Sitting of 25 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Central London Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time To-morrow.
Poplar Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That Standing Order 235 be suspended, and that one clear day's notice in writing shall be given by the Agent for the Bill to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of the day proposed for the Second Reading thereof.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Commons Regulation (Burrington) Provisional Order Bill,
Commons Regulation (Winton and Kaber) Provisional Order Bill,
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed. Westbury Estate Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Thorney Drainage Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order No. 3) Bill,
Luton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—
Chester Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK [CONSOLIDATED FUND.]
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sum which may become payable to His Majesty by way of consideration in respect of Crown Lands in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to appropriate certain lands and to make provision with respect to certain Crown lands forming part of or adjacent to St. James's Park (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Indian Criminal Procedure Code.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the abuses which had been shown to exist under the present law in connection with confessions extorted by the police from suspected persons in India, he could give an assurance that the sections of the Criminal Procedure Code which allowed the police to obtain confessions from prisoners detained in police custody, and then had them recorded before a magistrate for the purpose of being used against the prisoner at his trial, would be repealed or amended at the next session of the Viceroy's Legislative Council?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State will inquire of the Government of India when effect is likely to be given to the changes indicated as being under consideration in my reply to my hon. Friend's question of the 29th June. I may mention that in the meantime the various administrative orders governing the recording of confessions in the different provinces have been collated by the Government of India who are about to issue instructions to local governments where necessary to supplement their orders with new rules providing greater safeguards against abuse.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will these new orders include an extension of the Bombay order to other provinces of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say yet. As soon as I am in a position to say, I propose to lay before the House all the information with regard to the new orders.

  Coronation (Celebration at Rangoon).
  Captain FABERasked whether a military salute was fired or whether any military display took place at Rangoon on the occasion of the late Coronation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I regret that I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the information for which he asks: such matters are under the supervision of the authorities in India.

  Royal Visits (Edinburgh and Dublin).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the troops on duty during the royal visits to Edinburgh and Dublin would be given the Coronation medal on the same terms as those who were on duty in London at the Coronation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel SEELY): I am informed that the medal will be granted in respect of these units and corps only who were represented in the Coronation and Royal Progress in London, and that in fact all corps and units were so represented.

  Assistant Adjutant-General (Netley Hospital).
  Captain FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he would state why, if quarter-masters never assumed any of the functions of command, a retired quarter-master was doing the duty of assistant-adjutant-general at Netley during intervals in 1900–1901; and if he would state the name of the quarter-master who signed hundreds of discharge documents in the City of London alone?
  Colonel SEELY: As regards the first part of the question the quartermaster was detailed to perform the duties of the assistant adjutant-general during the temporary absence of that officer. The appointment was irregular and was due to the shortage of officers for duty at home during the South African War. As regards the last part of the question no such quartermaster can be traced.

  New Army Biplane.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the fact that it was recently officially stated, with reference to the reported construction of a new Army biplane, that certain experiments were being made, but that it was not desirable to give any particulars, he was aware that, in the issue of Flight dated 15th July, photographs and drawings purporting to represent the new Army biplane built in the Army aircraft factory at Farnborough appeared, together with a detailed description of the machine; whether those were in fact photographs of the new Army biplane; and, if so, why information should be given to the Press which could not be communicated to the House of Commons?
  Colonel SEELY: The biplane referred to in the issue of Flight dated 15th July is an experimental one constructed to obtain information on certain points for the Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, and is in no sense a new Army biplane. No information has been given to the Press, and it is not known how the information published in the issue in question was obtained.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the publication referred to in the question and in a large number of technical publications dealing with aeroplanes, descriptions of this new machine have appeared? Does he think it desirable that information of this confidential character, which it is impossible to give to the House of Commons, should leak out in this curious way for the benefit of the Press?
  Colonel SEELY: I have read the articles myself, and I am in a position to say that none of the information given to the Press is in any sense confidential. I am making inquiries as to how the communication to the Press came to be made.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the articles dealing with the detailed description, this biplane, was referred to as a credit to the technical ingenuity of the British blacksmith?

  Weedon Factory (Wages).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked when the decision to increase the minimum rate of wages was to take effect in the Weedon factory?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope very soon to be is a position to make a general statement on the subject of minimum rates of wages for War Department employés at out-stations. Any increases that may be decided upon will have effect from the 1st April last.

  Ex-Shah Mohammed Ali.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information as to the return of the ex-Shah Mohammed Ali to Persia; and whether any steps had been taken to safeguard British interests in the event of a civil war in that Empire?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton yesterday. I trust that British interests will not be seriously affected; but we shall, of course, be kept informed by His Majesty's Minister at Teheran of the progress of events.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it the fact that a Russian commissioned officer is assisting the ex-Shah in his inroads?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say that I have heard that. All the information I have as
  1504
  to the attitude of the Russian Government points to that as being absolutely impossible.

  Chinese Imports from India (Taxation).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations had been made to the Government at Pekin on the subject of the levying at Canton of illegal taxes on imports from India, in disregard of Article 7 of the recent agreement between His Majesty's Government and that of China; and whether he could say what steps, if any, had been taken by the Government of China in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government trust that, in view of their representations, the Chinese Government will require the Viceroy of Canton to comply with their undertaking that Indian opium, on payment of the consolidated duty at the enhanced rate, shall be exempt from any further taxation whatever at the port of import.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have taken any steps, or whether any steps are about to be taken?
  Sir E. GREY: I said that we have made representations which we hope will lead to the desired result.

  Persia (Trade Routes).
  Sir H. CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any recent information to give to the House on the subject of the condition of the trade routes between Bushire and Shiraz; and whether he was aware that last year British merchants suffered considerable loss as the result of their dangerous condition?
  Sir E. GREY: The last detailed report received from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran, which was dated 8th June, gives a more favourable account of the state of the Bushire-Shiraz road; but a telegram from him received on the 21st instant refers to a recrudescence of robberies there, as to which, however, it gives no details. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    POOR LAW OFFICIALS (COMPENSATION).
    Sir HARRY SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is anticipated that the opera-

    1505
    tion of the National Insurance Bill will have an important bearing upon, the number of persons who now seek medical and other relief, and that consequently a lesser number of relieving officers and other Poor Law officials will be required; and whether it is the intention of the Government to insert clauses in the Bill to provide compensation for officers whose interests may be affected, in such manner as was provided in Section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Section 28 of the City of London (Union of Parishes) Act, 1907?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am glad the hon. Member realises that the ultimate effect of the Bill will be an important relief to the ratepayer. But this effect will, of course, be gradual, and, having regard to the normal growth of population and of the standard of care for paupers, it is not anticipated that such reduction of establishments as takes place will outstrip the regular wastage through death and superannuation among the officers employed.

  Finance Act, 1910.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the relief from Income Tax in respect of children, which can be claimed under Section 68 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, can be claimed in respect of adopted children also?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reply is in the negative.

