has to bear many other burdens, but I really think that the advantage which they get under Schedule B is far more than any disadvantage under which they may be placed in comparison with the

  1519
  commercial classes. These are some of the objections that I have to this Clause. My main objection is that the time is not opportune, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have devoted this money to a far better purpose. He is proposing under the Development Bill to give a sum which is equal to that which he is giving away to the landlords, and I certainly object to the landlords being endowed as much as Social Reform is going to be endowed by that measure.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member rather complains that it is left to a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something towards redressing a grievance which he himself admits, because he does not challenge the grievance, but only the right of a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer to redress a grievance which is cast upon landlords. I understand from that that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of what Liberalism means. One of the principles of Liberalism is to redress grievances wherever they are to be found. The hon. Gentleman's notion of reform is pure class legislation. The Liberal idea of reform is that which will benefit all classes, and not merely one section of the people. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that by-and-bye, but at present he does not understand that it is a tradition of Liberal Ministers to reform a grievance whatever section or class of the community suffer from it.
  The better the landlord the worse he is treated under the present system. Let the hon. Gentleman go to a rural district and tell an audience there that under the old system if a good landlord spends money in improving cottages and making them fit for habitation the State makes a charge on him, and the fitter they are for habitation the heavier is the charge. That is the good old system the hon. Gentleman is here to defend. The hon. Gentleman thinks he is a Socialist, but he is an out and out Tory. He is a man who believes in uninhabitable houses, pigstyes not fit for people to live in, and if a landlord tries to improve them he is fined 1s. in the £ for doing so. The hon. Member is the one solitary remnant of Toryism in this House. Then let the hon. Member go on and tell this audience of agricultural labourers what the Liberals have done. "They have actually said that if a landlord spends money on improving cottages they will allow 1s. in respect of every £. Monstrous! No more Liberal candidates.
  1520
  Send Tories like me to the House of Commons." We bring in a Development Bill, and we raise £500,000 a year for this purpose. If the landlord does it we at any rate do not discourage him by making him pay 1s. or 1s. 2d., or a Super-tax of 1s. 8d., not upon his income, but upon what he actually spends in developing the resources of the country. I am not ashamed to defend that before any audience, either Liberal, Conservative, or even Socialist. It seems to me to be thoroughly in the interest of the country itself, and not merely of the landlords. The hon. Gentleman seems to attack landlords merely because they are landlords. That is not my view at all. I am very glad to say that even the hon. Member's own colleagues do not quite agree with his exceedingly narrow, limited, bigoted views of the situation. I have a requisition here which was presented to me inviting me to do this, and among the signatures to it I am pleased to see Members of his own party—comrades of his, including the chairman of his party. Where the landlord does his duty the State recognises it, and where he spends money on improving his property the State is not going to penalise him. I have stood by the taxes on landlords, and I am prepared to stand by this concession to landlords because it is just.
  Mr. REES: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) has done extremely good service in eliciting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a speech to which I listened with the utmost satisfaction. I should like to know in what capacity the hon. Member went about to collect these facts, and how he could have brought himself to collect them from these landowners and to gain information from them. It seems to me that the hon. Member has placed himself in a most unfortunate position. On this occasion, as on former occasions, he has frankly adopted the position that property is theft, though I will do him the justice to say he has expressed his opinion that it is not necessary to levy from those who committed this theft the arrears of the rents that they have received from their properties since the Deluge. We must be grateful to him for that moderation. I should like to offer the hon. Gentleman some information as to these thieves from Montgomeryshire. Only a few days back the Small Holdings Committee reported that the chief feature of their operations was the generous support they had

  1521
  received from the landowners of the county, one of whom, I am proud to say, is my hon. colleague the Member for the county. I protest against the kind of speech to which the Committee has been treated, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made mincemeat of the hon. Member, I do not think it is necessary to follow the speech which he delivered, though I think it desirable that someone else sitting on the same side as the Chancellor should follow upon the same lines. I ask the Committee to consider the utter impropriety of the spirit which inspired the hon. Member's speech. He treated the whole property of the inhabitants of this country as if it was taxable material at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said, "If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any money to dispose he might dispose of it for some purpose in which I, the hon. Member for Blackburn, am interested." I ask the Committee if that is a responsible and serious manner in which to deal with the very serious subject before the House. When the hon. Member says, "Who are the landowners?" they might rejoin, "Who are the Socialists?" and when it comes to defining these different classes I am really not so sure, or rather I am quite sure, which would come off second best. I also wish to enter the strongest protest which is permissible under the Rules of the House against the manner in which the hon. Gentleman incites one class against another.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. REES: I followed the hon. Member for Blackburn. Although these speeches are easily discounted in this House, they have their effect outside. I have in my own humble way performed my duty in expressing my opinion.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I should like to express my very great satisfaction at this Clause and the principles on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has justified it. It seems to me to mark a third and a very important stage in the progress of land legislation. The first stage was marked in the proposal for valuation, the second by the proposal that the community as a whole should get some larger share in the actual land value than at present, and this third stage is one which I, in common with many of those with whom I have been working for some time, have pressed, namely, that while there should
  1522
  be more taxation of land, there should be less taxation of improvements, and greater scope given for buildings and improvements of every kind. On these lines I welcome this Clause, and I hope that the principles which have been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which I hope will be carried in the legislation of this Budget, will have future and rapid development in the direction of adopting more and more as our standard of taxation the value of the land, and doing what we can to relieve buildings, improvements, and industry of the burden of realising taxation.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, after Clause 49, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Exemption of Friendly Societies and Trade Unions Provident Funds from Income Tax.)
  The exemption from Income Tax granted by the Income Tax Acts to a friendly society, and by the Trade Union (Provident Funds) Act, 1893, to a registered trade union, by the rules of which it appears that the sums assured to any person by the society or union do not exceed if by way of gross sum two hundred pounds, or if by way of an annuity thirty pounds a year, shall extend to any registered friendly society and to any registered trade union, if the society or union are restricted either by virtue of any Act of Parliament or by their rules from assuring to any person any sum exceeding three hundred pounds by way of gross sum or fifty-two pounds a year by way of annuity.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under an Act which I brought in last year to amend the Friendly Societies Act of 1896, the amounts which registered friendly societies and trade unions might give to their members was extended to £300 for assurance and £52 for annual benefit. The result of that extension was that the Income Tax exemption to friendly societies and trade unions no longer applied, and they became liable to the tax. The effect of this Clause will be to continue the exemption, which in the case of friendly societies is limited to £300 for assurance and £52 for annual benefit.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, after Clause 70, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of Half the Proceeds of the Duties on Land Values for Benefit of Local Authorities.)
  (1) There shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof in every financial year a sum equal to one-half of the net proceeds in each year of the duties on land values under Part I. of this Act (including Mineral Rights Duties).
  (2) The sums so charged shall be carried to a separate account, to be established under regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose, and, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury in respect of accounts, audit, and accumulation of moneys standing to the account, be appropriated for the benefit of local authorities in the United Kingdom in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think something should be said about this Clause. It has been discussed already, but I am bound to point out to the Committee that the attitude adopted by the Government this Session in this matter is rather different to that adopted by the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with previous Budgets during the currency of the present Government. In his Budget speech of 1896 the Prime Minister said, "I must say emphatically that I regard this procedure of the earmarking of particular Imperial taxes for local purposes as in its nature fallacious and misleading. It complicates and confuses the national tax, and urgently calls for prompt and thorough reform." In his Budget speech of 1907 he used equally strong expressions condemning entirely this practice of diverting funds to local authorities from the Imperial Exchequer on no settled plan. This is an aggravated offence, if I may use the expression, because, as has already been pointed out in a previous Debate, these sums are not really allocated at all. In fact, it was a question of considerable doubt whether it was in order to make such a proposal as is now being considered. It has been ruled that it is in order, but it is a very remarkable procedure. Probably the justification which the Government would make for this is that if it is an offence at all it is a very
  1524
  small one, the amount of money actually allocated being extremely minute. I do not know when you will arrive at the point when these taxes are to be levied, but the amount obtained during the current financial year must be extremely small so far as the State is concerned, because £300,000 in the present year is the estimated cost of valuation. I understand that the entire cost of valuation is to be paid by the State, and that the proceeds of the taxes, after the State has paid for valuation and collection, are to be divided between the local authorities and the Treasury. If that is so, the local authorities will not fare well, but they will fare better than the Treasury. I do not think this Clause will be of much value to the Treasury or to the local authorities. I should be inclined to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been wiser if he had deferred the making of any such change in the present Budget. He is overloading the Finance Bill with every kind of consideration, and every kind of new proposal, affecting not only the present year, but many years to come. It is practically true to say that no money will come in under this Clause or no appreciable amount will be collected during the present year, and therefore I cannot understand the object, unless it be an electoral object, in burdening the Finance Bill with this somewhat controversial and difficult matter in direct contravention of the principles laid down so recently by the Prime Minister. I must say it would have been better if it had been deferred until next year, when there might be time to consider it. It is quite obvious that the Government have not had time to consider this and a large number of the other proposals made in connection with the Budget. I really do think, considering the question raised by this Clause, and considering the precedent it sets, that it would have been better to defer it for a year. It has been recognised throughout that this method of dealing with public money is a regrettable makeshift. Why we should add to the difficulties and aggravate the grievance at the present time, for no advantage whatever, either to the State or the local authority, passes my comprehension. As a matter of practical business, a matter of precedent, and a matter of finance, it would be very much wiser for the Government to drop the Clause out of this Bill, merely stating the principle that they do intend to divide this money where there is any with the local authority, and that they

  1525
  will make the necessary provision in their Finance Bill next year.
  Mr. EVERETT: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) would have welcomed the proposal to devote half the money derived from these Land taxes to the relief of local taxation. There is a very small amount available now, but there is every prospect that it will come to be a considerable amount. I should have thought also that he would have welcomed the mode in which the money is being unapportioned at the start. I had the pleasure of taking part in a large deputation which waited on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the reform of local taxation. That deputation included representatives of county councils and chambers of agriculture, and municipal boroughs, and, with one voice, we urged that the best way, in our belief, to reform local taxation was that the Imperial Government should take bodily over some services which are now paid for partly by the Imperial Government and partly by the rates. This is a reasonable beginning, with that end in view, and I am very glad that the views of that large and influential deputation were listened to by the Prime Minister, and that this money is being kept together until it is appropriated in a definite form for the relief of the ratepayer. The best way, I think, would be to fall in with the idea which I have referred to of relieving the ratepayer by the Government taking over entirely, as they did in the case of prisons, some definite form of services to which the rates contributed largely at present. This is a reasonable proposition, and I very much rejoice that the proposal is in the form in which it is.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: I quite sympathise with what the hon. Member who has just spoken said as to the necessity of a reform of local taxation. Many of us in this House know very well that the present local taxation is absolutely idiotic. The hon. Gentleman referred to all sorts of services being paid for out of local revenue which ought to be charged to the revenue of the State. But there is not on word about reform of local taxation in this new Clause. If there were it would be a very different thing, and we might try to get some idea of what the Government propose with regard to reform of local taxation. What I object to in this Clause is that it is taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayer this year to be
  1526
  spent in future years. It is true that the amount this year will not be very large, but whether the amount is large or small I object to taxes being raised one year to be spent another year. It is bad finance, and produces confusion in the finance of subsequent years, when it does come to be dealt with by Parliament. There is no promise that the Government are going to deal with it next year. I thought the programme of the Government for next year was rather full already of measures which would take up a great deal of their time. I hope that the Government are not going to sit until the middle of October every year to finish their programme. Local taxation takes with it probably a great deal of informal Poor Law. I for one do not contemplate with pleasure a Session which is to begin with disestablishment in the Welsh dioceses and to take local taxation by way of bonne bouche at the end. It will be at least two years with all the measures that have accumulated before the question of local taxation can be settled, and then the Treasury will have a growing produce to distribute according to no settled principle by doles to be made out to help this or that locality or to pay this or that particular charge. The reform of local taxation means that the State does assume, as the hon. Member has said, a certain fixed proportion of certain burdens, and, of course, the State should pay those charges each year as they accrue out of the revenue of that year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer each year will have to provide, and ought to provide, for the revenue of that year and for the payment of these charges. But in this case the Treasury will have a sum of money more or less large, according as the tax brings in more or less money, and more large as the years pass by, before local taxation reform is taken up. The hon. Member opposite and I have sat in this House a good many years. We have had reform of local taxation dangled before us from both sides of the House, and I am rather sceptical of its being taken up within the next three or four years. All the time this huge sum will be coming into the Treasury, doing no good to the country, but being merely reserved to be spent in the future; and the taxpayers will be mulcted year after year in sums of money which will be no use to them at the time, and which when they are used will be used in the form of doles and not in the form of relief of local taxation. Therefore I hope that even now that the Government will be urged to withdraw the Clause, and not transgress

  1527
  what they know themselves are the canons of good finance by taking out of the pockets of the people money not intended to be spent this year, and which very likely will not be spent for three or four years to come.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, as I have done in past years, looked at this question from the point of view of the county councils and local authorities, and he desires, as I still desire, to see a complete review of the whole system on which local taxation is conducted in its relations to Imperial taxation, and when that happy time comes I am sure we shall be able to co-operate for the purpose of putting on a far more satisfactory footing than at present exists the relation between the two sets of exchequers. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), I am not quite sure whether I understood him to grumble at the payment which was being made to the local authorities or whether it was that he was only rather concerned at the small amount which would accrue to them this year. I take it, however, that his proposition was that the amount which would accrue after all cost of collection and all the incidental expenses in connection with the collection of money would be so small that it would be a perfectly negligible quantity, and one upon which if the local authorities were well advised they would insist on the House of Commons taking out of the Budget Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My point was that the finance was bad, and that it would be much better to put it off to next year in order that the matter might be dealt with in a complete manner.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Altogether the amount will be from £650,000 to £675,000 for the year. One-half of that sum will go to the local authorities, and they cannot afford to despise it or treat it in the light-hearted way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to treat it. On the contrary, so far from looking the gift-horse in the mouth, I think they will welcome its appearance in their stable, and they will be disposed to ask for much more than they can get from us of the same sort of gifts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether the amount paid to the local authority would be the gross or the net sum, or whether the cost of collection would be deducted from the half of the
  1528
  total paid over to the local authorities, the other half being paid to the Imperial Exchequer. My answer is that the half to be paid over to the local authorities will be the net amount; they will get the whole of the proceeds of this tax. The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the Prime Minister made in 1907, when he was making a change in the form—and, after all, very little more than the form—under which money which goes into the Local Taxation Account was paid into the Exchequer instead of being paid first of all to the Local Government Board, and when it was intercepted before it entered the Treasury. It is quite true that the proposal under this Clause reverts to the older practice, but the Prime Minister at the time he made that change was contemplating a larger and wider revision of the whole of our relations to local authorities. So far as the system has gone up to the present time, it is really very much a question whether you intercept the money before it enters the Treasury or whether it should go first to the Treasury and then be paid out afterwards. For the moment, and having regard to the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves this year, we think it very much better, as the Clause proposes, to pay it direct to the Treasury, and that it should be paid out under regulations made by the Treasury subsequently.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: We all know the genesis of this Clause. We know that the original programme of this taxation was set on foot by certain local authorities. We know that when the Government set its hands upon the whole of the plunder it found it to be policy, after it had gone on for a certain time, to hand over a certain share to the local authorities. Here we have a Clause dealing with this division of the plunder, but I maintain that this is all a part of the botching and wobbling which are inherent in the Bill, which changes in every phase from time to time, and now, in this particular case, is striking at what was the very principle of those who originally made this proposal. I wish to point out certain serious difficulties and imperfections which will grow up under the Clause as it now stands. Supposing the money is there. It will not be for a good while, because the sum of £675,000 which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned has been whittled down within our experience. But supposing the money is there, is there any better method of bringing about extravagant expenditure