  Census Returns.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the President of the Local Government Board at what date the Census Returns will become effective in those cases in which the numbers of the population in counties, cities, boroughs, districts, parishes, etc., decide into which category of population various places fall for the purposes of various Acts of Parliament; if the Returns already given are official and effective for such purposes; and, if not, whether it is intended to make an official and effective Return of the population before the other information expected from the Census has been tabulated and analysed?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The law officers are being consulted on this subject.

  Pure Milk.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will
  1506
  state whether he can promote legislation to prevent people suffering from consumption from being employed in the milk trade?
  Mr. BURNS: The subject is under my consideration, but I am not at present prepared to state what action will be taken.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate date as to when he will be able to supply us with the information?
  Mr. BURNS: It is a matter which will be dealt with by regulation, and I hope soon to be in a position to mention it.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can state, seeing that the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis has reported on the dangers of impure milk, what milk, if any, is coming in from abroad; and whether steps will be taken to closely examine such milk; and what such steps are?
  Mr. BURNS: The importation of fresh milk from abroad has not yet been resumed. When this occurs, further series of samples of this milk will be taken by the Board's inspectors, and will be examined for the presence of impurities, including tubercle bacillus.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how often this milk will be examined in the year—more than once?
  Mr. BURNS: All the consignments of milk are subject to local inspection, to that of the local medical officer of health, and to that of the Customs medical officer, whose judgment is given on it.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is uniformity of standard in the examination of this milk, or whether the standard is lower in other countries than here?
  Mr. BURNS: As I informed the hon. Member some nine months ago, it is very difficult to get a uniform standard in milk.
  Mr. SANDYS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether inspection of dairies takes place in foreign countries from which this milk is imported?
  Mr. BURNS: There is no reason to suspect that where this milk comes from the standard of sanitation and of purity is lower than here.

  Outdoor Relief and Ill-health.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked what proportion of the sum paid is outdoor relief is attributable to ill-health?
  Mr. BURNS: I am unable to say definitely what proportion of the expenditure on outdoor relief is attributable to ill-health, but according to the returns of pauperism on the 1st January in this year, more than two-thirds of the adults in receipt of outdoor relief on. that day were classed as being either not able-bodied, or as being relieved on account of the sickness, accident, or infirmity of themselves or their families. The recent Royal Commission, in the Majority Report, expressed the view that "one-half of the total cost of pauperism is swallowed up in direct dealing with sickness."

  Gasworks Tar and Cancer.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, as shown by the proposed Home Office Regulations, that workers with pitch made from gasworks tar are particularly liable to cancer; and what precautions are taken to prevent the possible spread of this disease by the now universal tarring of roads throughout the country?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the proposed regulations, which are intended to minimise the risk of constant working in connection with tar; but I have seen no evidence that any risk is incurred in walking or driving over tarred roads; and I do not believe in the likelihood of any such risk.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that an old age pension has been refused to Selina Shackleton, of 98, Jackson Street, Stretford, Manchester, who was seventy years of age on 13th March; whether he is aware that, with the exception of an interval in America, where she went to join her husband, she has resided only in this country; and whether, as she has lived here for sixty-two years, he can cause her case to be reviewed and a pension granted?
  Mr. BURNS: The case to which the hon. Member refers came before the Local Government Board on an appeal against the decision of the pension committee. As it appeared that the claimant had been absent from the United Kingdom for more
  1508
  than eight years out of the last twenty years, the Board had no alternative but to decide that the statutory requirement as to residence had not been fulfilled in her case.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state why two weeks' old age pension belonging to Mrs. Mary Hillary, of Micheldever, since dead, and for one week of which she had signed her name, was never paid; and whether the two weeks' pension should have been paid to her son for her funeral?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount will be paid as soon as the necessary formalities have been complied with. The officer called on Mr. Hillary for this purpose on the 18th instant, but found that he was away from home. He will call again on his next visit to Micheldever.
  Captain FABER: Are the old age pensions paid up to the actual day of death?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My impression—I do not want to be dogmatic—is that they are paid up to the time of death.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say why John Coyle, of Granard, who was receiving an old age pension from January, 1909, to January, 1911, has now been deprived of the pension, and no reason assigned for this action; whether any new instructions have recently been given to strike off persons receiving the pension for two years, as a number of such cases have recently occurred in county Longford; and whether in such cases the grounds of the decision to review pensions granted two years will be laid upon the Table of the House, so that the official act of removal may be known to the persons affected?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: John Coyle's pension was revoked by the Granard local pension sub-committee on the ground that he had not attained statutory age. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Statutory Regulations provide that, in every case where a pension is revoked, notice of the fact is to be sent to the pensioner concerned by the clerk to the committee.
  Mr. FARRELL: Have any new regulations at all been made since the beginning of 1911?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state on what grounds was Myles Gilmartin, of Corn-

  1509
  tella, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim, deprived of the full amount of the old age pension; and whether, having regard to the fact that Gilmartin is merely a caretaker for his son, who is compelled to emigrate to England to earn the rent of his little farm, he would be granted the pension in full, together with arrears due to him from date of application in February, 1911, to date of receipt of portion in May, 1911?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Myles Gilmartin made a claim on 15th April last, and on. 22nd June was awarded a pension of 3s. a week by the pension sub-committee on the ground that his means exceeded £23 12s. 6d., but did not exceed £26 5s. per annum. He has appealed to the Local Government Board, and the case is at present being investigated. Having regard to the date of the decision of the subcommittee and to the terms of Section 5 of the Old Age Pensions Act, nothing is due to the pensioner in respect of the period mentioned in the question.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Pat Guihan (Terry) of Largy, Spencer Harbour, county Leitrim, was denied an old age pension on the ground that his name could not be found in the Census of 1841 or 1851; and whether in this and similar cases where applicants' names cannot be found in the Census, but where they produce sworn evidence by competent and reliable witnesses that they are over the statutory age, they should be granted the pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only evidence Guihan furnished to the Local Government Board to show that he had reached the statutory age was a certificate by a person claiming to be eighty-six years of age. The family of the claimant's parents was traced in the 1841 Census Returns, but his name was not recorded in. the list of members. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence that he had attained the statutory age the Board decided that he was not entitled to any pension. As regards the second paragraph of the question, evidence of the nature indicated is always carefully considered by the Board.

  Waterville (Delivery of Mails).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for some weeks after public attention had been called to the delivery of mails in Water-
  1510
  ville there was punctual delivery, but that recently there has been most irregular delivery; that on 11th July letters were not delivered until 2.40 p.m.; and that on 12th July the delivery was half an hour late; and whether steps will be taken to secure punctuality?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury)for the Postmaster-General: On 11th July the late delivery was due to the late arrival of the train, and I will call the railway company's attention to this. Delivery began, however, at 2.4 p.m., and not at 2.40 p.m. The delivery on 12th July began a quarter, not half an hour, late, this delay being due partly to the late arrival of the train and partly to the heavy mail. The staff at Cahirciveen and Waterville have instructions to handle incoming letters as rapidly as possible.

  Sub-Post Offices (Health of the Clerks).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that in many of the post offices in little drapery, grocery, and other shops the post office is situated in the most remote corner of the shop, and that, in consequence, ventilation, light, and air being deficient, the health of the clerks who are mostly females, is impaired; whether he is aware that many of those clerks are on duty for twelve, hours, less meal times, per day; and whether he can see his way to take steps to have these evils remedied?
  Mr. GULLAND: Every sub-postmaster is required to supply adequate accommodation both for the public and for the staff; and the conditions come under review periodically. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases he may-have in mind in which reasonable requirements are not met I will have inquiry made. Assistants at small sub-post offices are not in the direct employ of the Department, it being incumbent on the sub-postmasters, who act as agents for the Post Office, to provide for the work out of the remuneration they receive. In many cases the assistants are also employed in the sub-postmasters' private business.

  Post Office Night-Telephone Staff.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether a member of the night-telephone staff who had served many years in the Army, and retired as a sergeant with an excellent certificate, was summarily dismissed on the ground that he had made an improper remark to a Dr. Kinsey-Taylor; whether this dismissal

  1511
  has been persisted in because the doctor alleged that he can recognise his voice; and whether, in view of the fact that his dismissal took place before this statement was received by the Post Office, and that his previous career has been ruined by evidence that would not be accepted in a court of justice, he will appoint some independent person or persons to see the parties concerned and advise him as to whether injustice has been committed?
  Mr. GULLAND: The night telephone operator referred to by the hon. Member was dismissed for the use of grossly improper language which was overheard by a telephone subscriber. The dismissal was maintained on appeal, because there was no room for doubt as to the offence. The matter has already been exceptionally investigated; and I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.

  Customs Staff, Cardiff.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now received a statement giving particulars of overtime worked by the preventive men of His Majesty's Customs at Cardiff; and whether he can explain why these men are neither paid for their extra work nor have they any compensating reduction of hours on other days?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received the statement. In none of the instances given did the hours of duty at Cardiff added to the hours worked at Fishguard amount to forty-eight a week, and I can only assume that time spent in travelling has been included. Such time cannot, under the regulations, be allowed to count towards overtime when a subsistence allowance is received, and as I informed the hon. Member on 16th May last, these officers receive subsistence allowances on. each occasion that they proceed to Fishguard.

  Customs and Excise (Assistants).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the assistants of the Customs and Excise service who entered the Department since the introduction of the common entrance examination and who are now doing duty in the Customs branch of the service, are receiving more salary than assistants of three years' service who entered the Department under the old examination scheme, although performing
  1512
  similar duties; and, if so, how long this condition is to continue, and what steps he proposes to take to remedy it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question does not accurately represent the full facts of the case, but I do not think it advisable to make any statement on the subject in advance of the Amalgamation Committee's Report.

  Shipping Federation.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the ill-feeling being engendered against this country in German and other foreign ports because of the methods pursued by the Shipping Federation in recruiting from other countries non-union labour and refusing to deal with the organisations representing dockers and other workmen; whether the Federation receives any protection from the Government; and whether he can interfere with the methods referred to, which tend to provoke further disputes amongst dockers and seamen?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): No reports have reached me to the effect stated in the question. If my hon. Friend will supply me with any specific information on the subject in his possession, I will give the matter my careful consideration.

  Dowlais Works (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Fair-Wages Clause is being systematically and continuously violated by Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold whilst executing Colonial Office contracts at their Dowlais works; and what action he proposes taking to secure its enforcement?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEalso asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his office has any control over contracts placed in this country by overseas Self-governing British Dominions; and, if not, whether he will notify such of the said Dominions as have placed contracts for railway contracts with Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold that the firm is executing the said contracts at their Dowlais works by sweated and blackleg labour in violation of the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I will deal simultaneously with both the hon. Member's questions on this subject. Apart from these questions, I have not received

  1513
  any representations to the effect that the Fair-Wages Clause is being violated by Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold in respect of contracts placed on behalf of the Crown Colonies, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars, I will cause enquiry to be made by the Crown Agents. With regard to contracts placed by the Self-governing Dominions I have no information and can take no action.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point I want to get at is this: Is there any control over these contracts and are they subject to the Fair-Wages Resolution of this House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the new Fair-Wages Resolution passed by this House some eighteen months ago is inserted in all contracts.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: But are the contracts from the Self-governing Dominions subject to any control by the Colonial Office?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Oh no, I have nothing to do with that.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken notice of the fact that the influence of the Labour party in the Colonies is not so strong as in this country?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I referred to the fact that I had the honour of being in consultation at the Imperial Conference with the Leader of the Labour party.

  Dock and Shipping Disputes.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade, with respect to the intervention in the recent dock and shipping disputes of representatives of his Department, whether he has any information showing the number of cases where stoppages were provoked by employers seeking to suppress trade unions and refusing to meet or deal with the workmen's officials; and whether, as employers' associations must always be recognised by workmen, he can take any step to secure permanent recognition for the men's association as a first step to dealing further with the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government would attend to any feasible and properly supported plan to prevent or shorten industrial warfare?
  Mr. BUXTON: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question, which involves matters of opinion. As regards the latter part, I do not think I can with
  1514
  advantage say more at present than that I shall always be glad to receive and consider any practical proposals for giving effect to the announcement of the Prime Minister.

  Conviction for Non-Payment of Fare (Manchester).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the case of an elderly man, never previously charged with any offence, who was fined 10s. and costs in the Manchester county police court on 14th November, 1910, on a charge of having travelled on a tramcar without paying 1d. fare, whether he is aware that when the case was first heard the police and other witnesses repeatedly swore to another man being the defendant; and will he therefore call for a. report on the case, with a view to considering whether further proceedings are necessary and whether the penalty imposed in this case should be remitted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have communicated with the Manchester magistrates, but have not yet had any reply.

  Worcester City and County Asylum.
  Mr. BALDWINasked whether he is yet in a position to give an answer to the memorial addressed to him in July, 1910, by the officers of the Worcester City and County Asylum of Powick?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The memorial in question submitted to me, for determination under Section 15 of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, a dispute which had arisen as to whether certain officers or servants of the Powick Asylum were established officers or servants for the purposes of the Act. I have now been advised by the law officers of the Crown that the Act does not confer on me any jurisdiction to determine this dispute, and that, apart from a court of law, no authority except the visiting committee of an asylum has any jurisdiction to decide what officers or servants are established officers or servants.