  1529
  than is that which is proposed by this Clause. If the local authority is to be responsible for expenditure, then you ought to make it raise the money itself. Nothing encourages extravagance in a local authority more than to throw a large sum at its head, for the raising of which it is not responsible, and which comes to it as a sort of windfall. I have had the handling of large sums of money of this sort in connection with the local taxation accounts to the local authorities, and I know how ready they are to spend it upon any fad which occurs to them. A sum of £100,000 or £150,000 is suddenly handed to them for the raising of which they are not responsible to their Constituents, which does not put an immediate burden upon their Constituents, and which is thrown at them without any very serious need having previously arisen. The local authorities accounts are audited according to statute, and the auditors are appointed by the Local Government Board under statute. The Imperial authorities accounts are equally audited under statute by the Auditor-General. But how are these accounts to be audited? They are to be audited under such regulations as may be made by the Treasury in respect of accounts and audits. Are we to overturn all the statutory provisions which this House has made for the audit of local and Imperial accounts, and hand the whole over to such rules and regulations as the Treasury may think fit to institute? Can there be any better contrivance to let slip out of our hands the whole expenditure of this money. Parliament has before it the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, and it has provided, by means of the Local Government Board, a complete statutory audit of local accounts; but here the audit is to be deprived of any effective control at all. The sums paid out of the local taxation account, these subsidies, are handed out to the local authorities and the local taxation accounts are subject to no definite audit whatever. Anyone acquainted with the arrangement of the Treasury and the arrangement of the administration of public accounts must be aware that the audit of these local taxation accounts is absolutely futile. It slips between two stools—the Controller and Auditor-General, and the regular statutory audit of the local accounts by the Local Government Board. You are now handing over to some plan to be established by the Treasury the whole of this work of audit.
  1530
  My third objection is that the last words of the Clause virtually make the whole of the rest of it absolutely futile. How are you to divide this money between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and between the different localities? There is the crux of the whole question. If you pass this Clause without establishing the principle of distribution amongst the nationalities and amongst the local authorities you are passing a Clause which you know perfectly well no person in the world can put into force. It is only so much waste-paper. Surely the Secretary to the Treasury might answer us on that particular point, and tell us how does he mean to make this Clause effective at all. Until you have put forward rules authorised by Parliament for determining the distribution as between the nationalities and the localities, the Clause remains absolutely ineffective. You may get your money, and we do not think you will get much, but it remains absolutely useless in your hands. You are passing this Clause simply in order to conciliate and placate your enemies amongst the municipalities whose plunder you have stolen from them.
  Mr. RENWICK: I listened to the very pious expression of opinion by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) that he would like to see local taxation on a better basis. I quite agree with him, and think it ought to have been put on that more satisfactory basis before this arrangement was proposed with regard to allotting a certain amount to the local authorities. I think they are putting the cart before the horse. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, as far as regards the municipalities which I have knowledge of, that I look upon this as the case of the Government poaching on our preserves, and will consider, at any rate in regard to the Increment Duty, that the Government have no right whatever to that Increment Duty. Take a city which has embarked on a large amount of expenditure in developing a tramway system, and take the instance of the tramways from a central railway station to one of the suburbs of the city. The effect of that tramway system being laid down has been that a large amount of valuable property on the tramway route has been absolutely reduced in value, while that at the tramway terminus has risen in value. There the local authorities have lost the rateable value on the route, and look forward to getting the proceeds of their enterprise at the terminus. The Government steps in and say, "We are going to take possession of that increment value," an increment

  1531
  value brought about not by the efforts of the community as a whole but by the local community. We maintain that anything that arises from the efforts and the sacrifices of the local community in taxation ought to go to the benefit of the local community.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us that they are going to give us half of £650,000, but I cannot help remembering that to raise that, at any rate this year, they are going to spend £600,000 in valuation. Is the Government going to bear the whole of the cost—£600,000—and give us half of the £650,000, or are they going to give use £650,000 leas £600,000, which means £25,000, which is all the difference in the world? I maintain that the Government are not going to give anything this year, and yet they dangle this bribe before the municipal and local authorities. I want to know has this Parliament the power to enact that in every financial year in the future one-half of this amount shall be paid, while another Parliament may be in power and another Government which might upset the arrangement altogether? Then the Clause enacts further on that this amount is to be divided as Parliament may hereafter determine. Just think what that means. Suppose the Irish party are paramount in the next Parliament, as they may be, and that they demand that more than half shall go to Ireland. Who is to prevent it? The only safeguard to my mind is that the local authority ought to collect this money itself. They are the people that are entitled to it, and ought to collect it. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take care that before they deal with this important question they ought also to have dealt with the question of putting the whole of local taxation on a more satisfactory basis than it is at the present time. I know that these are the opinions of the members of a municipality with which I am connected, and they are far from satisfied with half of these taxes. They consider they ought at least to have two-thirds of them, if not the whole of them. I am bound to enter my protest against the proposal made on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not know whether the Amendment of which I have given notice is in order, but I am afraid it is not. The Amendment was to leave out the word "half" and insert the word "whole," so that the
  1532
  whole of the proceeds of these taxes would be given to the municipalities. I confess, personally, and I am speaking now absolutely and entirely and exclusively for myself, that I should have felt better disposed towards these taxes generally if the whole proceeds had gone to the municipalities. I think that the one great blot upon the whole taxation involved in the different Land Taxes that this Commitee has considered is that it prevents, by imposing this particular system, the municipalities from eventually getting the whole of what they were legitimately entitled to. I look upon that as being a very serious blot. I am opposed to this Clause in itself, because it does not go far enough. I suppose I am in order in objecting to the Clause on the ground that it has only got a "half" in it, although I should not be in order in moving to leave out the word "half" so that the whole of it should go to the municipalities. There is an old proverb that half a loaf is better than no bread. I think in this particular case, where half a loaf would have simply the effect of starving the garrison, that half a loaf is worse than no bread at all. I think it is a very great pity, after all the trouble that has been taken, and all the money that has been spent during these last 25 years, to thoroughly inquire into a system under which the municipalities would have been able not to have imposed taxes in the extraordinary way imposed in this Bill, but would have been able to have assessed their rating in such a manner as to bring about an equitable division of the real burdens upon the citizens in proportion to their opportunities, namely, the site value, and not in proportion to their enterprise and energy, which is the real effect of the present antiquated system. I do think it is a very great pity that these taxes should be brought forward in this way, and that we should have to deal with a clause such as we have now before us, which has the effect of bribing the municipalities to accept on the basis of getting half of these extraordinary and somewhat ridiculous taxes, and bribing them to forego their legitimate claim to have their rating arranged in a proper manner. I have always contended that when the land system came to be considered by Parliament, we should have a number of valuable reforms—reforms in the system of dividing the taxation, in rating, and in valuation—instead of which all the existing evils are crystallised and continued. There is no attempt at reform. There is simply a new set of taxes, and the municipalities

  1533
  are to hold their peace because they are to get one-half. That is a very bad solution of the difficulty. I should have liked to have been able to move my Amendment; but I realised when I handed it in that in all probability it would be out of order, because the financial Resolution distinctly says one-half, and I presume it would be impossible for the Clause to deal with any other proportion. I object to the whole system, and particularly to the Clause in the way it is now brought forward.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I associate myself with the view just put forward. I cannot understand how the amount, £650,000 or £675,000, is arrived at as the sum to be given to the local authorities, as the Clause expressly says that all they are to get is one-half of the net proceeds, which will not amount to anything like that sum. What local authorities are to get this money? As far as I can see, there is no definition of local authorities in the Bill. If that is so, it will be necessary to remedy the omission.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If there is any doubt about the matter, it can be put right. I thought it was the whole of the local authorities—county councils, urban district councils, and so forth.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: But what does the "so forth" mean?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: District councils, rural district councils—
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Parish councils?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can hardly say; but if there is any uncertainty I will give an undertaking on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it shall be made clear, cither in the definition Clause or in some other place, on Report.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: It is unsatisfactory at present, and it is still more unsatisfactory if the money is to be set aside for bodies which the Government cannot definitely name.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, after Clause 72, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Laying of Rules and Regulations before Parliament.)
  (1) All rules and regulations made by the Treasury or by the Commissioners of
  1534
  Inland Revenue or by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after any such rule or regulation is laid before it, praying that the rule or regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may, if it seems fit, annul the rule or regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
  (2) If any rule or regulation is so annulled any duty previously paid which, but for the rule or regulation, would not have been payable, shall be repaid by the Commissioners, without prejudice, however, to the right of the Commissioners to reassess the duty in accordance with any rule or regulation which may be substituted for the annulled rule or regulation.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation on Debts Deductible from Value of Estate.)
  Where a debt or incumbrance has been incurred or created in whole or in part for the purpose of or in consideration for the purchase or acquisition or extinction, whether by operation of law or otherwise, of any interest in expectancy within the meaning of the principal Act in any property passing or deemed to pass upon the death of a person dying after the passing of this Act, and any person whose interest in expectancy is so purchased, acquired, or extinguished becomes (under any disposition made by, or through devolution of law from or under the intestacy of, the deceased) entitled to any interest in that property, then in determining the value of the estate of the deceased for the purpose of Estate Duty no allowance shall be made in respect of such debt or incumbrance, and any property charged with any such debt or incumbrance shall be deemed to pass freed from that debt or incumbrance.
  Provided that—

  (a) If part only of such debt or incumbrance was incurred or created for such purpose or as such consideration as aforesaid, this provision shall apply to that part of such debt or incumbrance only; and

  1535

  (b) If a person whose interest in expectancy in the property so purchased, acquired, or extinguished becomes entitled to an interest in part only of that property, this provision shall apply only to such part of the debt or incumbrance as bears the same proportion to the whole debt or incumbrance as the value of the part of the property to an interest in which he becomes entitled bears to the value of the whole of that property.

  Mr. J. W. HILLS: May we have an explanation of this complicated Clause?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Although I previously gave an explanation of the object of the Clause, perhaps it may be to the convenience of the Committee if I repeat that explanation as briefly as I can. The Clause turns upon a case recently decided in the House of Lords. This case disclosed a most important, I was going to say defect, but at all events a gap, in the system of Death Duties, which, I think I intimated before, it was really the interest of both sides of the House to stop. The practice adopted in that case really hit at the very root of the Death Duties in a way which greatly diminished, and in certain parts of England almost destroyed, the value of those duties. It was due to the ingenuity of a learned member of my own profession, whose duty it is, of course, to discover defects in the law, while it is sometimes their duty to maintain and enforce the law. A great landowner possessed an estate in Scotland worth about £700,000. He was advised that he might altogether escape Death Duties if he adopted the following device: The land of which he was the life tenant was settled land. He himself had reached the advanced age of 79. He arranged that he should purchase the interest in expectancy of his own decease. He had, as owner, a reversionary interest in the land which was worth over £450,000. Of course, owing to the great age of the gentleman himself, the reversionary interest expected upon his death was of considerable value. The landowner in question, a distinguished nobleman, agreed to purchase the reversionary interest of his own son, and the reversionary interest of his grandson. The sum agreed upon was between £600,000 and £700,000. He was giving to both of these descendants of his allowances suitable for their station—to his son £5,000 a year, and to his grandson £2,000 a year.
  1536
  He purported to pay the purchase money by bonds, and he gave interest on the purchase money. Of course he was not able to pay for the reversionary interest in cash. He gave a mortgage or bonds, and that burdened his estate with an incumbrance amounting to about £650,000. He lived for five or six years afterwards. At his death the interest upon the bonds had accumulated, so that the estate figured as though it was quite insolvent.
  The burden substantially exceeded the value of the estate. However, on his death, the nobleman had taken the precaution of leaving all he could to his son and to his grandson upon the terms of the original settlement. Before he became the purchaser he had disentailed his estate, but he did his best to insure that the estate should be continued upon the lines of the old trust, so that the position was this, the actual situation of the parties being: The son and the grandson got their allowance after the conveyance as before they came upon the estate, and the estate appeared to be burdened with an amount beyond its value. But, of course, that value belonged entirely to the person who sold the reversion interest and had been enjoying the estate. When the Revenue came down to the son and the grandson and invited them to pay the Death Duties, they said, "No, we have got an insolvent estate." The result was the Revenue took an action, stating that the Death Duties could not be evaded with such facility as that, the object being clearly to avoid the Death Duties. The persons concerned were all gentlemen and business men, and they admitted that it was done to escape the Death Duties. The father purchased and the son sold for a valuable consideration, and therefore they entirely evaded the reversion as to gifts within 12 months. It was a transaction that might have been carried out on the eve of the death of the owner. It was not a gift. If we allowed that to continue we might as well give up the Death Duties altogether, and therefore this Clause was devised to meet that kind of case. The Clause is a little complicated necessarily by its phraseology, but the effect is this, that when a landowner creates an incumbrance for the purpose of buying out or extinguishing any interest expected upon his own death which would be the interest of the reversioner, and subsequently the person who parted with the reversion comes into possession of the property, then the incumbrance created for the purpose of that existing interest shall not come as a deduction from the value of