  Caherciveen Boat Slip, County Kerry.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board has taken steps to construct boatslips in connection with the works at Caherciveen Quay and Cooscroum, respectively; and whether these necessary additions will be put in hand without delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board understand that the proposed boat slip in connection with the works at Caherciveen would be of considerable convenience, but that it is not at all so pressing as many other applications that have to be dealt with by them. The county council have been asked to procure and furnish the Congested Districts Board with a plan and estimate for the proposed boat slip at Cooscroum.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked for what reason the re-enactment of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907 in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is confined to the powers for the acquisition of land, and if he will consider the desirability of preserving the present powers of the Act in their fulness, with a view to the reconsideration of the many meritorious claims still unsatisfied?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only part of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, which is an expiring law is the part conferring powers for the acquisition of land and the determination of tenancies, and that part has been included in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of this year. The part of the Act referring to the date for making applications under the Act is not an expiring law, and is therefore not included in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any applications for an advance have been lodged by Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., as regards the lands of Coolorty, Tully, and Ashuagh; whether the farm of Mr. Henry McGiveny, of Ashuagh has been included in this application; whether I he landlord has declined to allow Mr. McGiveny's name to be included; and whether, before passing this estate for sale, the Commissioners will direct full inquiry to be made by their inspectors into all the facts regarding the refusal to allow this tenant to purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners understand that the tenants have concluded negotiations with the owner to purchase their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, but formal proceedings have not yet been instituted. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority due inquiry will be made as regards the matter referred to in the question.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any further progress has been made in vesting in the tenants on the property of Mr. James W. Bond the lands of Rhyine, Clonnel, Drumhaughly, Farragh, etc.; and whether, as this portion of Mr. Bond's estate includes a large tract of un-tenanted land which is to be divided amongst these purchasers, any inspector has yet been sent or is about being sent to adjust the matter to the satisfaction of the claimants on the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate will be reached in order of priority for inspection at an early date, and will be dealt with as soon as possible.
  Mr. DELANYasked what amount of advance was made to Mr. Thomas Walpole, J.P., Mondritt, Queen's County, late Sub-Commissioner, under the Act of 1903, for the purchase of an estate of which he was part owner; can he say whether the same Mr. Walpole has applied for an advance to purchase a farm which he holds on the Coote estate, in the Abbeyleix union; and, if so, what is the amount applied for?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given to identify the estate of which Mr. Walpole is stated to have been part owner. He has signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding on the estate of Sir A. C. P. Coote, Queen's County, and the amount of advance applied for is £2,153. The estate has not yet been reached in order of priority.
  Mr. DELANYasked whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the dissatisfaction existing in the locality regarding the distribution of the Charleville Estate, situated at Kyle, Queen's County; whether five tenants residing two miles distant have received 100 acres between them, and whether he is aware that thirty-six out of a total of fifty-four uneconomic holdings on the Coote Estate, at Kyle, adjacent to the Charleville property, remain unenlarged; and can he say what steps the Estates Commissioners propose taking to provide those occupiers of small mountain holdings with additional land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not possible for the Estates Commissioners to meet entirely the wishes of applicants for allotments on un-tenanted land acquired by them as the number of applicants is as a rule largely in excess of the number to whom allotments can be made.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: On a point of Order—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot raise a point of Order while an. answer is being given.
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the White Estate at Charleville the Commissioners acquired 411 acres of untenanted land which has been divided into twenty-six allotments, twenty of which have been given to tenants on the Coote Estate. The question of enlarging other holdings on this estate will be considered in the allotment of such untenanted land as the Commissioners acquire in the neighbourhood.

  Destruction of Heifer Calves.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board propose to take any, and what, steps to check the present widespread destruction of heifer calves consequent upon the increase of milk production, and also the fattening off and slaughter of prime milch cattle now prevalent in the neighbourhood of London and other towns?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board published in their "Journal" of December, 1910, a short article as to the practice of farmers with regard to the disposal of their calves, and they recently circulated to the Press some correspondence on the subject. The Board propose to publish further information respecting it in their "Journal," and the subject will also be considered in connection with schemes for the improvement of live stock which will shortly be formulated.

  Female Suffrage and Referendum.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to ascertaining the views of women on their desire to have the Parliamentary vote, he will cause the Referendum to be used amongst women only with that object?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The course suggested by the hon. Member would require legislation which I am not prepared to propose.

  Parliament Bill (Home Rule).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister if he had given any pledge that Home Rule will be carried this Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The only pledges I have given on this subject are to be found in my public declarations.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Your friends are easily satisfied. I beg to ask Question 47—
  Captain CRAIG: Before that question is answered may I ask, as arising out of the previous question, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Ulster is not going to take any form of Home Rule at all?
  Lord HUGH CECILrose, but was received with cries of "Divide, divide," and interruptions. [After an interval,]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the Noble Lord put his question?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Arising out of the answer—[interruptions]—
  Captain CRAIGrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Gentleman risen to a point of Order?
  Captain CRAIG: Yes, Sir. I beg to ask you whether you will put the same Standing Order into force to-day as you did yesterday?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I may be compelled to do it, but I hope not yet.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister, may I ask him whether it is the intention of the Government to submit the Home Rule question to the decision of the country before it is passed into law?
  An HON. MEMBER (to the Prime Minister): Do not answer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the one on the Paper. Notice should be given of it.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I put this question (No. 47) a long time ago: Whether the Cabinet will call in any expert financial advisers on the subject of Home Rule except the Financial Relations Committee recently appointed; and, if not, will he reconsider the decision not to lay before the House the evidence taken by the Committee and their report before committing the Cabinet to the terms of a Home Rule Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet able to say of what financial advice the Government may ultimately avail themselves.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to say if this Committee makes certain financial recommendations how can the Government justify the rejection of their expert advice? Are they not, practically speaking, bound by their conclusions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, not in the least.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman—[An Hon. MEMBER: "No."]—Will the Prime Minister kindly give his reason?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The function of this Committee was to provide information only. That information will be considered by the Government, and the Cabinet are in no way bound by the recommendations of the Committee.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the amount of the deficit this Committee said the Imperial Treasury would have to pay in the event of Home Rule becoming law?
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: When the right hon. Gentleman does make up his mind regarding Home Rule will he communicate his decision to this House before he communicates it in a letter to the Press?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not answer insolent questions.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the word "insolent" is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I want one question put to me at a time.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to ask whether the word "insolent" is in order?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I also ask whether the word "Traitor" is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Neither of the words is in order.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Prime Minister withdraw it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord to sit down.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: As I understand your ruling—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have now disposed of that matter.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

  Trespassing Conviction (Leitrim).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an evicted tenant on the Corscadden Estate, Glenade, county Leitrim, named Michael Hernan, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for trespassing on the lands from which he was evicted, the landlord being one of the adjudicating justices at the petty sessions in Manorhamilton when Hernan was sentenced; and whether the Estates Commissioners would take immediate steps to have this tenant reinstated?
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNErose—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Name."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Eastbourne is disorderly in constantly intervening when questions are being answered. If he has a point of Order to raise I shall be glad to hear him at the conclusion of questions.
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the 3rd May last Michael Hernan was fined 10s., or in default seven days imprisonment, for trespass in the house from which he had been evicted. He refused to pay the fine, and. was lodged in Sligo Prison. The landlord was not one of the adjudicating magistrates. The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for reinstatement from Michael Hernan, and the case is not one which can be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice—and which I have deferred until to-day, at his request— whether it would, in his opinion, be in the public interest to make any statement with regard to foreign affairs. If he would do so it would be a matter of great interest to the House.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be more in the public interest, and to the general convenience, to have a statement on this question made on Thursday, when we propose to take the Foreign Office Vote in Committee of Supply. On Friday, we shall take the Report stage of the Copyright Bill.