  1537
  the estate for the purpose of Death Duty. It is a strictly limited Clause. It leaves the owners still at liberty to create incumbrances for the purpose of reversion, but where the very person who sold him the reversion comes into the estate by virtue of will or deed or anything else, and then claims that the incumbrance which was created by him must be set off to save Death Duty, such claim shall not succeed. We have endeavoured to confine it strictly to the particular kind of thing we want to stop. I dare say in the course of time some fresh, ingenious lawyer may arise who will drive a coach and six through my Clause. If I happen to be relegated to a position of greater freedom and less responsibility I might myself show how this Clause could be evaded. I do not think, however, it can be done except at some risk. We have always got to run some risks in framing Acts and in endeavouring to evade them, but I think that this Clause will stand good. I am sure that I have safeguarded the case we desire to safeguard, and the particular case quoted will be adequately met by this Clause, and it will not go beyond that particular case. That was what I promised hon. Members opposite when we discussed this question on the Resolution. There are two paragraphs to the main Clause which deal with the case where part of the incumbrance was incurred for the purpose I have described. Supposing the life tenant of some great settled estate said, "I do not wish my son to succeed me, and I desire to be succeeded by my second son instead of by my eldest son." Under this proposal he would be quite at liberty to make any arrangement he thinks fit for that purpose. Although he might wish his second son to succeed him he might wish to provide that his eldest son should have a portion, and in that case it could be allocated. I think I have dealt with every practical case, and I can safely say that there will be no impediment here upon the landowner's free power of disposition, except in the one case where the intention is to evade the Death Duties, and that ought not to be possible.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are twenty-five lines to this Clause, and although there are twenty-five different ways of evading the Death Duties, you can only stop up one of them. I suppose I should be out of order in explaining what the other twenty-four are. The danger of a Clause of this kind is that every one of those lines leave a place where you can
  1538
  find a hole. If you cannot stop the evasion of the Death Duties in a simple manner, if you are obliged to explain your action in 25 lines you may depend upon it you will not stop it, and ingenious persons will find a way of getting out of it. I look upon the whole of this Clause as perfectly useless, except to prevent that happening which has happened. As we all know, it is not much use locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen. If the Government like to fill up the pages of the Statute Book with Clauses of this description there is no way of preventing them. I am at a loss to imagine what possible utility there will be in doing so when the case has been decided, and the Government have been beaten upon it and the evil has taken place, and other methods will be resorted to in order to evade the Death Duties. I do not look upon it as any particular gain to pass a Clause like this. The Attorney-General goes to the courts and argues it before the House of Lords, and the House of Lords take the view that some ingenious person has evaded the Death Duties. "Oh," says the Attorney-General, "I will stop that; I will put a Clause in the Finance Bill." Of course, the decision of the House of Lords was given after the Finance Bill was well under discussion. Therefore, the whole of this Clause is an afterthought, and it seems to me, with great respect, rather a silly afterthought.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. CALDWELL in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Require Payment of Duty on Deficiency in Warehoused Goods.)
  If at any time any deficiency beyond that which can be accounted for by natural waste or other legitimate cause is found in any package of imported goods warehoused, the occupier of the warehouse shall, on the written demand of an officer of Customs and Excise, be liable immediately to pay the duty on the quantity of goods originally warehoused, and if he fails to pay the duty shall forfeit double the amount of the duty.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This is a very important Clause, and I think we should have some explanation of the very wide words "natural waste or other legitimate cause." Such words may have a very injurious effect on the honest trader, who may be subjected to bullying unless some clear explanation is forthcoming.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I anticipate no difficulty whatever from the use of these words. They are used simply to enable the two Departments of Customs and Excise to work one with the other.
  Mr. HAY: Do I understand that it assimilates the action of the two Departments. There is no extension of any general principles so far as trades are concerned.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Permit Required for Removal of Spirits from One Customs Warehouse to Another.)
  Section one hundred and five of the Spirits Act, 1880, which relates to the removal of spirits accompanied by a permit or certificate, shall be read as if the words in Sub-section (3) "(the same not being under bond on removal from one such warehouse to another such warehouse)" were omitted therefrom.
  Mr. HAY: I ask for further explanation on this Clause. This is a case of legislation by reference, and it involves considerable trouble to everybody. Will the right right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact meaning of Section 105?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Here again we are assimilating the pratice of the Excise and Customs under this Act and Section 105 of the Spirits Act of 1880. A permit is necessary in order to remove spirits from warehouse to warehouse, and sometimes spirit is lost in the process of transfer, and this is to secure that proper duty should be paid.
  Mr. RENWICK: This Clause refers to spirits, and it will be within the recollection of the Committee that we have put a tax upon motor spirit. Does this mean petrol?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Mr. RENWICK: If not, why not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Because it does not include motor spirit.
  Mr. RENWICK: It says "spirits," but it does not say "other than motor spirit." I maintain that if this is passed it will bring motor spirits in, and in order to remove them this permit will be necessary. I think we ought to have some explanation of this point. Does it or does it not refer to motor spirits?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it does not,
  Mr. RENWICK: Then why does it not say so?

  CLAUSE 4.—(Information as to Places from which Goods are Imported or to which Goods are Exported.)
  (1) Section forty-one of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (which makes provision with respect to the place from which goods are to be deemed to be imported), shall cease to have effect.
  (2) The information to be furnished under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in respect of goods imported or exported shall include such information in regard to the goods as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may require to be given, and particularly, in the case of imported goods, the name of the place from which the goods were first consigned to the United Kingdom, and in the case of exported goods, the name of the place of final destination of the goods, and the forms in Schedule B to that Act may be altered by the Commissioners in such manner as they think expedient for giving effect to this Section, and the Commissioners may, if they consider it necessary, require evidence to be produced to their satisfaction in support of any information so furnished.
  Mr. HAY: Is this Clause put in so that the origin of goods coming into this country may be properly returned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is in order to meet the requirements of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade which met three or four years ago, and this is to carry out their recommendations.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: Sub-section (2) of this Clause refers to the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and looking that up I notice that the provision referred to is to the effect that goods shall be deemed to be imported from the place of shipment. Now that is not considered sufficient information,

  1541
  and we are to have stated the actual source from which the goods originally came. A great many importers of this country are not aware of the actual source from which the goods they import come, and a great deal of dfficulty and inconvenience is likely to arise from that requirement. Then information is to be given of the ultimate destination of the goods, and that is still more perplexing to the exporting merchants, as they do not know the ultimate destination; goods might be consigned to St. Petersburg and go to Siberia, and if that is not returned the exporter is to be liable to penalties. Then the Customs and Inland Revenue claim the right to amend the forms to be used from time to time. That might constitute a very considerable annoyance to merchants if the form to which they are accustomed is suddenly changed. I do not see why the Commissioners should not come back here for these powers with reference to the kind of information they want. Altogether the Clause is likely to hamper trade and injure the interests of merchants, both importing and exporting, and there is a great deal in it which might very well have more consideration at the hands of the Government. As with a great deal more of their legislation, it has rather a tendency to restrict the freedom of trade. They are always talking to us about Free Trade, but they hamper it for all they are worth.
  Mr. HAY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will answer my hon. Friend. Will he not consider the matter before Report?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not think I can. This is the result of a very strong influential committee of the Board of Trade, whose report was perfectly unanimous. The traders accept the proposal with perfect willingness. The objection the hon. Member has advanced may appear sound, but in practice no inconvenience whatever is expected.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Provision as to Drawback on Tobacco.)
  Drawback shall not be paid, except with the consent of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, upon any tobacco stalks or shorts or other refuse of tobacco (including offal snuff) which is not the produce of the ordinary manufacturing operations of the licensed tobacco manufacturer
  1542
  exporting or depositing the stalks, shorts, or refuse.
  Mr. HAY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with this Clause tonight. The Tobacco Duties under the Finance Bill have not been discussed, and this must be linked with the whole question of the Amendments which the Government may or may not accept in respect of the Tobacco Duties.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This Clause has nothing on earth to do with the Finance Bill. It was drawn and introduced before the Finance Bill was presented. By means of an ingenious arrangement it has become possible for one firm to deliberately do the Government in the matter of collecting refuse tobacco, mixing it up in the process of manufacture, and obtaining a drawback from the Customs. The firm, rather than come into court, submitted to the payment of a very heavy sum of money in consideration for the drawback they had obtained.
  Mr. HAY: In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, which has been very illuminating to those hon. Members who do not know the circumstances, I shall not pursue my opposition.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Addition of Finings, etc., to Beer Deposited, in a Warehouse for Exportation.)
  Subject to such regulations and security as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe, a dealer in beer may deposit in a warehouse approved by the Commissioners beer brewed in the United Kingdom upon which duty has been paid, and may in the warehouse add to the beer finings for clarification or any other matter sanctioned by the Commissioners for the purpose of preparing the beer for exportation or use as ship's stores.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the necessity for the Clause?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I made a promise to an hon. Gentleman opposite at the time the Finance Bill was before the House last year, and I have endeavoured to meet that promise by this Clause.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PART II.—STAMPS.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment as to Certain Contracts Chargeable for the Purposes of Stamp Duty as Conveyances on Sale.)
    The limitation of Section fifty-nine of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which makes certain contracts chargeable for the purposes of Stamp Duty as conveyances on sale), to contracts and agreements made in England, Ireland, or Scotland shall cease to have effect.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RENWICK: I would like an explanation of this Clause. I want to know particularly what stamps are affected by the Clause? Has the Clause any bearing on a recent case in which it was held that where goods are sold to be delivered in a certain period the contract was subject to Stamp Duty?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This Clause has nothing to do with that case. The sole object of the Clause is to make it necessary to stamp contracts when made abroad as they would be stamped if made in this country.
    Mr. HAY: Is the effect of the Clause simply to prevent the evasion of Stamp Duty in respect of property in the United Kingdom which is made the subject of negotiation and agreement abroad?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS indicated that that was so.
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Section 77 of the Stamp Act, 1801.)
    The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-seven of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which exempts a lease from Stamp Duty in respect of certain further considerations), shall not apply as respects any further consideration in the lease consisting of a covenant which if it were contained in a separate deed would be chargeable with ad valorem Stamp Duty, and accordingly the lease shall in any such case be charged with duty in respect of any such further consideration under Section four of the said Act.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HAY: May I ask the Solicitor-General to give the Committee some information about this Clause?
    Mr. CARLILE: What is the type of covenant which might be attached to a lease which would come under the Act?
    11.0 P.M.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This matter is rather technical, but I will put it as plainly as I can. There is a provision in the Stamp Act which says that the lease is to be stamped ad valorem for consideration, but if there is consideration in addition to the money consideration subsequently in relation, say to a house or property, that is to be included in the ad valorem duty. But a decision of the courts of law established this, that where in the lease there was a remise for a certain rent, and there was a sort of collateral covenant for the payment of sums, which in that case amounted to about £4,000 in various instalments, that is covered by the provision in the Stamp Act as regards the ad valorem duty. The duty now will be this: The lease will be subject to the ad valorem duty, and if there is merely a covenant for the protection of the premises, by rebuilding, repairs, or otherwise, there will be no further ad valorem duty, but if there is a covenant providing for money payments, either periodically or in a lump sum, the money payment or the periodic payments shall be added to the ad valorem duty.
    Mr. HAY: Do I understand that if a man leases a piece of land and engages to build a house thereon for £1,000, he would have to pay Stamp Duty, not only on the cost of the land, but on the cost of the house?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No. That matter would be covered by the ad valorem duty—the duty on the consideration of the lease. This is merely to cover a further covenant—a money consideration. Suppose the covenant in the lease is to pay so much rent. The Stamp Duty on that is ad valorem. Suppose that in the same lease there are covenants for the building of houses and the extension of premises which involve no money consideration. The ad valorem duty would cover that. But there was a case decided in the law courts where there was a money payment in addition to the rent amounting to £4,000 per annum, and it was held that that was, under the terms of the Statute, a further consideration which did not subject the lease to further Stamp Duty. That is obviously unfair. This, although it does not charge the further consideration if it is for the maintenance of buildings or the extension of premises, does, nevertheless, fix a further ad valorem duty upon the further periodic or lump sum money payments.
    Mr. HAY: If I lease land and make it part of the condition that a company shall furnish me with a certain amount of electric power at a certain price, should I have to pay Stamp Duty with respect of the electric supply which was to be supplied to me?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes. That would be a covenant for a further money consideration.
    Mr. HAY: So far it has not been the case, and to that extent this is an Amendment of the law?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Stamp Duty on Allotment Letters of Fractional Parts of Shares.)
    It is hereby declared that the term "share" under the heading "Letter of Allotment and Letter of Renunciation," or "any other document having the effect of a letter of allotment" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, and under the heading "Scrip Certificate, Scrip, or other document" in that Schedule, includes a fractional part of a share.
    Mr. ARTHUR FELL: It seems to me that this Clause puts an extra tax on shareholders of companies. It appears that the tax will be charged on fractional parts of shares allotted. It has been the practice to take parts of shares and put them together to make full shares, and then I presume the duty would be paid. Now it would appear that the full duty is to be paid on fractional shares—it may be a half or a quarter.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it does not do that. It relieves the Commissioners of the necessity of putting the Stamp Duty on fractions of shares, and enabling them to charge it upon the whole share. The Clause is to legalise what has been done by the Commissioners, and it is to reduce that charge to the public that this Clause has been put into the Bill.
    Mr. HAY: The Commissioners are going to act legally instead of illegally?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
    Mr. CARLILE: May I ask whether there will be any stamp?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; there will be no stamp.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Provision as to Stamping Certain Bills of Exchange.)
    The provisions in Sections thirty-four and thirty-eight of the Stamp Act, 1891, which relate to Bills of Exchange payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation, shall apply also to Bills of Exchange expressed to be payable at a period not exceeding three days after date or sight which are chargeable with the duty of one penny under Sub-section (2) of Section ten of the Finance Act, 1899.
    Mr. HAY: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the Clause means?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Clause provides for the use of an adhesive stamp instead of an impressed stamp.
    Mr. RENWICK: We appear to be discussing a Supplementary Finance Bill. What amount of revenue does the hon. Gentleman expect these taxes to bring in? It seems to me to be a Bill imposing additional taxation? If it is going to provide any considerable amount we may have to modify our views.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Clause has nothing to do with taxation. It simply provides for an adhesive instead of an impressed stamp. We expect to get about £4,000.
    Mr. RENWICK: Not a very large amount.

  PART III.—TAXES AND ESTATE DUTY.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Repeal of Provisions as to Discount on Prepayment of Income Tax.)
    Section one hundred and forty-one of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and Section ten of the Revenue Act, 1889 (which relate to discount on the prepayment of Income Tax), shall cease to have effect.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I wish to withdraw Clause 11.
    Mr. HAY: Why is this Clause withdrawn?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reason was that this Bill should, as far as possible, be a Revenue Bill and a non-contentious Bill. I found hon. Gentlemen opposite had some objection to these three Clauses (Nos. 11, 12, and 13), and in order to meet

    1547
    their wishes and make the Bill non-contentious, I gave notice a few days ago to withdraw these Clauses, and thus keep my promise.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Provision as to Relief in respect of Rates on Tithe Rentcharge. 62 & 63 Vict. c. 17.)
    For the purpose of the assessment of Income Tax in respect of tithe rentcharge attached to a benefice to which the Tithe Rent Charge (Rates) Act, 1899, applies, the amount of rates to be deducted or allowed shall, during the continuance of that Act, be limited, as respects any rate to which that Act applies, to the half of the amount of the rate which under that Act the owner of the tithe rentcharge is liable to pay.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Extension of the Power to Revoke an Order in Council made tinder Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30.)
    The power under Sub-section (4) of Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1894, to revoke an Order in Council made under that section shall extend to cases where it appears that the law of the British possession in respect of which the Order was made was not actually such as to justify the making of an Order under that section at the time when the Order was made.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  PART IV.—MISCELLANEOUS.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Fees on Licences for Importation of Explosives. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 17.)
    (1) His Majesty may by Order in Council fix the fees payable in respect of licences for the importation of explosives granted by the Secretary of State under or in pursuance of the Explosives Act, 1875, and the fees so fixed shall be payable in respect of any licence so granted.
    (2) Section twenty-six of the Explosives Act, 1875, so far as it gives power to the Secretary of State to fix the fees in respect of licences for the importation of explosives, or affects the amount of those fees, shall cease to have effect.
    (3) His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke, alter, or add to any Order made under this section.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HAY: Why is this arrangement, which worked so well, to be altered.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the Explosives Act of 1875 the Secretary of State for the Home Department may grant licences for the importation of explosives. During the year 1906 there were 154 licences, and the sum received was £154. The sum expended in the examination of the explosives was £326, and this is to enable the cost to be met by the Licence Duty.
    Mr. HAY: This involves an extra charge?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; about £175 per year.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved to insert the following:—