PARLIAMENT BILL.

  OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. KING: I desire to call attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's proceedings, and to point out that the report of the Prime Minister's speech is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was incompletely delivered and unsatisfactorily heard in the Press Gallery. In spite of this an adequate report appears in all the newspapers of today, and I ask whether you would direct that the authorised report which appears in "The Times" and other newspapers might not be entered upon the OFFICIAL REPORT, in order that hon. Members in the future might have a convenient way of referring to such an important speech.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Before you answer that question Mr. Speaker—[HON, MEMBERS: "Sit down."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered the point which the hon. Member has raised, and I think it would be a very dangerous precedent if hon. Members were permitted to hand their speeches to the Official Reporters, and expect them to appear in full whether they were heard or not. I know that practice does obtain in some legislatures, but never in this. I think it would be a very dangerous precedent.
  Mr. KING: Members who are inadequately heard are frequently asked from the Press Gallery to furnish notes of their speeches, and consequently, although hon. Members may not appear to the House to have delivered flowing and full orations still they appear in the Report next day to have made speeches of that kind. In view of that well known fact, Mr. Speaker, do you not feel justified in stretching a point on this occasion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think those observations apply to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I cannot speak on behalf of the reporters in the Press Gallery generally. I am only concerned with the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I am sure the observations of the hon. Member do not apply to that Report.
  Mr. KING: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I think you are under a misapprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The Official Reporters do ask for our notes very frequently.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Official Reporters may, in some cases, desire to have the assistance of the notes used by an hon. Member who has been speaking; but, if
  1522
  the hon. Member means the reproduction of a speech which has not been delivered, I am sure that has never been done in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  OFFENSIVE INTERJECTIONS IN DEBATE.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Rising on a point of Order, I would like to ask whether the observation of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) "insolent swine," as applied to hon. Members of this-House, is within the limits of Parliamentary debate?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will see that some of the personalities which pass between the two benches, especially those below the Gangway, do not reach my ears, and in some respects I am glad I cannot hear them. I would again repeat what I said yesterday, and I venture to make an appeal to hon. Members who sit in those respective seats not to carry on cross-firing over the floor of the House. I know there is great temptation to do so; but I would respectfully ask them to desist from that. It really makes debate in the proper sense of the word impossible; and. also, being at a distance, I am placed at a very great disadvantage in not being able to hear, and therefore in not being able to-adjudicate at the time upon an offending: word, from whichever side of the House it may come. I hope, after this, hon. Members will see the desirability of refraining as far as possible from these interjections.

SUPPLY.— [18th Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.— [18th Allotted Day.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

    INLAND REVENUE (VOTE 2).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £964,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." [NOTE.— £750,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to-be present at the commencement of this. Debate, but I understand he will be here shortly, I am quite aware that notice of

    1523
    this Debate being taken to-day was rather short, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has other engagements which have been of some long standing. Therefore, I do not wish to complain, but I do think I have matters to raise which command serious attention, which are occasioning very strong feeling in the country, and which are connected with the administration of the Revenue Department. I do not wish to cover a large area or to confuse the issue; I wish to make a plain statement of facts. I think I shall be justified in drawing certain deductions from those facts, and in asking for a clear answer from the representatives of the Government as to how the Finance Act of 1909–10 is being administered, how certain calculations are being made, upon what basis they are being made, and what legal authority there is for the methods which are now being adopted by the Valuation Department. May I enter one caveat. Practically all the matters which I shall raise have already been referred to in this House either by question and answer across the floor or in Debate, and we have never yet had an answer. Either the questions have been scamped or answers have been given that investigations are necessary and that a reply will be given later. The investigations may have taken place, but the replies have never been given. There has therefore been ample notice, and I do enter a caveat against any of the points I am going to raise being put off to a future occasion which may never come. I will preface my statement by quoting an answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) when asked by the right hon. Member for Hertford whether he would lay on the Table of the House a copy of the instructions which were given to the official valuers as to how they were to carry out their valuations. The answer he gave was:—
    "He gave the House his assurance that the principle adopted is to make every valuation on a lair and reasonable basis."
    That was the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House. I propose to quote chapter and verse, showing how these valuations are being carried out, and to ask the House to decide for itself whether that assurance then given was justified, and whether the valuations are or are not being carried out on a fair and reasonable basis. I will first of all take a case which has been printed by newspapers throughout the country, but it is
    1524
    rather remarkable it has received no notice whatever from newspapers supporting the party opposite, either by way of narrative or comment. I wrote a letter to the Press last Saturday week giving full particulars of this case, and I stated all the facts. I must restate them shortly and the point which arises out of them. I do not bring it forward in any sense as an isolated case. The strength of the position is that the precise way this case differs from thousands of other cases is simply that the whole procedure from start to finish is actually completed in this case. The valuation has taken place, and the claim for duty has been made. Here is a small property in Richmond, Yorkshire, which belonged—there is no objection even to mentioning the names of the persons concerned —to a Mr. Walker, who purchased it in 1887 for £500, who spent £100 in adding a shop-front to it, and who made other improvements. He died and left the house to his widow, with remainder to his two daughters. The widow died in 1910. The property was valued for Death Duties at £500, and duty was paid upon that figure. The property then passed to the two daughters, who sold it for £500. We therefore have the property purchased for £500, and £100 spent upon it, valued for Death Duties at £500 in 1910, and sold for £500 in the same year. I have here in this envelope the real documents in the whole of the case. The different Government forms, Form IV., and the valuation claims that have been made—they are all available, and can be quoted if desirable. Form IV. was served in the same month that the property had been sold. The ladies in their return informed the Inland Revenue Department that they had sold the property for £500, which they claimed to be its value. They were then served with a valuation, and the valuation officer, instead of accepting the value of £500, at which the property had been in turn purchased and sold, and upon which amount Death Duties had been paid, placed a value upon it on 11th April, 1909—rather more than twelve months prior to the sale, and valuation for Death Duties—of £380, £321 being the value of the buildings and £58 the value of the site. The ladies, having parted with the property, naturally assumed that they had nothing to do with any duty on a property in the possession of a third person, and they, therefore, passed the valuation on to the purchaser. The sixty days allowed by the Act having lapsed, a further form was served upon them, and