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain Agreements not to be deemed Bonds or Covenants.)
    An agreement for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise in pursuance of which sums are to be paid at stated periods as the price thereof, or as fixed or minimum charges in respect thereof, shall not be deemed to be a bond, covenant, or instrument of any kind whatsoever within the meaning of the Stamp Act, 1891.
    I hope this will receive favourable consideration. It is of great importance in the case of water, gas, and electricity. It is essential in most cases that an agreement for the supply of these commodities should provide for the payment of definite sums. Unless this Clause was introduced all such agreements under a recent decision will be liable for payments ad valorem. This Clause was brought up before the Electric Lighting Acts (Amendment) Committee, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was understood to say, that while he approved of the principle of the Clause, he could not put it into the Electric Lighting Bill, and he suggested that it should be brought in under the Bill we are now discussing. An agreement for sale of any goods, ware, or merchandise is exempt from payment of Stamp Duty. It seems, however, from a recent decision, that if, under agreement, the price of the goods is paid by instalments, the document changes its character, and comes under the heading of a "bond or covenant" upon which Stamp Duty is

    1549
    payable at the rate of 2s. 6d. per cent. If you order a telephone or the electric light under ordinary conditions you have no Stamp Duty to pay; but if owing to the fact that the telephone has to be taken any distance, the company say that you must pay the charge at stated intervals, you immediately become liable to Stamp Duty. There is no doubt whatever that that was not intended. In the case of the County of Durham Electrical Power Distribution Company v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Mr. Justice Channell said:—
    "In this case I have been extremely anxious to accede to Counsel's argument, if I could possibly do so, because I have a strong impression that such a document as this was not one which the Legislature had in contemplation when they enacted the Clause in the schedule under discussion. I cannot help thinking that it was put in for the purpose of taxing instruments of a totally different character. … My decision will have a very curious consequence, for it will involve the conclusion that in the case of every contract in writing for the sale of goods which by the terms of the contract are to be paid for, not in one lump sum, but in instalments at future stated times, the instrument is chargeable with an ad valorem duty upon the price."
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade having suggested that the Clause should be brought up here and Mr. Justice Channell having explained that it was quite an error that Stamp Duty should be charged upon these particular payments by instalments, I think I am justified in asking the Secretary to the Treasury to accept the Clause which I now move. I think it is a matter of considerable importance, and hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Clause, or, at any rate, promise that he will give some favourable consideration to it. If he does not accept the conditions, I hope he will accept the principle, and give relief to those who ask for it. I beg to move.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to deal with this matter, because the Clause seeks to amend the legal decision of Justice Channell, which was confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeal in a case in which I appeared for the Crown. It is because of the decision in that case that the hon. Gentleman has been asked by friends to bring forward this new Clause. First of all, there is some misapprehension as to what the decision really was. The law was that agreements for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise are entirely free from Stamp Duty. That will still be the law. But there is in the Stamp Act a provision that a bond, or a security which is a primary security for the payment of money at stated periods, and over a definite period, has to pay an ad valorem Stamp Duty of 2s. 6d. per £100. The
    1550
    decision of Justice Channell was given in a case of some peculiarity. It was assumed—a rather peculiar assumption—for the purpose of the case that the supply of electrical energy was goods, wares, or merchandise. There was a further agreement on the part of the buyers to pay so much per unit whatever quantity was supplied, and to pay for a certain number of years, whether the minimum quantity was taken or not. The decision—I think a perfectly right decision—was that that was a security for the payment of the money at stated periods for a definite period. All the three judges, certainly the leading judge of the Court, said they had no apprehensions at all like those which had been entertained by Justice Channell as to the far-reaching effect of his decision. The matter now really remains where I think it ought to remain—namely, that if the agreement is clearly an agreement for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, there is to be no Stamp Duty at all. But if it is a bond, covenant, or security, such as was the subject of the decision, I think it is quite reasonable that the law should be made what, according to the decision, it is—namely, that a Stamp Duty of 2s. 6d. per £100 should be paid. I have one further observation to make: that the decision of Justice Channell was supported unanimously by three Lord Justices of the Court of Appeal; and there was no appeal to the House of Lords. The law has been so determined. We desire it should so remain. Therefore we have, I am sorry to say, to oppose the new Clause of the hon. Gentleman, which seeks to overturn the law.
    Mr. RENWICK: This is a much more important matter than Members of the House probably realise. If I understand the Amendment, it is to remedy a case like this: Suppose I buy 10,000 or 20,000 tons of coal to be paid for one-third in cash, one-third in two months, and one-third in three months, I am liable for ad valorem Stamp Duty on the amount of the contract; and, again, I am liable if I buy 10,000 tons of coal and take them in monthly quantities to be paid for by cash each month. That has not hitherto been the case. But undoubtedly under this decision of Justice Channell's there is at present a general uneasiness. The commercial classes at present are in great doubt upon that subject, and I should like, if the Solicitor-General would say whether, in the cases I put to him, ad valorem duty would have to be paid.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In the case put by the hon. Member of the sale of 10,000 tons of coal to be paid for in a first instalment at the end of one month, a second instalment at the end of the second month, and a third at the end of the third month, the decision has never gone so far as to say that that contract should be stamped as an ad valorem contract, that is, a contract merely of goods, wares, and merchandise. The second case put was where a man buys 10,000 tons of coal, taking 3,000 one month, 3,000 the next month, 3,000 the third month, and 1,000 the fourth month; that again has been regarded simply and solely as a contract for the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise, and is exempt from Stamp Duty. But if the purchaser of coal said I will pay so much per month for the first month, so much for the second month, and so much for the third month, whatever the quantity of coal, I take it that would be regarded as temporary security. It is no longer a mere sale and purchase, it is a contract where one man pledges himself to pay, and the other has got security for a certain sum of money whether he supplies the coal or not.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: The result of this decision is that every agreement made for the supply of telephones, electricity, or gas, whereby there is an expenditure on carrying the supply to the house of the persons who wishes to have the supply, will be regarded as a contract, and will be subject to the duty. The person to whose house the telephone, gas, or electricity had to be carried if he lived a distance away, would have to enter into an agreement for five instalments of £5 each, whereas, if he lived in a town he would have his telephone for £9, and in addition he would have to pay the Stamp Duty. That is a very serious difference. They will be compelled to pay an annual payment for five years in order to get the supply that renders them liable to Stamp Duty. The Stamp Duty in future will apply to such an enormous number of cases that this is really an occasion urgently requiring the careful consideration of the Treasury, because this proposal does apply most unequally in cases of gas, telephones, and electricity, and those instances to which I have referred. This is undoubtedly a large matter, and there is a vast difference between these cases. If you happen to pay for your supply £9 10s. you pay no Stamp Duty at all.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: May I point out to the hon. Member that the cases he has mentioned will have to be decided on the facts of each case. I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman to declare that the three judges who decided the case referred to in the Court of Appeal were wrong and that Mr. Justice Channell was right. It would almost be lèse majesté on my part to make a declaration of that kind.
    Mr. RENWICK: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way he has answered the points I put to him. The Solicitor-General is always courteous in his replies. We have now got on this point a very valuable counsel's opinion without paying for it.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported; as amended to be considered to-morrow (Friday).

POLICE BILL.
As amended, considered.
Mr. HAY: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough in the course of the proceedings on this Bill to say that, although he did not see his way to incorporate within its provisions certain matters which I believe were in his heart as to the conditions of the police service, he thought he might on the third reading have an opportunity of stating the reasons for their exclusion. I believe he wished to include a provision whereby their contributions towards their pension should come to them as a right and not at the discretion of their superior officers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that next Session legislation will be introduced to confer upon the Metropolitan Police the right to have as a pension the superannuation to which they have, under obligation, subscribed out of their pay.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The hon. Member has put to me quite a reasonable request. He put down Amendments which were not technically within the scope of the Bill, although I quite admit it is arguable whether the substance of them might not have been admitted. This year I received a deputation from the Chief Constables, who put forward a number of points on which they

1553
desire legislation. Some were points of substance, and I told them they should be considered. This particular Bill, however, deals with four rather urgent matters, and it was not found possible to extend its scope under the circumstances of the present Session. I hope next year it will be possible to introduce another Bill dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member, and ruled out yesterday, and other points as well.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock p.m., Thursday, 30th September.

  Standerton Military Cemetery.
  Standerton Military Cemetery.
  Territorial Forces (Printing).
  Territorial Forces (Printing).
  Liverpool Telegraphist (Memorial).
  Liverpool Telegraphist (Memorial).
FINANCE BILL.
  UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY (GLASS-HOUSES).
  UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY (GLASS-HOUSES).
  Import Duty on Corn.
  Import Duty on Corn.
  Civil Service (Boy Clerks).
  Civil Service (Boy Clerks).
  Police Rest Day (Nottingham).
  Police Rest Day (Nottingham).
  Conviction of Alien (Guildhall Police Court).
  Conviction of Alien (Guildhall Police Court).
  Additional Taxation (Germany).
  Additional Taxation (Germany).
  Irish Land Bill
  Irish Land Bill
  Colonel Cooke's Estate, Collis, County Cork.
  Colonel Cooke's Estate, Collis, County Cork.
  Old Age Pension Claims (Roscommon).
  Old Age Pension Claims (Roscommon).
  Old Age Pension Refused (Doon, Limerick).
  Old Age Pension Refused (Doon, Limerick).
  Knight of Glin's Estate (Limerick).
  Knight of Glin's Estate (Limerick).
  Irish Creameries.
  Irish Creameries.
  Glanders in Ireland.
  Glanders in Ireland.
  H.M.S. "Hannibal" (Submerged Rocks).
  H.M.S. "Hannibal" (Submerged Rocks).
  Cost of Education Department.
  Cost of Education Department.
  Students' Training.
  Students' Training.
  Schools Closed (Structural Defects).
  Schools Closed (Structural Defects).
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Scheme for the amendment of the scheme regulating the Glamorgan Intermediate and Technical Education Fund in the county of Glamorgan: Laid before the House on Monday last, and to be printed. (No. 185.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM- BRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statute made by the Governing Body of Magdalen College, Oxford, on the 1st February and 26th May, 1909, amending certain of the Statutes of the College: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 186.)

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think I may be expected to explain as briefly as possible the objects for which the measure is introduced. The object of the Bill is to empower the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to undertake prosecutions for the punishment of offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, in cases which relate to Irish agriculture and other Irish industries. In England the Board of Agriculture has powers to undertake similar prosecutions as these, but in Ireland, as the law stands at present, these prosecutions have to be undertaken by the Board of Trade. As your Lordships are aware, the Irish Department of Agriculture possesses extensive powers for aiding agriculture and other Irish industries, and is in touch with persons carrying on such industries. It has, therefore, been thought desirable that the Department should have the same powers of taking proceedings in case of offences which seriously injure the development of those industries as possessed by the English Board. The offences consist generally of selling goods under false trade marks, and the Bill provides that the prosecutions are
590
to be undertaken in accordance with the regulations of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, and with the consent of the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, this Bill is to amend the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1901, and it proposes to facilitate the carrying out of the law. As the law stands at present, the expenses of an application for a change of the close season, and all the proceedings consequent thereon, have to be defrayed by the person or persons who make the application. There is a great objection to the enforcement of this section of the previous Act, as it practically precludes the poorer class of fishermen from making any application of the kind. It has also been found difficult to estimate exactly the costs of the applications and the expenses involved. For at least forty years and probably longer, the fishery authorities in Ireland have, however, charged all expenses under this heading to the Parliamentary vote, but in the year 1895 objection was raised in the House of Commons to this practice, and the effect of that objection has been that no change in the close season in any respect has been made since that date, although numerous applications for such alterations have been received. Under the present Bill the Department hope to remove the difficulties that I have referred to by providing for the payment of expenses incurred by them in connection with applications for the purpose I have indicated out of moneys provided by Parliament. This will enable the law to be carried out in this respect on the same lines as it has been carried out in former years. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a measure that deserves considerable support, as it will, I believe, remove a cause of grievance to the poorer fishermen of Ireland, and will enable these alterations to

591
be carried out in a more suitable form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything against the Second Reading of this Bill, but I noticed that when the measure was in another place there was a section in the Bill giving power for the catching of salmon for the purpose of spawning, and with the object of using the eggs of the salmon for breeding purposes in proper piscatorial establishments. I can only say there is a feeling amongst certain people in Ireland that this proviso would have been made use of in an improper manner, because this salmon would have been taken in the close season. But I feel myself that it was a very important proviso, and I regret very much that in another place it was taken out. I hope that in the next session, or the following session, such a proviso may be entertained in a Bill of this sort, because I think it was rather straining a point to say that there might be poaching, so to speak, of these salmon when they would be really taken for the improvement of the fishery, and also for scientific purposes. As I said, I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading, because I think the Bill is a most useful one.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I think the case for this Bill is generally admitted, and I cannot help feeling that all those who hope and look for an improvement in Irish agriculture will welcome the objects for which the Bill is framed. The first part of the Bill deals with the question of noxious weeds, and the object is to check as far as may be the growth of these weeds, and, naturally, as a result of this, to protect those industrious and careful farmers who do their utmost to keep their lands in a clean condition, and who are bound to suffer from the thistle-down and other seeds which are blown from the lands of farmers who are not so careful in dealing with weeds. It is quite unnecessary for me, especially in your Lordships' House, to talk of the evils
592
which accrue to any holding where weeds of the description mentioned in the Bill are allowed to grow in any quantity, or to point out the injury done to those who have the misfortune to have properties or holdings next to those who keep their land in the condition to which I have just referred. Under Part I of the Bill the Department of Agriculture seek for powers, with the county councils's consent, when satisfied that such a state of things exists as I have already alluded to, to compel the occupier to cut down or destroy the weeds in question. If the notices of the Department are not complied with, there is a penalty attached—namely, £5 for the first offence, and £10 for the second or any subsequent offence. I do not think I need go into the question of precedents for a measure of this sort, but there has been legislation in the Isle of Man, Canada, South Africa, Australia, the United States and, in Germany. Part II of the Bill deals with the question of seeds. As your Lordships are aware, the Department in 1901 introduced a seed testing station, and the value of this station has been fully shown by the advantage that has been taken of it by numerous farmers. The Department have found, as a result of the tests that they have been asked to make, that there is a very large amount of bad, seed sold to the small farmers more especially in their dealings with small shopkeepers. As your Lordships are aware the farmers in Ireland are protected, to some extent with regard to their manure and feeding stuffs by the Fertilisers and Food Stuffs Act of 1906, and your Lordships will fully realise that the question of the condition of the seeds that are employed is at least as of great importance as that of the manures and feeding stuffs. Under this Bill the power that the Department of Agriculture seek to take is merely that of examining samples of the seeds that are for sale, and they hope that by the knowledge that such examinations may take place, and also by the powers they seek for bringing this matter before the public where they think necessary, they may make some steps towards remedying the existing state of things. As your Lordship will see, the general effect of this Bill will be to make the work of the Department more effective, and, as I think, to supplement much of the good work that has already been done. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD CLONCURRY: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time, I rise to say that there are many of us who cannot regard it as being either a very small matter or non-contentious. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill either to postpone the Second Reading until after the House has dealt with the important Scottish Bill on the Paper, or else to accept from us briefly notice that we cannot consent to passing this Bill into law exactly in its present state. There are some most important safeguards that we desire to see inserted, and the noble Lord in his speech has very much indicated the lines on which we wish to proceed. He has mentioned a case where a man has taken pains to keep his lands clean and has to suffer for the neglect of his neighbour who will not cut his weeds. But what we all desire to secure is that the farmer who does honestly cut or destroy his weeds within the meaning of the provisions of this Bill shall not be liable to vexatious prosecutions which he will be open to if this Bill passes in its present form. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to say whether he will either postpone the Second Reading or accept my few words as a notice that we must deal with this matter seriously in Committee.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Knowing something about the Scottish Bill which is to come on in Committee, I do not think there is any reason for postponing the Irish Bill on that account. I do not think the Scottish Bill will take a very long time, and it would be a pity that the Irish Bill should be postponed.
LORD CLONCURRY: After what has fallen from my noble friend I may say that those of us who take an interest in national emblems are surprised that Scotland should not have the benefit of this Bill, which deals mainly with the subject of thistles. There is another allusion I should like to make with regard to Scotland. Many of your Lordships have passed through the glens and straths of that country, and probably have seen the large grazing farms. Surely in those places there must be ragworts and thistles growing. The same occurs in Ireland. But under this Bill every holder of a grazing farm would be liable to have one of these inspectors popping down upon him and bringing him before the court for allowing thistles to grow upon his land. I say that there should be some provision to prevent these itinerant
594
inspectors from starting prosecutions, or persecutions as they may well be, against the holders of grazing farms. Many of these graziers have a fear of this, and some of them have written asking me to bring this matter before the House, because they fear the Bill may be used as an engine of persecution against them, as they have been used to treatment of the same sort before. All I desire is to alter the Bill so that the man who honestly cuts down or destroys his weeds within the meaning of the Act shall not be liable to these vexatious prosecutions.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have no right to say anything on the application of this Bill to Ireland, and I have no doubt the suggestion of the noble Lord who has just spoken has a great deal to be said in its favour. But I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture for England why it should not be possible to apply something of this kind to England? We have weeds in England which do harm to neighbouring farms, and why the first and second clauses of this Bill so far as they enable the Department to frame a list of noxious weeds and impose a penalty on an occupier if these weeds are not properly kept cut should not also be enacted for England I do not understand. May I ask the noble Earl whether he can hold out any hope that, at any rate so far as this Bill can be made applicable to England, he will favourably consider Amendments in Committee? I know one chamber of agriculture in my own county who would desire this to be done.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, it is somewhat pleasant to be told at last that Ireland is ahead of England as regards legislation, and that that legislation seems to be satisfactory to most of the Members of your Lordships' House. I will not fail to lay to heart the words of advice I have received, and I will make at once prompt inquiries as to whether there is any reason why this Bill should not be applied to England. Speaking for myself alone, I hope that I shall be able to follow the advice given from the other side, and that we may be able to include England and Scotland as well.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it has been my fortune or misfortune to sit upon a great many Committees. I