    1525
    that stated that the value on the occasion was £500. The value of the buildings remained the same—£321; so that the value of the site had increased from £58 to £178; consequently there was an increment of £120 on which duty would have to be paid. The ladies were naturally alarmed. This £500 was practically the whole of the property which they possessed; they had in fact no other property, and their annual income from it was about £22. They were, I repeat, naturally alarmed at the prospect of losing a whole year's income in this way, and they felt that the claim was so obviously unjust that they had only to represent the matter to the valuer to get the matter instantly adjusted. Their solicitor accordingly communicated with the valuer, but ho, saying he had no power, referred them to the superintending valuer for the northern district, who, in turn, referred them to Somerset House. The facts were all placed before the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the reply received was:—
    "I am directed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to acquaint yon that they are unable to accede to your application for an extension of time in which to prepare objections to the valuation in question."
    The answer takes that form because the only way in which that outrageous provisional valuation could be amended was for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to exercise the power which they possessed under the Act to give these ladies an extension of the period of sixty days in which to appeal. It was a quite excusable oversight on the part of the ladies that they had allowed the sixty days to elapse, because the property no longer belonged to them, and they imagined that they had nothing to do with any duty that might be levied upon it. The Commissioners were asked not to remit the duty, but merely to allow the facts to be placed before the referee in order that the real value of the property might be fixed according to the Act. But in this curt letter which I have read they refused even to exercise this power and to allow a reasonable extension of time for a review of the valuation. The next stage is the official demand upon these ladies for £22 Increment Duty. That is the history of that particular case.
    In order to show that it is not an isolated case, perhaps I may be allowed to read a letter which I received from Mr. S. Elliott, of Nottingham. The writer says in it:—
    "My wife bought, over twenty years ago, two free-hold houses for £550, and spent more money on them.
    1526
    Some years ago she advertised them for sale for £525. She was offered £500, but refused it. She died last December. For estate duty purposes the value of the property was put at £150. On June 28th. 1911, I received a valuation form in which the original total value was put at £300. I have tried to get it increased to £400, but the valuer will not do it."
    Here you have officials of the Department actually accepting duty on £450, and then subsequently putting the original value of property at £300 and claiming duty on the difference. This is going on all over the country. I may state still another case, which I think is even worse. On this, I submit, we are entitled to an answer, as I raised it in this House so long ago as the 29th March last, and invited the Department to make inquiry into. It was the case of a nursing home at Plymouth, or, rather, at Stonehouse. The property was purchased for £1,000 on 29th September, 1910. The total gross value placed on it on 30th April, 1909, was £750. The value of the buildings was fixed at £560, and, deducting that from the sum of £1,000 which the property fetched when sold, a site value of £440 was arrived at, and Increment Value Duty claimed on it. The matter has been the subject of considerable correspondence. The solicitors for the nursing home took the matter up, and so did the Land Union. The latest stage is one which will astonish even hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they have any faculty of surprise left in them. This claim is so obviously unjust that the officials have informed the solicitors that if they will withdraw their notice of objection and pay the Increment Value Duty the Commissioners will be advised to return one-half of the duty as an act of grace; and, further, they say they are prepared to make this offer openly, so as to remove any suggestion of conspiracy! I do not know how much further it is possible for a Government Department to go. I would put it to the Committee that if any private individual carried on business transactions with another private individual on the lines on which this Government Department is carrying on its transactions with the taxpayers he would soon find himself in a criminal court, and probably in gaol.
    Look at the position which the Government take up. Look at the state of the bench usually occupied by Ministers. We have only one right hon. Gentleman on that bench. He was not responsible for this Act, and I think I may fairly say he has not thoroughly mastered its intricacies. We have no Law Officer of the Crown present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, and we have to state our case to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

    1527
    on a matter of vital importance to thousands of small owners. What kind of reply are we likely to get? I have stated my three cases. They are typical of hundreds of thousands of other cases. There are hundreds of thousands of small houses which have been undervalued all over the country. There is no limit to the number of cases where this undervaluation has taken place. Where the difference comes in is that it is in comparatively few cases that the actual claim has arisen because the occasion has not yet arrived. The undervaluation will in every case lead to claims. What is the position which the Valuation Department take up? Let us go back to this typical Richmond case. Here you have a piece of land with a house upon it; it is valued as on 30th April, 1909, at £380, with a full knowledge that it has just been sold for £500. The site value is fixed at £58. The occasion arises before the original valuation was made and there fore these two valuations are served practically simultaneously; in one case the total value is fixed at £380 and in the other at £500. The whole difference in the other case is credited to the site value which is placed at £178, the allegation being that in twelve months this small piece of land has increased in value threefold. I have had careful local inquiries made and there has been no increment of value. It would be a very extraordinary increase if it took place in a frontier town in Canada, but to say that in Richmond in Yorkshire, the value of a piece of land can have legitimately increased from £58 to £178, and therefore the unfortunate owner is to be mulct in a whole year's income to the State, is a travesty of justice.
    The next point that arises upon that is what is this site value? The so-called site value is a legislative Mrs. Harris; it does not exist. It is like the ink which the cuttlefish puts out to conceal its retreat. It is to fog the issue. We are told that site value is being taxed. You would therefore think it would make some difference what site value is. Site value is a pure myth, and, whatever site value you put upon the property by the procedure which has been adopted, the tax will remain absolutely the same whether the site value was called £l or £200. Here you have this property valued on one occasion at £380 and on the other at £500. The buildings are valued at £321 and the site value at £58. The whole value must consist of these units and can
    1528
    consist of no other, the land and buildings. On the other occasion the value of £321 stands, and the whole difference goes to site value. That sounds a very complicated and difficult proceeding and fogs the issue. Now let us reverse it for the sake of argument. Instead of saying the land is worth £321 and the site £58, reverse it, and let us suppose the buildings are worth £58 and the site worth £321. What would have happened? When the property is revalued at £500, the buildings remain at £58, £58 is taken from £500 and you get exactly the same difference between it and £321 that there was between £58 and £178, and the duty will be just the same. Let us put it at £100 for the site value, the property valued at £380, the buildings put at £280 and the site value at £100. The property is sold for £500, the buildings are left at the same figure of £280, £280 is deducted from £500, which will leave £220. The £100 is deducted from £220, which leaves £120 site value, the exact figure which was arrived at in this case on the other figures. Therefore the whole myth of site value is absolutely exploded. There is no such thing as site value. It is merely a dummy which is set up in order to enable the Treasury to extract, on every occasion of sale, 20 per cent. of the entire difference between the guesswork figure at which they have valued the property and the entire value which the property fetches in the market. There is. no other interpretation. That brings me to the position of the valuation on the occasion. There have been important questions asked upon that point. My hon. Friend (Mr. Royds) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how and on what principle the valuation on the occasion was going to be made, and whether there was to be a valuation at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered:—
    "The deductions directed to be made on the occasion of sale under Section 2 of the Finance Act are those specified in Section 25 (4) of the Act. and are calculated by reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the sale. The first of these deductions is the same amount as has to be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the full site value from gross value. This necessitates a fresh computation of the gross value and additional site value at the time of the sale. The gross value will be completed in the manner prescribed by Section 25."
    If that meant anything it meant that there was to be another valuation, but no-second valuation is made in any of these cases, and that is the really important point upon which I want a very clear answer. Do the Government claim that the way to arrive at the site value on the occasion is invariably, as is now being done in practice, to simply deduct the same