595
recollect some years ago I was Chairman of a Committee which inquired into and reported upon this very subject with regard to England—I am not sure of the date, but it must be about ten years ago. I have often seen comments that nothing was ever done by the Board of Agriculture—I admit I was myself to blame to some extent, because for a time I held the honourable position now occupied by the noble Earl opposite—that we never did anything to carry out the Report of that Committee. Now when His Majesty's Government introduce a Bill dealing with this subject in this House it does seem to me a little strange that they should not have endeavoured when occasion arose to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. I am bound to say I do not carry in my mind exactly what recommendations we made, but we certainly recommended that a Government testing station should be erected, and that all seeds should be brought there and tested either free or at a very low charge. That seems to be the purport of Part II of this Bill. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Cloncurry that we should all like to see Section 2 applied to England, so that any one might serve a notice upon us requiring us to cut down and destroy those botanical growths which the Board of Agriculture might choose to describe as weeds; but I think, as far as the power of having seeds tested by a farmer is concerned, that is an advantage which ought not to be confined to Irish agriculturists alone. I hope between this and the Committee stage, when the noble Earl is considering the matter, he will at least see whether the same facilities for testing seeds cannot be extended to the English farmer in the same way that this Bill proposes to extend them to the Irish farmer.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, as coming from the west of Ireland I wish to state that while I agree with those who say that this Bill should not be made an engine of persecution to fall upon the unfortunate grazier, who has enemies enough already, I do submit that it is a measure which is urgently required. Many people who do their best to cut their weeds and thistles suffer from the fact that their neighbours do not do so. I suffer myself a great deal from it. I spend a large sum of money every year on cutting thistles, and yet find my fields sown over with thistles blown from the lands outside. This
596
Bill will be exceedingly useful, care being taken that it should be used legitimately and not for the purpose of oppression. I hope if the Bill passes that the inspectors of the Department will also turn their attention to the public roads, for though the road contractors are bound by law to cut weeds and thistles we find that we often have to drive along between a hedge of thistles on each side, and the seeds are sown all round about. The Bill is required, but great care should be taken in its administration.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I think it would be a pity not to deal with the Second Reading of the Bill at this juncture, and even if your Lordships were to agree with the points raised by Lord Cloncurry, yet I think they are such as would be more properly considered at the Committee stage. Of course, any words that the noble Lords may suggest to deal with the dangers which they anticipate will receive every attention at the hands of the Irish Department, but as I have slid, I think those are matters that can be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner in Committee. Under these circumstances I still hope that the Bill may be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill came on for Second Reading very late at night, and insufficient opportunity was afforded for discussing it. Therefore if your Lordships will allow me to say a few words I think I can explain exactly what our position is with regard to this Bill to-night. I can point out to your Lordships the part of the Bill which is not objected to, and which, therefore, we shall not have occasion to discuss, or, at all events, to have any difference of opinion upon. On the other hand, I can point out the part of the Bill which is objected to. The essence of this Bill is contained in Clauses 4, 6, and 18. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of short lets, and to prevent it being any

597
longer necessary for a tenant who is going to occupy a house to give a very long notice that he is going to do so before that tenancy commences. Your Lordships will find, if you look at Clause 4, that—
"No agreement, whether verbal or written, for the let of a small dwelling-house shall be binding if the same has been made more than two months prior to the date of entry to such dwelling-house."
There is no objection to that. The next is Clause 6, which says—
"Either the owner or the occupier may give notice of removal with a view to terminate any tenancy of a small dwelling-house on the day upon which the next payment of rent falls due."
That is subject to certain notices which are afterwards detailed and which are necessary in order to be clear. Under that clause it will no longer be possible for any house-owner or tenant to make with certainty a let for a year. That is to say, either of them will be able, under Clause 6, if the tenant has taken a house for a year on, we will say, monthly payments of rent, to give notice at the next monthly payment, supposing the notice is sufficient in other terms of the clause. That, of course, is a great change in the existing law. That is the real object of this Bill, and to that also there is no objection—at least, no objection is going to be taken in Parliament. It is quite true that some of the burghs, and particularly some of the smaller burghs, think this Bill is altogether unnecessary. Their population not being migratory, and their business being tolerably steady in quantity, the tenants prefer to hold and to take houses for a year. But, of course, in Glasgow and places where trade fluctuates, it is not so. The other clause is Clause 18, and that says—
"All bedding material as well as all tools and implements of trade used or to be used by the occupier of a small dwelling-house or any member of his family, as the means of his, her, or their livelihood, which are in the dwelling-house, and furniture and plenishing in a small dwelling-house to the value according to the sheriff officer's inventory, of ten pounds, shall be wholly exempt from the right of hypothec of the landlord."
To that also there is no objection, and in those three clauses combined is the essence of the Bill. Therefore your Lordships will see that no objection will be taken to those, but what will be really objected to are the clauses which by way of description I will call the rating clauses. These are Clause 2—on which my noble friend Lord Clinton has an Amendment—and
598
Clauses 12 to 17, which are known as the compounding clauses. Of course, as they stand, they extend very largely the system of compounding rates. Your Lordships will, therefore, see the points which, when we go into Committee, we shall have to discuss.
One word with regard to the history of this Bill. When we were on the Second Reading I put several questions to the noble Lord, but I was not sufficiently fortunate then to obtain much of an answer. I hope on this occasion I may be more fortunate. This Bill as originally introduced applied to houses up to £15 of rent and was optional. It went up to Grand Committee, and at a certain stage was entirely transmogrified by a new definition and a new clause introduced by the Lord Advocate. It was made compulsory on all burghs except those with a population of under 10,000, and the figure which had stood at £15 was raised to £21 and £26. I want to know the reason why this change was made. In the House of Commons up to the present time they have received no explanation whatever as to why and at whose instance the Bill was altered, because it is no longer the same Bill. I ask, Was it altered at the instance of the burghs? There are 205 burghs, and of course there are 205 interests, and I am not aware that they were consulted about this enormous change in any way whatsoever. What we are told is that one or two Members of Parliament suggested the change, and on their suggestion it was made. I want to know whether that was the case, and whether these burghs had an opportunity of representing their objections. I cannot think they had. But there was one thing which was more surprising than this, for when I asked the noble Lord whether he was aware that there was objection to his Bill on the part of the burghs, he said he was not aware. At that moment I will undertake to say there was not a single Scottish Peer in this House who had not received letters and applications and memoranda from a number of burghs, and how it can be contended that the Scottish Office alone was ignorant of this passes my comprehension. I can quite understand that so far as the Lord Advocate is concerned he might be ignorant, because the business of the Lord Advocate at the present time appears to be going about the country advocating the most Socialistic doctrines, such as land nationalisation, and we do not

599
even know whether he is an emissary of His Majesty's Government or not, because when the noble Earl the Leader of the House was asked whether he agreed with these doctrines, he seemed to me to be in a much greater dilemma than I have seen him in since he has led this House. He shrugged his shoulders, smiled, and said nothing. So much for the Lord Advocate; he might be otherwise occupied, but the noble Lord is not otherwise occupied, and he surely must have known—I cannot understand how he did not know—that the burghs objected to this.
Let me give a few of the names of the people who have applied to me—the City of Edinburgh, the Convention of Royal Burghs, Aberdeen, Perth, Dunfermline, Ayr, Paisley, Forfar, Musselburgh, Partick, and Hamilton. I presented to your Lordships a Petition from the City of Edinburgh against the Bill, and I take this opportunity of presenting a similar Petition from Musselburgh. But that was not all, because the Convention of Royal Burghs issued a circular letter to all the boroughs—they gave them very short notice—asking them to express their opinions about the Bill; and it was condemned by the whole of them, including among others, Hamilton, Port Glasgow, Denny, Lanark, and Rothesay. I saw those replies, and so far as I could see there was not a single answer in which the Bill as altered was favourably received. How it was that the noble Lord never heard of one of these I cannot understand, and I hope he will kindly tell us whether before this change was made any effort or attempt was made to ascertain what the feelings of the burghs who are affected were on this Bill.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): If it is to the convenience of your Lordships that at this moment I should say a word or two in reply to the noble Earl who takes so great an interest in this Bill, I shall be very glad to endeavour to do so. In reference, in the first place, to his criticism of myself, and to the opinions of certain local authorities in Scotland, I really am not quite clear what the charge is that he brings against me.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Let me tell the noble Lord. I asked him on Second Reading whether he was aware of these objections and he said he was not aware that
600
there was any objection on the part of these burghs.
LORD PENTLAND: Whenever the burghs have intimated to me their opinion I have done my best to give it consideration; but no one knows better than the noble Earl that it is only recently that active interest in this Bill has ripened in Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
LORD PENTLAND: I am afraid our opinions must differ.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I can only say that before the Second Reading I received a number of these applications.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: So did I.
LORD PENTLAND: If the noble Lord will kindly show to me the precise paper or the precise criticisms which have been handed to him, I will gladly inform him of the date on which those criticisms arrived at the Scottish Office. I am perfectly willing to make known to him, so far as it is for his convenience that I should do so, when the communications arrived at the Scottish Office. On the other hand, I, think you will agree with me that it is for a Minister on his own responsibility to consider representations that are made to him from those interested in legislation over which he has charge, and though the noble Earl has made this complaint, against me to-day, and I regret he should find cause to make it as I endeavour to discharge my duty to the best of my ability, I am bound to tell your Lordships that the same complaint has not reached me from any of the local authorities concerned. There has been no complaint that I have heard that their representations have not been duly considered at the Scottish Office, or that that Office does not welcome any opportunity of ascertaining their views. If that is the case, and if there is complete harmony on that point between myself and the local authorities, I cannot see, with the greatest respect, that the charge which the noble Earl has brought against me to-day is really of any serious weight. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission I pass from that point.
The noble Earl went on with some criticisms of the Lord Advocate which, I think,

601
has very little to do with the matter before the House. The Lord Advocate, of course, was the Minister in charge of this Bill in another place, and I am not aware that on any day when it was his business to conduct this Bill, either in Grand Committee or the House of Commons or the Scottish Office, that he was absent from his duties, as the noble Earl is good enough to suggest. The Lord Advocate is not here to speak for himself; therefore I am bound to make this protest on behalf of my learned friend who, in every possible degree, is most assiduous and diligent in the exercise and discharge of his duties. He was in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, and was responsible for the change in the Bill to which the noble Earl objects. The noble Earl seems to think that this was a surreptitious change. I shall not endeavour to disabuse his mind on that ground. The clause fixing the limits of rent to which the noble Earl takes objection and criticises was brought up before the Grand Committee on June 24. Lengthy discussion took place in the presence of the Scottish Committee, which contains every Scottish Member, and therefore by the constitution of that Committee every local authority in Scotland had direct access to it. The clause was considered by that Committee at some length, and with the agreement of the Committee the Lord Advocate postponed its discussion to a later date. It was not taken up again before July 22. Nearly four weeks, therefore, elapsed between the date of its postponement and the date when the Lord Advocate brought up an amended edition of the clause. That edition was arrived at only after the most careful deliberation and consideration by the Lord Advocate, by myself, and by the officials of the Scottish Office. I am only describing the ordinary procedure of a Government Department in such an event. We carefully considered the desirability of amending the clause in that Bill, and after acquainting ourselves, as we deemed right and at, with local and individual opinion as to the whole subject, it was decided that the Lord Advocate should bring forward his amended clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Did you ask the opinions of the burghs?
LORD PENTLAND: What does the noble Earl mean? If he means did we address a circular to the burghs, we did not. But we had before us a lengthy and detailed Report of the Committee which sat on this
602
question; we had received representations from nearly every local authority concerned in Scotland; and we took such steps as we deemed right to supplement the information which we had before us. And really, if we did not consult the burghs, and if we therefore acted without information, the loss is our own, but we took, I think, sufficient and all adequate steps to guard against being in any error as to opinion on this subject. I therefore cannot concede the claim which the noble Earl seems to make that he in this matter represents Scotland, and that the Government do not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I never said I represented Scotland.
LORD PENTLAND: I beg the noble Earl's pardon if I have misrepresented him, but his object was to show at any rate that this Bill did not represent Scottish opinion on this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Title:
Amendment moved—
"After the words 'dwelling-houses' to insert the words 'in burghs.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1:
1. This Act may be cited as the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'House' and to insert the words 'Small Dwelling-houses in Burghs.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
2. In this Act—
The expression "small dwelling-house" means in burghs to which this Act applies without adoption

603
a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty-one pounds or under, unless the burgh contained within the police boundaries thereof at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one a population of fifty thousand or upwards, in which case it means a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty-six pounds or under; and means in burghs in which this Act has been adopted a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of fifteen pounds or under;
The expression "assessing authority" includes a town council, a parish council, and every other body entitled to impose an assessment; and
The expression "assessment" includes all rates, charges, and assessments imposed, assessed, or levied by an assessing authority, the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes and which which are leviable in respect of the yearly value of lands and heritages, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of an assessment;
The expression "magistrate" includes judge of police;
The expressions "owner" and "occupier" have the meanings assigned to them respectively in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; provided that section fifty-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903 (which limits the obligations of factors), shall apply for the purposes of this Act as if it were herein re-enacted with the substitution of this Act for the Burgh Police Acts specified in the said section.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved the first of a series of Amendments having for their object the alteration of the definition of "dwelling-house" so as to make the Bill apply in burghs with less than 20,000 population to houses of a yearly value of £10 or under, instead of £21 as proposed in the Bill; in burghs with a population of 20,000 and upwards, to houses of £15 yearly value, instead of £26, the value proposed in the Bill to apply in burghs with 50,000 population and upwards; and in burghs with a population of 500,000 and upwards to houses of a yearly value of £20 or under.
He said he had a considerable number of Amendments upon this clause, but they were all put down with exactly the same object, and for convenience he would treat them all as one in this discussion. This particular point had already received some consideration. His object was to alter the definition of "dwelling-house" so that the number of houses and the class of houses might be limited under this Bill. The figures which he had put in his Amendments were practically the same as those which appeared in the Bill when it was first introduced. But what was much more im-
604
portant was that the figures as he proposed them practically represented the considered opinion of, he believed, the whole of the burghs of Scotland. He gathered that the noble Lord was not prepared to accept the Amendments; but this view had been strongly impressed upon some of their Lordships on that side of the House by-the whole of the burghs, and it was the unanimous view of the burghs. The Earl of Camperdown had pointed out where they began to differ on this Bill from the Government, and one of the points was in regard to classification.
He would like their Lordships to consider what was the class of people who really felt the grievance which it was admitted existed owing to the system of long letting of houses. It was entirely that class of working-men who, through the exigencies of their labour, through the class of work they did, and through the unfortunate necessity which so many of them had of constantly moving about in search of employment, that they found it exceedingly difficult and inconvenient to be bound down for a long let. They were anxious to be able to give up their house at short notice. Still more important for his purpose was the class of house which these people required. It was obvious that when a man wanted a house merely for a short period, he would take, if possible, a small and low-rented house. After consultation with the burghs, he had placed in his Amendments those rentals which it was believed entirely covered those whose grievance they wished to remove. Of course, rentals varied and had to vary in the different burghs; they had not chosen their limits in any haphazard way, but after having taken a considerable amount of evidence in the matter; they had sifted it down so as to get at the different classes of the populalation in burghs. He submitted that when they went beyond the limit which he had placed, and went as far as His Majesty's Government suggested, they immediately got to a class of house totally different from the one they were discussing and which was inhabited by a totally different class of occupants.
He had a great fear that if they got up to those high rentals, they were, in endeavouring to remove one grievance, exceedingly likely to create another. The Government's limit would include, he believed, something like eighty per cent.

605
of people living in burghs, and it was not right to say that anything approaching that number were people of unstable habits and likely to be wanderers. As a matter of fact, the people who occupied this class of large house were in steady employment and were anxious to look upon their houses as their homes for a definite period, and who quite justly looked forward to a lengthened period of residence. But if their Lordships passed this Bill as it stood now, they would take away from those people altogether the security they had been accustomed to. They would force and condemn them to live under the constant fear of being obliged to break up their home at the bidding of a landlord at any time after forty days notice. That was a grievance which he feared their Lordships would create unless they fairly and properly limited it to the class and brought it down to the sum which he had suggested. His later Amendments he further contended were founded upon the wishes of the burgh and town councils in in this respect. He hoped that the noble Lord would accept from him that absolute fact, that these were the wishes of the people most nearly concerned. He trusted that the noble Lord would not, at all events, put forward any very strong opposition to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'means' to 'a' in line 9."—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he was sorry he could not accept this and the consequential Amendments of the noble Lord. He was not quite sure that the noble Lord fully recognised what was implied in the assertion which he made, that those with whom he had been in communication were to be taken as absolute and unquestioned guides on this subject. The noble Lord would pardon hint for saying that though his acquaintance with such organisations had not been so great as that of the noble Lord, yet he had certainly had in recent years considerable opportunities of making himself fully acquainted with the opinions of the Convention of the Royal Burghs and with various voluntary associations.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON pointed out that these were town councils.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he was aware of that, but what the noble Lord had said
606
implied that the authority of the convention on this question was in the first place wholly unanimous, which in this matter it was not; and, in the second place, that it ought to have a higher claim on their Lordships' attention than the elected representatives of constituencies and others, which included these burghs, on such a question as this. He was afraid he could not admit either the one ground or the other.
The reason he could not accept on behalf of the Government what the noble Lord proposed was this. In the first place, this was a labour question pure and simple. It was a grievance which was intensely felt by working-men in Scotland. It was felt by two classes of people—in the first place by the class to which the noble Lord alluded, the class who were obliged by the circumstances of their trade to go from place to place. Members of the building trade, the shipbuilding trade, the engineering trade, and the larger trades which had specially large centres in the West of Scotland, were under this disability and felt this grievance exceedingly. But there was another very wide class of people—he was not sure that he was correct in calling it a class—who also felt very acutely the disability under which they were now living. There were hundreds of cases where a working man might want a larger house, through, possibly, prosperity, an increase in family, or from one cause or another. On the other hand, there were many who, for various reasons, wished to have smaller houses, and desired as soon as possible to escape the liability under which they lay for a large rent. For instance, when the breadwinner was taken away and the widow and children were left, they desired to immediately reduce the scale of their expenses. In every county and burgh in Scotland there were cases of that kind. Therefore, it was not surprising that this grievance should be felt very widely.
Their Lordships might not be aware of the fact, but this grievance was not felt at all in England, where there was a prevailing system of short lets. Scotland was therefore under a disability which was not felt, so far as he was aware, in England. The Scottish people therefore looked to Parliament to place them on an equality in this respect. This was in no sense a Party question. There were no Party politics, as far as he was aware,

607
from the beginning to the end of it. It was not a political question in any sense whatever. The genesis of the question was as he had described it, and came entirely from the grievance he had mentioned.
The noble Lord who moved the Amendment had claimed, as he was perfectly entitled to do, that the limits which were placed in the Bill were wrong. His Majesty's Government had considered those limits with the utmost care. The result of the Amendment would be to cut out precisely the better-to-do workmen who were equally the victims of these changes, and who were at least as deserving as those of their fellows who had a smaller income. There are plenty of men working in Glasgow in the building trade—plasterers, say—getting something like £2 a week. Many of those men, he was informed on reliable authority, paid more than £20 a year rent for their houses. Their Lordships might remember a passage in the Housing Report of the 1885 Royal Commission in which it was suggested that the proper proportion of his income which a man should spend in rent should not exceed one-seventh. They would find also in that Report the lament that workingmen, owing to the high rents of houses, were practically obliged to pay between one-third and one-fourth of their income in rent. He could assure their Lordships who might not be aware of the fact that there were plenty of men in the building and shipbuilding trades who were paying more than £20 a year for their houses.
The Amendment of the noble Lord would operate in this way. When the contract for a ship was concluded in Glasgow and the men were discharged, as was so frequently the case, or when a large building was completed and the men had to seek work, possibly under the same contractor in England, or Ireland, or elsewhere in Scotland, the operation of the Amendment must be this: The men who were getting the lower rate of wages, unskilled men, would experience no difficulty, but foremen and. the better-to-do workmen would find themselves shut out from the operation of this Bill. He looked at this purely from the point of view of labour. There was no other concern in it, and he was sure, in adopting the limits which the noble Lord proposed, they would unwittingly and unintentionally be inflicting a hardship on the class of men whom he
608
had indicated. There was no difficulty whatever in practice in continuing the system of yearly lets in Scotland. Whenever a house-owner had a good tenant who was willing to take his house from year to year, there would be no breach of that tenancy. It was quite true there would always be, in the case of houses within the limits of this Bill, the right of the landlord or the tenant to terminate an agreement, but good tenants when they came into contact with a good landlord, and vice versâ, would not part company lightly. Therefore, there would exist the same freedom—perhaps he should not say exactly the same freedom, because it might be prejudiced to some slight extent by the possibility of giving short notice granted by the Bill—there would exist almost the same freedom for the contracting of yearly lets as there was at present, while within the limits which His Majesty's Government had put in the Bill there would be this great relief to this desirable class of people.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN desired, very briefly, to analyse the answer which the Committee had just received from the noble Lord. His noble friend Lord Clinton proposed that in burghs under 10,000 the limit should be £10; in burghs larger than that it should be £15; and in places like Glasgow, £20. Lord Clinton had said that the great majority of the burghs were in favour of those limits and had so expressed themselves. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland began his reply by questioning this. The noble Lord being in office had greater opportunities of knowing than Lord Clinton could have had, though that did not seem to have been a very great advantage in the present instance. But the Secretary for Scotland said that the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing that these burghs were by any means unanimous. He (Lord Camperdown) had quoted statements which he had received in regard to this matter. First of all, the Convention of Royal Burghs said that the limit ought not to exceed £15. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Perth, Ayr, Paisley and Hamilton all supported the Convention. Those were the whole of the answers he had received, and he had not the slightest reason to suppose that there was any single burgh which took a different view. But the noble Lord went on from that and said that this was not a question of burghs; it was a question of labour; and the noble

609
Lord said he had devoted so much attention to the question of labour and he had such intimate means of being in touch with labour that he assured their Lordships that the limits put in the Bill, being the result of great deliberation and great care, were; the figures which ought to be received. When did this deliberation begin? Did not the noble Lord deliberate on this question when he introduced the Bill, because at that time he took the figure of £15? Why should it be £26 now and £15 in January? He said now that £15 was inadequate. Was it that he did not consider the matter at all before January, or had the noble Lord received further information which caused him to change his opinion? They wanted really to ascertain what had been moving the Government with regard to this Bill. He hoped he would get some answer presently. That really analysed all the answer which the noble Lord had vouchsafed to give them, but he hoped he would tell them why £15, agreed to first, was so absurd now.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill made a speech just now the greater part of which seemed to be rather of the nature of a speech on Second Reading than a speech directed to this particular Amendment. He told us that this Bill was very much desired by the working-classes in the large Scottish burghs. I have no doubt whatever that this is the case, nor, as I understand it, is there anything in the Amendment put down by Lord Clinton which is in any way hostile to the policy of the Bill. As I understand it, the policy of the Bill is to be found in the three clauses to which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, referred—the clause dealing with the time limit to missives, the clause relating to notice to terminate a tenancy, and the clause dealing with the law of hypothec. None of these points are in any way affected by the Amendment of Lord Clinton. The only point raised by the Amendment is this. The noble Lord challenges the particular money limit prescribed in Clause 2 with regard to the value of houses which will come within the scope of this measure. I must say I think my noble friend made a fairly strong case to show that a lower limit than that mentioned in the Bill might reasonably he accepted. In the first place, unless I misunderstand the case, the limit suggested by my noble friend is the limit which was
610
at first adopted by the Government themselves.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then the noble Lord points out the hardship of excluding some members who might properly be described as belonging to the working-classes from the operation of this particular clause, and he says there are foremen and well-paid operatives who rent houses valued at £20 a year. I have no doubt that that is the case; but surely when you come to persons who rent houses of that kind of value it is fair to suggest with regard to them that they do not belong to the helpless migratory population for whom the advantages of this Bill are specially designed. Men occupying houses of over £20 valuation surely would come within the category described by Lord Clinton of those who are settled in their homes and look forward to a more lengthened period of residence in them. I feel, in dealing with these Scottish questions that we who are not familiar with the intricacies of Scottish matters are somewhat at a disadvantage, and we naturally look to the authority which can be cited on one side or the other. Now Lord Pentland rests himself, I take it, upon the authority of the Scottish Members of Parliament. My two noble friends, on the contrary, rest themselves upon the very strong and decided expressions of opinion that have been laid before us by the local authorities of these burghs. The nobly Lord who is in charge of the Bill went out of his way to tell us, quite correctly, that this is not a Party measure, and I think, therefore, we are entitled to observe that possibly the constituted local authorities of these great cities may upon the whole be at least as reliable guides as the gentlemen who happen for the moment to represent those cities in Parliament, many of whom, it is suggested to me, are not Scotsmen at all. In these circumstances, although I should greatly regret being forced to a Division on the point, if my noble friend divides the Committee I shall vote with him.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that apparently the debate was over, but he again asked for an answer from the noble Lord why £15 was a perfectly good figure in January but had now become a bad one? This figure of £20 was accepted by the Committee as the highest and as likely

611
to include all the workmen in Glasgow; if Lord Pentland would look at the report he would find that this was so; and as far as Glasgow was concerned £20 would be acceptable instead of £26.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND hoped the noble Earl would acquit him of being surreptitious in his actions with regard to this Bill. To his personal knowledge this had been a debated question in Scotland for the last sixteen or seventeen years, and there had been ten or twelve Bills introduced by private Members into the House of Commons in the endeavour to deal with it. It was an exceedingly difficult and intricate question, and the Government had not felt able to deal with it without further information. They appointed a Committee which reported, but, in spite of that Report, until the Bill was actually introduced and proceeded with active interest in the subject did not arise.
It was perfectly well known that if the Government introduced a Bill on a certain subject at the beginning of a session and no action was taken upon it, however much it affected the interests of local authorities they would receive no communications and no information upon it from those authorities. But the moment it was known that the Government meant to find time to deal with the question interest was aroused, and those who were concerned met and said "We are now forced to come to a decision and make up our minds on this question." That was precisely how more mature, and, he believed, more correct information came before the Government in the later stages of this controversy.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morley of Blackburn, V.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Glantawe, L.

Airedale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Beauehamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Allendale, L.

Lochee, L.

Carrington, E.

Armitstead. L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Chichester, E.

Boston, L.

Pentland, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Pirrie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

Waldegrave, E.

Farnham, L.

Bedford, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Marlborough, D.

Northumberland, D.

Churchill, V.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

De Vesci, V.

Harris, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Hindlip, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L.

Hertford, M.

Hampden, V.

Kesteven, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hardinge, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Hill, V.

Langford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Zetland, M.

Iveagh, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Ludlow, L.

Camperdown, E.

Masham, L.

Carnwath, E.

Abinger, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Cathcart, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Northcote, L.

Cromer, E.

Barrymore, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Basing, L.

Poltimore, L.

Derby, E.

Blythswood, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Devon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Rothschild, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Levan, L.

Howe, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Huntingdon, E.

Carew, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sherborne, L.

Londesborough, E.

Sinclair, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Stalbridge, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton. L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Mayo, E.

Clonbrock, L.

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

Morley, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Northbrook, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Ventry, L.

Onslow, E.

Digby, L.