    1529
    value, whether real or imaginary, of the building which was fixed upon on the original valuation, and then to debit the whole difference to site value? I am sorry to see there is no law officer in his place, because I am raising a matter of which I have given due notice to the law officers.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the original value of the house or the present value?
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The original value. It is the procedure adopted in all these three cases, and so far as I am aware in all other cases, that no new valuation is made and it it assumed that because on the original date of the valuation the house had a certain value, the value remains the same on the occasion, and on the occasion when the duty is levied it is assumed that the house is of the same value, and because the property was sold at £500 the £321 is deducted, and the entire difference is treated as site value and is liable to site value duty. There is another point which arises on this matter which is of some interest from more than one point of view. It has always been claimed for this remarkable piece of legislation that it was to encourage building and to prevent people from holding up land and not using it for the purpose of development. Now we see the effect of the 10 per cent. deduction in this particular way of calculation. What happens is this. There is an allowance made of 10 per cent., not on the total original value, but on the site value. Let us suppose that you have two properties each worth £300. One is bare land, and the other is land and a building worth £300. Let us suppose that both properties increase in value to £400. In the case of the bare land you have an original site value of £300, and when it increases to £400 there is an increment of £100. There is an allowance in that case of 10 per cent. on the whole of the £300 of original site value. On the whole property, in other words, £30 is deducted, and the increment for which duty is payable is on £70. The Other property goes up to £400 and is sold. Duty is levied on the principle followed in all these cases. You have an increment of £100, but as the building is valued at £350 there is a deduction not on £300, but only £50. Is that the way in which building is encouraged, and the way in which the owners of small house property obtain an advantage? I should have added another case, which is a most striking one. It was referred to in a letter to "The Times" by
    1530
    Mr. Ivory, a well-known writer to the signet in Edinburgh. He pointed out how a particular property belonging to a client had been valued at £20,000, and how, notwithstanding protests which were made, he failed to obtain any amendment of that figure. He intimated his intention of appealing, and he got an eminent valuer of high repute to go and meet the Government valuer on the ground. He told how within a week that valuation was amended to £45,000. If the original valuation of £20,000 had been allowed to stand there would have been a claim for Increment Value Duty of about £5,000. Obviously that is pure robbery, but it is not more so in that case than in other cases.
    That throws some little light upon the value which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attaches to this valuation as giving to the Government and the country an accurate knowledge of the value of the property which we possess. Here we have a case of a property of £45,000 valued at £20,000. There was another case in Edinburgh which I quoted here not long ago of a property which was valued in 1908 at £l,000, and which was valued under this Act a few months afterwards at £450. These cases are piling up innumerably, and this is becoming a matter which is arousing great indignation in the country among the owners of small properties. It is a matter upon which a serious answer is necessary. I wish to ask the law officers with regard to the right of appeal. It is quite clear that the owners have the right of appeal within sixty days against the original valuation from the time of that valuation, but what is not clear, and what I am unable to find out is whether there is an appeal under the Act against a valuation on the occasion. I may say this is not my own point. It has arisen in consultation with one or two eminent counsel at the Bar, one being Mr. Danckwerts. So far as we can discover, there is no means provided under the Act for an appeal against a valuation on the occasion, and we do not even know whether what occurs on the occasion is a valuation at all. By Section 33 of the Act which deals with appeals, I find that appeals are allowed against the first or any subsequent valuation of the total value or site value of any land. The words of the Act are extraordinarily tricky, and one reading it would think you could appeal against the first or all subsequent valuations. Section 33 says that appeals are allowed against the first or any subsequent valuations "except as expressly provided." Then you come

    1531
    to paragraph (b) of that section, and you find that "the original total value and the original site value, and the site value as ascertained under any subsequent valuation shall be questioned only by means of an appeal against the determination by the Commissioners of that value where there is an appeal under this Act, and shall not be questioned in any case on an appeal against an assessment of duty." An appeal is allowed first of all generally except as expressly provided. Then it is expressly barred again, except on valuation where there is an appeal under this Act. There appears to be no means of appeal provided for against a valuation on the occasion.
    I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether under the Act there is an opportunity for appeal. By Section 27 there is an appeal against the valuation on the periodic occasion, but I am referring to the valuation on the occasion referred to in this particular case. I ask how and when the Act provides for an appeal in that case. If there is no appeal, what happens? You have the whole thing hanging upon a provisional valuation. I admit that it may appear to be unnecessary, because the valuation on the occasion is fixed by the sale. Now the small owner, for the first time, becomes aware that he is liable to a heavy duty. A small owner is served with an original valuation, which is less than what he believes to be the value of his property. He cannot afford to employ a skilled professional adviser, and he is glad to accept an undervaluation because he believes it will involve a light tax. The sixty days are allowed to expire, and his opportunity for appeal is barred. Then the occasion arises when he sells the property at its real value. This process of valuation is gone through, and a heavy and obviously unjust, and I believe illegal, claim is made against him. But he has absolutely no opportunity for appeal as far as I can see. The Act is extraordinarily and very cunningly drawn so as to deprive the taxpayer of any opportunity of getting the case reviewed. I should have thought this was due to accident, but what makes me think it is not accident is the studied policy of the Valuation Department in not bringing doubtful points before the referee.
    I asked a question on the subject the other day in the House of Commons. I think I have a right to complain of the manner in which ques-
    1532
    tions are answered. I received from one of the most eminent valuers in the country a letter, in which he asked me to ascertain the opinion of the Department on certain points of obviously general importance. I think the Committee will allow me to state what the points were. I asked whether there is to be another computation for deduction of time, whether there was or was not to be a deduction for Land Tax, whether there was or was not to be. a deduction for roads, because a deduction had been refused on the ground that the soil of the road still belongs to the owner. That is a point I will not make any comment upon. The valuer also-pointed out in regard to the total value in the case of agricultural land, apart from buildings, that the authorities had one method of calculating site value, and exactly an opposite method in the case of land with buildings. I desired an answer upon all these points. The answer I received was that Commissioners of Inland Revenue have neither the wish nor the power to interfere when an occasion. arises in connection with the valuation of land in the decision of the referee or other legal tribunal under the provisions of the Finance Act. There was not even a word explaining on the part of the Department how it was necessary in the public interest that these points should be settled. I know for a fact that very long ago this particular valuer has on these very points appealed, and desired that the matter should be brought before the referee. But the Department hung up the question. None of these cases have been brought before the Referee, and the inference is quite obvious that the Commissioners are allowing the sixty days to run before anything is done. If you want any further proof of the policy of the Land Valuation Department we find it in the case to which I have referred just now. They are actually offering in order to keep a troublesome person quiet that they will refund the duty if he will accept the claim. They cannot go much further than that.
    What is the object of that? It is that there should be no public knowledge of the law, that the law should be kept obscure, and that the man who is taxed should not have any knowledge of what his real liability is, and that the large majority of people who are unable to take professional advice or who, for any other reason, are unable to fight all the details of this complicated legislation, by which they stand to suffer so much, should have