Waleran, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Ebury, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Amendments moved—
"In page 1, line 10, after the 'word house,' to insert the words 'in a burgh'; in line 11, to leave out the word 'twenty-one' and to insert the word 'ten'; and in line 14 to leave out the word 'fifty' and to insert the word 'twenty."'—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN desired to ask a question on the second paragraph in Clause 2, which ran:—
"The expression 'assessing authority' includes a town council, a parish council, and every other body entitled to impose an assessment."
This Bill by Clause 12 made owners responsible for all rates on houses which came under the Bill—all assessments which were imposed by the assessing authority. What did "assessment" mean? It included "all rates, charges, and assessments imposed, assessed, or levied by an assessing authority." An assessing authority included "a town council, a parish council, and every other body entitled to impose an assessment." This Bill had to do with rating and with municipal assessments. Then how did this term "parish council" come in? A parish council levied the poor rate and the poor rate only, and had nothing to do with house rating or anything of that kind. How had "parish council" found its way into the Bill? It was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but was inserted in Grand Committee. What would be the effect of introducing parish councils into the Bill? A parish council levied the poor rate on the occupier, and on the occupier only. It had no right of recourse for the poor rate to the owner. Yet this Bill said that the rates levied by a parish council were to be included in the rates which came under this Bill. Had Lord Pentland noticed that by inserting these words he had made a most enormous change in the Poor Law, which had nothing to do with this Bill at all? The result would be that the poor rates of occupiers up to the figure in the Bill, would be compounded for and would be paid by the owners, who would have to recover them from the occupiers. There was no necessity for a poor man to pay his poor rates in order to be on the Parliamentary voters' roll. Had the noble Lord noticed that? The question was raised where it came in under owner would pay the rates and would try
614
to recover them from the occupier. If they looked at Clause 13 they would see that—
"Owners shall have relief against occupiers of dwelling-houses for the full amount of such assessments, without deduction, but such assessments shall only be recoverable by such owners from the occupiers along with payments of rent."
Suppose the occupier would not pay the poor rate to the owner who had already paid it. Very frequently an occupier would not pay his rates. The result would be that the occupier would be on the Parliamentary roll and yet would not have paid his rates to anybody. There was a further point. The owner might not pay the poor rates, and in that case nobody would pay them, and yet the occupier would by this Bill become enfranchised. He could not imagine that this was intended. The effect of inserting the term "parish council" had been to make a most important change in the Poor Law, and would have a great effect on the Parliamentary roll. Unless the noble Lord could give some good reason why these words had been inserted he would be bound to move that they be omitted.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said that so far as he was aware "parish council" was put with the other assessing authorities. They treated all the assessing authorities in the same way. No doubt this Bill did make changes. He was not concerned to deny it, but they were perfectly obvious on the face of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN denied that they were very obvious. He was afraid the noble Lord was much cleverer than himself, because it took him some time before he fully realised the effect of it. He had shown their Lordships how a man could be on the Parliamentary voters' roll without having paid his rates. That brought into this Bill the question of the franchise. What in the world had the franchise to do with this Bill?
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said that if it was their Lordships' wish that the franchise question which the noble Earl had detected in the Bill should be discussed now, he was at their Lordships' service, but he thought it would be more convenient if the franchise question was raised where it came in under the compounding clauses.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It comes in really on the insertion of these words, and I should be much obliged if the noble Lord will discuss it now.
LORD SALTOUN: It makes an immense difference on this assessment. I hope the noble Earl will move the omission of these words.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I do not know whether the noble Earl has moved the omission of these words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move it.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the words 'a parish council.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said that if their Lordships chose to omit these words it was in their power to do so, but he submitted it would be more convenient and more simple to discuss the question of the franchise on the compounding clauses where it properly arose on the two sets of Amendments which were down in the names of the Earl of Camperdown and Lord Courtney. That would raise the whole subject, and would give their Lordships an opportunity of discussing alternative methods of dealing with it. Otherwise they would be only repeating the discussion.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said there were two different questions raised in this Bill owing to the form which this definition had taken in Grand Committee. One was the municipal rates, which were perfectly germane to this Bill, and the compounding of which they were perfectly able to discuss. But this was a matter which had nothing to do with the Bill, and he wanted to know why the term "parish council" had been inserted, because if retained it would have a most important effect, not on the municipal roll, because that belonged to the Bill, but upon the Parliamentary roll, which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. He hoped the noble Lord would discuss it now.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said the matter was simply this. The working-man did not discriminate between one rate and another. Under the present system he was obliged to take a yearly let, and to pay the rates
616
as a lump sum at the end of the year. The whole system of the collection of rates at present rested upon the system of yearly lets. If they were going to alter that and make it short lets, they could not have the collection of any rates. They must deal with all the rates together.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he would concede to the noble Earl his own view, but he was representing the view of the Government, which had been put into the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN said that the provision in question converted this Bill from a House Letting and Rating Bill into a Franchise Bill. He hoped the noble Earl would press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved a further Amendment in Clause 2 to insert, after "every other body entitled to impose an assessment," the words "except a parish council." This Amendment was, he explained, consequential.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the words 'except a parish council.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3, agreed to.
Clause 4:
4. No agreement, whether verbal or written, for the let of a small dwelling-house shall be binding if the same has been made more than two months prior to the date of entry to such dwelling-house.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to omit the words "date of entry to such dwelling-house" and to insert the words "commencement of such let." This was, he said, merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'date of entry to such dwelling-house,' and to insert the words commencement of such let.'"—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. Notwithstanding the date of entry to any dwelling-house all lets of small dwelling-houses, except those for a shorter period than one month, shall terminate only on the twenty-eighth day of a month, or when that day is a Sunday, on the Monday next following and all lets of small dwelling-houses for a shorter period than one month shall terminate on a Monday.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'any' to insert the word'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In line 29, to leave out the word 'small' and to insert the word 'such.'—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
6. Either the owner or the occupier may give notice of removal with a view to terminate any tenancy of a small dwelling-house on the day upon which the next payment of rent falls due, or if that day is not a lawful date for the termination of a let under this Act, on the lawful date next following the said day, provided that—

(a) If the house be let for a period of more than three months the notice shall be given at least forty days before the said lawful date; and

(b) If the house be let for a period of three months or less the notice shall be given as many days before the said lawful date as shall be equivalent to at least one third of the said period; except in the case of a let for a shorter period than one month, in which case the notice shall be given at least five days before the said lawful date.

LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) by inserting in each case, after the words "If the house be," the word "expressly." He said he was advised that the insertion of this word was necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 40, and in page 3, line 1, after the word 'be' to insert the word 'expressly.'"—(Lord Saltoun)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he hesitated to pose as a critic in drafting, but he did not quite know what was meant by the Amendment. He was advised that it was not necessary. A house could not be let
618
if it was not let, and to put the word "expressly" into this particular line almost made it necessary to insert the words "expressly let" all through the Bill. He was reluctant to accept the Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: Is it not a question of drafting?
LORD PENTLAND: I do not think it alters the meaning.
LORD CLINTON: Does the noble Lord mean that if a house is let for a year it will still be a yearly let, in spite of the power to give short notice?
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND, No; the notice to quit will remain. Therefore it will not be a yearly let.
LORD CLINTON: If the agreement is a yearly let, it will always be subject to the notice on either side.
LORD SALTOUN: I am given to understand that this is not clear, and that the words "expressly let" are required in order to make it clear. I am told it is important.
LORD PENTLAND: But will the noble Lord be good enough to tell me this? What difference do these words "expressly let" mean? In any case it is more than three months.
LORD SALTOUN: I will not press it for the moment.
LORD PENTLAND: I honestly do not think it necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
12. Every assessing authority entitled to impose assessments in the burgh, shall levy all assessments which may by law be properly chargeable upon the occupiers of small dwelling-houses, or which, though assessable in respect of occupancy of such dwelling-houses, are by law recoverable from owners, on the owners of such dwelling-houses in place of the occupiers thereof (distinguishing always in each assessment the proportion applicable to ownership and the proportion to occupancy), and that notwithstanding the insertion made in the valuation roll in terms of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and Acts amending the same, of the names of occupiers of such dwelling-houses: Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudice or disqualify any person whose name is entered in such valuation roll in respect of his qualifications in virtue of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. And provided further that section thirty-one of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and section three hundred and forty-four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the corresponding section of any local Act shall not apply to any lands or premises being dwelling-houses to which the provisions of this Act apply.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said a small Amendment was necessary in the case of the rates which were partly payable by owners and occupiers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'assessments,' to insert the words 'or portions of assessments.'"(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to strike out Clause 12. He said he had Amendments on the Paper to delete Clauses 12 to 17. He understood that Lord Courtney had the same Amendments down, and he did not know which would be the most convenient way of discussing these Amendments.
LORD PENTLAND: May I point out that Lord Courtney's Amendment is not the same as the noble Earl's.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Lord Courtney moves to leave out Clause 12.
LORD PENTLAND: What I meant to say was that the purpose of Lord Courtney is not the same as the noble Earl's.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am quite satisfied of that. Do the Government accept the striking out of Clauses 12 to 17? That is what we both move.
LORD PENTLAND: I had hoped the noble Earl was going to give us his arguments. The Government are not prepared to accept the striking out of Clause 12.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he would assume that Lord Courtney would support him, and he would try to give the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland reasons why he thought Clause 12 ought to be omitted from the Bill. His task had been very much simplified by the fact that they had got rid of the question of the franchise, which had nothing to do with the Bill. Clause 12 had simply to do with municipal assessments. It proposed that every assessment authority entitled to impose assessments in the burgh should levy all assessments which might be properly chargeable to occupiers on the owners of dwelling-houses. That was an enormous extension of the system of compounding. At the present time the rates were compounded in some burghs up to £4 and in others up to £5. Under this clause as the Bill stood before Amendment they would be corn-pounded up to £26, with the practical result that in Glasgow the rates would be compounded for nearly 160,000 out of 175,000 houses. The assessor would have comparatively little to do, because all that would remain for him would be the collecting of rates on the bigger houses in which the labour and difficulty was, of course, the smallest. What were the reasons for objecting to this compounding of municipal rates? In the first place it removed all direct connection between the occupier and the assessing authority. In the second place, it placed an additional burden upon the general ratepayers in respect of the commission which was given to the owner who had to collect the rates. But beyond that it was objected to by the burghs, and it was also objected to by the owners of houses. The owners of houses naturally did not wish to be placed in the invidious position of rate collectors to the great majority of their tenants, and the burghs objected to it, because, as they said, the amount of commission which would have to be added to the total sum levied meant an additional burden upon the general ratepayer. He objected to any extension whatever of this system of compounding;

621
he believed their Lordships also objected to it, as also did the Poor Law Commission and every set of persons who had inquired into this matter. The evil done by this system was almost incalculable. It had led to the condonation of municipal extravagance and to carelessness on the part of occupiers as to the amount of money spent. Though it might be impossible to do away with it, yet to extend compounding until it really embraced five-sixths of the houses in a town was a thing which he hoped would not be agreed to. Those were his reasons for proposing the omission of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 12."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH said he supposed he ought to add some words to the speech of the noble Earl, but he must apologise in the first place for intervening in this subject at all, because he was not as acquainted even with the elementary facts of Scottish legislation as he ought to be in order to justify his appearance in the debate. The previous evening he was approached by the representatives, of Glasgow, who desired to have an opportunity of presenting their side of the case to their Lordships. They could not find any one to put their Amendments on the Paper, and so he had consented to do so in the hope that he would have the support of some one of their Lordships connected with Scotland who would be able to speak on the subject, but as a matter of fact that had not happened and he was still left in charge of his Amendments. His duty, therefore, was to explain to their Lordships as clearly as he could what those Amendments meant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN pointed out that the only Amendment he had moved was to omit Clause 12.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH replied that the noble Earl had supported that Amendment by an argument against compounding. His (Lord Courtney's) own Amendment was for the substitution of another method of compounding, giving, as he believed, a much simpler and more effective and convenient method of compounding than that in the Bill. Moreover, he proposed a clause making the adoption of the system optional, so that his Amendments differed
622
from those of the noble Earl opposite, although they both started with the desire to get rid of Clause 12 as it stood. He would now ask to be allowed to explain the Amendments standing in his name.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN observed that his Amendment stood on the Paper before that of the noble Lord.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE said that surely the only question before the Committee was whether they should or should not strike out Clause 12. The question of the relative merits of the Amendments of his noble friend Lord Camperdown and of the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, would come up for discussion on Clause 17.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said that on the general question of retaining the system in the Bill it appeared that the two noble Lords took different roads. As to the noble Earl's charge that the franchise was affected by the Bill, there was no doubt that it was affected.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that that was not the case now, because they had omitted all reference to the parish council.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND remarked that in that case he was discharged from saying anything further.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH thought he ought to say a word as to compounding in reference to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. The noble Earl had admitted that the system of compounding could not be got rid of altogether, and what he objected to was any extension of it. The desire of authorities like Glasgow was of great importance, and of smaller cities also; they saw in compounding an absolutely necessary way of getting the rates which might be levied in respect of small holdings. That was what had made the system inevitable in England, and with short lettings he submitted compounding was practically inevitable. It might be left to the local authorities whether they would adopt it or not, but in course of time they would all have to adopt it in connection with small lettings. The expense of collecting rates from tenants on short lets was so excessive and the risk was so great of not getting them at all that that system could not be maintained. The noble Earl objected because he said the authorities would lose

623
the amount of the commission which they would have to give to owners who became collectors of the rates. He would point out that Glasgow would not adopt the system if they thought they were going to lose by it. He submitted that the system of compounding was inevitable if they were going to allow short lets to obtain and to be extended in Scotland, and the question whether it was advantageous or not to the funds of the municipalities was a matter to be left to them. They would not adopt the system unless they thought they would gain more in the way of revenue by receiving the rates through the owners than they could possibly gain if they tried to extract them direct from weekly or monthly tenants. He did not agree that compounding deadened the interest of small occupiers in the rates because they did not pay them direct. In meal or in malt they had to pay; it was merely a matter of collection. He would not go into the political aspect, which had been the subject of great controversy in the past in their Lordships' House. Because of some supposed political deleterious effect compounding was abolished in England under Mr. Disraeli's Reform Act, but it had to be re-established within three years and had prevailed ever since, and it was impossible to prevent it if they were to allow that liberty of contract which had not prevailed so much in Scotland as in England and which was expressed in the system of short lettings. Unless they meant to destroy the system of compounding it was unwise to throw out the clause. He was only prepared to alter the method, and as it stood he was afraid he would have to vote against his own Amendment.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE observed, with reference to the optimism of the noble Lord as to the increased receipts of municipalities, that that opinion was not shared at all events by the town councillors of Aberdeen, who calculated that something between £2,000 and £3,000 a year would be lost.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES thought that the noble Lord (Lord Courtney) might salve his conscience because the first Amendment stood in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, Therefore the noble Lord could vote upon that Amendment and need not bother about his own at that moment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 (Compounding allowances to owners):
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 13."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 (Revision of scale of compounding allowances):
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 14."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 (Repayment of assessments paid in respect of unlet dwelling-houses):
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 15."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 (Saving for remissions of assessments):
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 16."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
17. Every owner shall deliver to the occupier of a small dwelling-house at the beginning of an occupancy a receipt book, rent book, or certificate stating the amount payable in name of rent and assessments to the owner, and indicating separately on the basis of the last assessments for the time being the proportion thereof payable in name of assessments: Provided that it shall be the duty of an assessing authority on application by the occupier to send him a notice of the assessment properly chargeable in respect of occupancy of the dwelling-house.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving to leave out Clause 17 and to insert a new clause standing in his name, said the effect of his Amendment would be that as regarded all the burghs in Scotland with the exception of the five large burghs mentioned in the Bill the law would remain the same as it was now. Owners were subjected by the Bill to very considerable disadvantages. First of all, they could no longer rely upon a yearly

625
let to any tenant because a tenant could give notice and instead of completing his year could leave before the year expired. In the second place, their Lordships would see that the number of short lets, which of course implied a great deal of additional trouble and expense to an owner, would be very considerably increased. The proposed new clause was not really his own clause but one which had been agreed upon between a very large majority of the burghs, almost all of them with the exception of Glasgow. He could not speak about Edinburgh because Edinburgh up to the day before was perhaps one of the very strongest opponents of the Bill; he had heard that they no longer supported the clause he was moving, why, he was not able to tell their Lordships. Further, there was a power conferred in subsection (b) of his Amendment upon assessing authorities of compelling payment of rates by instalments, which would create great facility in the collection. They should not increase the extent of compounding beyond what existed at present, and that was the effect of his clause.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out clause 17 and to insert the following new clause:
'Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in force with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery of any assessment shall subsist in full force and effect, subject to the following provisions (that is to say)—
In the burghs named in Schedule II of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892—

(a) Sections three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and any corresponding provisions of any local Act shall not apply or be made applicable by adoption to small dwelling-houses of a rent or yearly value not exceeding ten pounds;

(b) Assessments which may by law be imposed or chargeable upon the occupier of a small dwelling-house may be made payable should the assessing authority so determine in such instalments as may be fixed by the assessing authority, and the occupier for the time being shall be liable to pay the instalments of such assessments corresponding with the period of his occupancy, although his name may not be entered as such occupier in the valuation roll. Provided that no occupier shall be liable for any instalment of such assessments for any portion of the year after he has ceased to be the occupier;

(c) Any such instalment of any assessment falling to be paid after the commencement of a financial year and before the date of the imposition of the assessment for that year shall be calculated, charged, and payable on the basis of the corresponding assessment for the preceding financial year and it shall be lawful for an assessing
626
authority to demand and enforce payment of any such instalment;

(d) The owner of every small dwelling-house shall in addition to making the returns falling to be made by him in accordance with the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, intimate to the assessing authority every notice given or received by him in terms of the section of this Act, the marginal note of which is "Notice to terminate tenancy" within three days of the giving or the receiving thereof, and shall also intimate the name of every new tenant, the rate of his rent, and the period of his tenancy within three days after the commencement of each new tenancy, and any owner wilfully failing to do so or making or causing to be made any false intimation shall be liable in a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND pointed out that the position was that Lord Camperdown had an Amendment forbidding any extension of compounding, and that Lord Courtney had a series of Amendments which would have the effect of introducing compounding under a different method from that adopted by the Government in the Bill. He had some reason for doubting the extent of the support which the noble Earl had for his proposals, for he had told them that Glasgow certainly and Edinburgh he thought both opposed, and they were not unimportant exceptions when they considered the proportion of their population as compared with the rest of Scotland. They were the two most important municipalities in Scotland. They had to choose between compounding in some form or other and rejecting the short let system proposed by the Bill. The objection which the noble Earl took to compounding was that it conferred the franchise on a certain number of people.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that it did not now.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND pointed out that they had compounding in England and in Scotland for householders of £4 and under. There was no loss of franchise by non-payment of rates, and there was an allowance to owners who collected and paid the rates of the occupiers. If they began at £15 and under they were faced by the fact that householders of £4 and under were struck out. They were going to deprive occupiers of houses of £5, £6, £7, £8, and £9 a year of a relief which they sought persistently and with great earnestness, because the compounding system was an inevitable accompaniment of a system of short lets. By the Reform Bill occupiers of £10 were not disfranchised

627
by the non-payment of rates, and he considered the Amendment was penal treatment of occupiers between the limits of £4 and £10. They were deprived of the opportunity of compounding which all experience showed gave the boon of an elastic system of house-letting, which no noble Lord could deny was the only fair and just accompaniment of an industrial system which required mobility of labour. He could say honestly that from the beginning to the end of the controversy there had been no ulterior motive or eye to enfranchisement on the part of the Government. Who should say on which side those people, if they were enfranchised, would cast their votes? Municipalities were only concerned with getting their rates paid. It was far from the truth, if noble Lords would permit him to say it, that the collection of rates and the responsibility for the payment of rates were more realised by and more intimate to these small householders under the present system that it would be under the Bill.
Under the system which they wished to introduce it was absolutely certain that ratepayers would have their obligations more directly pressed home to them, and although they would pay by instalments they would do what a great many of them did not do now—pay their rates. The Bill did its best to mitigate objections to the payment of rates being thrown in with the payment of rent by the fact that a note was presented indicating precisely on every rent demand the proportion due in respect of rates. To take the case of Edinburgh, Edinburgh did not enforce the payment of rates at all on householders below £5, and in all of the towns there were large exemptions as the result of appeals ad misericordiam of householders who paid more than £5. He thought he was correct in saying that no less than £43,000 was the deficit in a recent year to the Glasgow municipality in the payment of rates. Those who knew—and he was obliged to take their authority for it—were emphatic and clear in their opinion that the method of the Bill, whether it enfranchised or did anything in other respects, would enforce a better collection of rates, and the municipal burdens, so far from being increased, as the noble Earl had said, by the amount of commission paid to owners, would be considerably lessened. The commission would be absolutely submerged in the total gain to the municipalities in
628
the amount of rates collected. Workingmen now-a-days did all their transactions by weekly and monthly payments, their trade and building societies, their investments, their savings banks—every expenditure except the yearly house-letting, was dealt with by weekly or periodical instalments. If a working-man bought, say, a sewing machine, he paid for it by instalments. They would say he was foolish because he naturally paid more. But the working-man did not do it because he was foolish; he did it because he could not afford to pay cash. Municipalities did not care a whit for the franchise; their object was to get their rates paid, and working-men were perfectly willing to submit to the additional burden which they would have to bear.
The Burgh Police Act of 1892 contained a clause permitting short lets without giving any allowance to the owners for the collection of rates, but it threw the onus of that collection upon them. Owners would not take that responsibility and incur the expense of collectors and agents and clerks and so forth which was involved, and they had never availed themselves of that clause. No system by which responsibility was laid upon owners for the payment of rates would work unless they gave owners a compounding allowance to cover them from the outlay thrown upon them by such a condition. He had shown from beginning to end that municipalities, house-owners, working-men, and—he said it without fear of contradiction—the Government, had simply one object in view—namely, the economic and social adjustment of the question. He appealed to their Lordships to consider the plan proposed, because he believed it was a practical and working plan to provide a social remedy for a most deserving class of men.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he rose for the purpose of correcting one or two statements made by the noble Lord. Men who held houses of between £5 and £10 would pay their rates direct as they did now. As to the noble Lord's assurance that all the municipalities were on his side, he was again obliged to cite the authority of Edinburgh and quote from the Petition which Edinburgh presented to their Lordships' House and which he took it expressed their considered opinion. In passing he would say that the commission to the owner must be a sufficient one; it was no good proposing ten per cent. in one case

629
and five per cent. in another. As the Bill stood the Sheriff would have to fix the commission, but it was very doubtful whether he would fix it at such rates as ten per cent. or five per cent. If he did, his belief was that it would not compensate the owners for the trouble they would be put to. Where rates were compounded in England he believed there was no commission so low as five per cent., in some cases it was twenty-five per cent. The petition to which he had referred went on to say that though the system under the Bill would cost more in collection it would not produce any larger revenue, and that it would increase the burden on the occupiers; and, further, that assuming the rate of commission to be fifteen per cent., it would mean in Edinburgh £12,000 a year, or equivalent to one penny in the pound, and that amount would rise or fall according as the commission was higher or lower. That seemed to show that in the opinion of the Town Council of Edinburgh what the noble Lord had just said was not correct.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON pointed out that the really dominant note running through the speech of the Secretary for Scotland was that compounding was a necessary part of letting for short periods. The noble Lord no doubt had studied the Report of Lord Guthrie's Departmental Committee. In that Report it was stated that compounding was not a necessary corollary of short lets. That was really a great authority to quote against the noble Lord. The Amendment provided for the system of instalments which the Committee thought necessary, a system which was just both for the rating authority and for the occupier. He believed that under the Amendment of the noble Earl they provided everything that was necessary to bring short lettings into being, and he was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pentland, should, so to speak, have held a pistol at their Lordships' heads and said unless they had compounding they could not have short lettings.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that like the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, he made no pretence to be entitled to speak on Scottish questions, but he had given considerable thought and study to the question of compounding in so far as it affected England. He remembered fighting forty years ago for a whole night in the House of Commons against the Act which restored compounding, and he had never wavered from his opinion
630
that it was most unfortunate for local government that in the Reform Act of 1867 payment of rates and political franchise were mixed up together. There was nothing in the whole system of their local government which so conflicted with economic and sound administration as the system of compounding. The noble Lord, Lord Pentland, spoke of the necessity of a system of compounding if they were to have short lettings. His noble friend, Lord Clinton, had already quoted a very great authority against that view. He would remind the noble Lord of what perhaps he might not be acquainted with himself, being a Scotsman, that there were parishes in England at the present moment where rates were collected from individual occupiers, where composition had not been adopted, and yet where short lettings existed. He knew of such parishes himself where the collection of the rates either by quarterly or half-yearly instalments was arranged without any difficulty arising from the absence of composition.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND asked whether those were rural or industrial parishes.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN was speaking of rural parishes. He could not speak, he admitted, with the same knowledge of industrial communities, but certainly there were large urban parishes in which composition had not been adopted, and even in rural parishes there were frequent changes of tenancy. With regard to the larger communities, he could not agree with Lord Courtney that the system of composition was really approved of on its merits by the local authorities themselves. He thought the real point was this, that the rate collectors found that the system of composition made it unquestionably easier for them to collect the rates than the system of personal payment, and that they had used their influence, which was very great, with the local authorities in order to secure the adoption of composition. He believed it was a distinct loss to local authorities where composition was adopted, for he thought that if they were to allow anything like the allowance made to owners in cases of composition, which usually was as much as twenty-five per cent., to their rate collectors and insisted on personal payment of rates it would be to the benefit of the rates and not to their injury. He did not know how that view might apply to Scotland; he was speaking of England, but he had always imagined that Scotsmen

631
were more thrifty than Englishmen and therefore more capable of paying their rates if, as would be provided under the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Camperdown, proper security was taken for the rates being levied by convenient instalments. He should be very sorry indeed to see the system of composition which now prevailed extended, and therefore he would certainly support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY*THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said he did not feel competent to express an opinion upon the proposal in the Bill to extend the compounding system, but on the general question of compounding he wished to give his experience. He was a member of the finance committee of the municipality with which he was concerned, namely, Belfast—and owing to defalcations in the rate collections many suggestions had been offered as to how the rates should be collected, and in going very carefully into the matter the question of the compounding had come up. He was naturally in agreement with their Lordships that if possible the compounding system should be done away with, because he thought the argument that the citizen should understand his liabilities as a citizen should be borne in upon him. But after careful consideration he must support the view of the noble Lord opposite, that with weekly rents and very small houses they could not get rid of the system of compounding; and he thought it would cost municipalities more to collect the rates themselves than to pay a commission to owners for so doing.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON, in supporting what the noble Earl who had just sat down had said, pointed out that when he was on the London County Council he was personally responsible for the purchase of three very large estates at Croydon, Tooting, and Tottenham. The estate at Tottenham consisted of 200 acres and cost £90,000, and cottages were to be built upon it to house 42,000 people. It was gradually being covered with houses, although, of course, the new policy of the Moderate majority of the London County Council had now stopped work to a very great extent. There was only one difficulty at Tottenham, and that was that they did not allow compounding. There was no difficulty at Tooting and no difficulty at Norbury, near Croydon. But the result at Tottenham was that though there
632
was no difficulty whatever about the rent, the tenants paying their rent with the greatest possible case and regularity, when they were asked to pay the rates they did what was called "a flit." They bolted, the London County Council lost one week's rent and a very good tenant, and the local authority lost the rates. He did not agree that compounding made a citizen irresponsible for the rates and careless as to whether they went up or down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 18, 19, and 20 agreed to.
Amendment moved:—
"After Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:
'Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of section seventy-two of the Waterworks Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1847.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 187.)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
HANDLOOM WEAVING BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Trade had considered the propriety of printing Bills which were partly for the amendment and partly for the consolidation of the law in such a way as to distinguish between old and new matter.
The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships may remember that at an early period of this session I ventured to put a question in debate to His Majesty's Government as to whether it would be possible to print Bills which were partly consolidation Bills and partly amending Bills in such a way that your Lordships

633
would be able to recognise at a glance what was new and what was old. Since then I have had the opportunity of conferring with different members of the Government, and I now venture to put the formal question whether His Majesty's Government see their way to comply with that suggestion.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Before the noble Earl replies, would it not be possible that measures brought before your Lordships' House which involve charges on the rates of a county should have such provisions as affect county rates put in italics? I believe that is the custom in the House of Commons, and I consider it would be of great public advantage that we should have some guidance in that way in respect to matters which sometimes affect the finances of the county to a larger extent than the Bill itself.
THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE: I fancy that the question raised by the noble Marquess has been considered before, but it has not been taken in hand, I suppose for the reason that those Bills have not in past years been very frequent, although when they do come before us they are enormously bulky and very often important. It has, however, been pointed out to me that there is this difficulty, that in consolidating a number of previous Acts into a new Bill certain formal and verbal changes are made, altering the actual phrases used in the old Acts but containing all their substance, and it is not quite clear what the noble Marquess would wish done in a case of that kind. It is consolidation but at the same time it is an alteration, and it is considered, I believe, by the best authorities—we have taken the opportunity in the interval of consulting those who are best entitled to speak—that in many cases a marginal note or even an explanatory memorandum is the best form of explanation rather than anything to do with the printing. So far as, the Stationery Office is concerned, I am informed that there would be no technical difficulty, provided of course that the Bill is sent to them by the draftsman in a clearly marked form carrying out what the noble Marquess wishes. I can assure him we will bear the matter in mind, but I have no doubt he has followed what I have said as to the technical difficulty which might arise in certain cases, because, of course, it is conceivable that a difference of opinion might exist as to whether the
634
change in the phraseology involved some slight difference although done merely to represent the precise effect of the previous Act in a more compendious form. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether it did or did not make some slight difference in the law in effect, and the attention of noble Lords might be drawn away from that possibility by the fact that it was printed as a mere consolidation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In speaking of what was old and what was new, I certainly referred to the substance and not to the phraseology. I quite recognise that part of the point of a consolidation Act is to put the old law into better phraseology. The noble Lord says a suspicion might arise that the new phraseology concealed a very slight change in the law, and therefore noble Lords' attention ought not to be directed away from it. But we are in that position now. When a pure consolidation Bill comes before your Lordships a Minister says "This is pure consolidation," and when he says so with his responsibility everybody accepts his assurance, and unless we are to have that trust in it which we ought to have we could not get on at all.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite see the force of what has fallen from the noble Marquess, and we will consider before the next Consolidation Bill goes out, in what form it would be most convenient for the House to have a distinction made. As regards the question put by the noble Viscount, he will excuse me if I do not give him a definite answer at this moment, because it requires more consideration than I am prepared to give it now. I am not entirely convinced by the analogy to which the noble Viscount drew attention—namely, that in another place the the financial parts are printed in italics. That I take to be because a separate resolution is required. According to the forms which obtain there, they require a separate resolution to carry them into effect, and so far as charges on the rates are dealt with here that, of course, is not the case. I will take the whole question into consideration and see if it is possible in any way to meet the wishes of the noble Viscount.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock to Monday next, a quarter-past Four o'clock.