    1533
    these valuations fixed upon them upon a system which the Land Valuation Department have devised for themselves, and which I do not believe exists in the Act at all. I am sure that the House of Commons as regards these doubtful points, and they are many, which must arise under this Act, would agree that they should be at once referred by the Department to the Referees, and further that the right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking now when these points of law are decided that they should apply to all valuations, whether those valuations were nominally completed before the decision was given or whether they were not completed. It is obvious the real difficulty arises on the provisional valuation, and that the sixty days' limit within which the appeal against the original valuation is permissible is wholly insufficient. I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me an answer on that point now as to the sixty days, but I can raise it again on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when that happy day comes. But I hope before that day that he will represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gross hardship which is being imposed upon all property owners by that hard and fast sixty days' limit, after which no appeal is possible against an original valuation.
    You cannot really have a stronger case than that with which I opened my statement where you have what is obviously an inaccurate original valuation. I cannot really suppose that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that you can have a value of £58 on a piece of land in 1909, and that within twelve months that value has grown to £178, with no alteration in the circumstances whatever. It is, therefore, obvious what the Department require for this particular case, and it refers to thousands of other cases, is the removal of that bar of the sixty days to the review of an obviously inaccurate valuation. I come now to that question of the minus valuation in Scotland. How is the 10 per cent. allowed which is calculated upon a minus quantity? I have here a concrete case, in which the site value is fixed at minus £400. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question from me, stated that if an increment was revealed, Increment Value Duty would be charged. Let us, therefore, suppose that when the property passes the site value appears to be minus £200. Apparently there would be an increment of £200, for which the owner would be entitled to a reduction of 10 per cent.
    1534
    of minus £400. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how he will take off the 10 per cent. of minus £400. With reference to the number of valuations-taken which are now hung up, the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to give me to-morrow an answer to the question which I asked yesterday. I had hoped it might be available for the Debate to-day. The information I have got is that there are 17,000 cases of valuation at this moment awaiting adjudication.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman means valuations of real property?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Real property, freehold and leasehold.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Passing under the Bill itself?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, that is my information. There are 17,000 cases where, owing to the passing of property at death, a valuation of freehold or leasehold realty is required. Seventeen thousand of such cases are awaiting adjudication at this moment. An enormous inconvenience is being caused to the public, and the estates cannot be cleared. This matter has been referred to, attention has been called to it, and questions have been asked about it for a long time in this House, and I hope now that we shall be able to obtain from the Department a clear answer of how Increment Value Duty is going to be calculated on the occasion. I ask the Government to treat this matter seriously, because it is affecting the daily lives of large numbers of people, not only dukes, and not principally rich people; it is the poor man who is really affected by this tax. There is plenty of opportunity for those who have large incomes to get advice. So far as my experience goes, from what I have heard from others, I do not think that this Act has hit large landowners very hard, because it is rather difficult to do ft. You make a bad shot at the big landowners and you kill half a dozen of the little ones. That is exactly the policy which this Act is carrying out. On behalf of a very large number of small landowners who are vitally concerned in this matter, I would ask that this House-should carry out its responsibility, because this House has a responsibility, for its legislation, and that it should be made perfectly clear how these valuations are being levied, and that they should be levied on a fair basis and not on a fantastic

    1535
    basis, as was done in the cases which I have brought before the Committee.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman because I was not present at the opening of his observations, as he was so good as to give an intimation to the Attorney-General, which was passed on to me, that he proposed to raise matters which it might be proper for a law officer to go into in debate. So far as the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman relate to matters of administration, I will leave them to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) to deal with when he comes to take part in the Debate, but I am anxious in the plainest terms, and at once, to deal with the legal difficulties which he has suggested. First of fill, as to the right of appeal. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us of the opinion of the great and distinguished lawyer to whom he has referred, it is with more than usual fear and trembling that I venture to offer an opinion to a different effect.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We have not got a written opinion from that eminent counsel on this point, but only arising in consultation with him, that so far as he is able to discover there is no method of appeal.
    Sir J. SIMON: There is, at all events, a locus penitentiœ. As I understand, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is this; Although when the Budget was being discussed in this House, considerable time was given and considerable care was taken to providing machinery for appeal, the hon. Member thinks that there is a gap in the Act as regards the taxpayer desiring to challenge a provisional valuation of a site on the occasion.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is quite right.
    Sir J. SIMON: If this is so, it undoubtedly is not a case of deliberate omission, and it is one of those objections which so far as the Government are concerned we have no wish to leave uncorrected. But let us first see whether the difficulty really arises. I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he says that the language of these Sections in many cases is difficult and sometimes leads to genuine differences of opinion, and therefore I do not advance the view which I have formed in a dogmatic way. I suggest it for the consideration of the hon. Member. The Section under which this matter arises is Section 33. There can be no doubt that
    1536
    when one looks at the first words of that Section, the substantial object and intention of the Section is to give a man a chance of appeal to a referee before he is fixed with the duty which the authorities think would be right and fair. What I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest is that, though there is a general provision in the first words of the Section, he fears, and that the suggestion made by those who advise him is, that a man who challenges the site value which is put upon his land on an occasion is tied completely to this site value; and he thinks so, because of the proviso (b), that the original total value and the original site value and the site value as ascertained under any subsequent valuation shall be questioned only in the limited way set out in that proviso. The first two have nothing to do with it. The question is whether the third one is rightly construed as covering the case of site value on an occasion. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman my sincere view, although it is one that needs examination, that that may not be the necessary or indeed the proper construction of those words. I suggest so for two reasons. The first is that there is no difficulty in finding in the Act something else to which those words perfectly naturally refer. Section 28—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That deals with quinquennial valuations.
    Sir J. SIMON: With quinquennial valuation for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty. Nobody will doubt that site value as ascertained under any subsequent valuation will cover that case. Of course that does not prove it does not cover something else as well; but I do not think it does. I do not think if the true sense is given to the phrase "site value" in Section 33, that it does so. If you will turn to Section 25, which is a long section, almost the last words in that section contain the provision—
    "Any reference to site value (other than the reference to the site value of land on an occasion on which increment duty is to be collected) shall be deemed to be a reference to the assessable site value."
    This shows that assessable site value is the true meaning of the words "site value" in proviso (b) of Section 33. If owing to some mistake, there is no right of appeal in a case of that sort, no one will question that this was not intended or contemplated by those who framed the

    1537
    Act, nor was it contemplated or intended by those who criticised the Act. Consequently one would not wish to strain the construction in that respect. I do suggest that if those who take an interest in this matter will be so good as to refer to Section 28, they will find words which are "very properly applicable, and if they refer to Section 25, they will see there is good reason for supposing that it is really intended that there ought to be a right of appeal in this case where it is obviously needed. No doubt there are many cases in the Act of Parliament of great difficulty, and which offer very legitimate ground of dispute between lawyers on one side and the other, but I think I have at any rate shown that there is some right of appeal. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Pretyman) had a real desire to elucidate the matter, and I assure him that in my observations I have acted in exactly the same spirit.
    With the other matters to which reference has been made my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will deal. I, however, will venture to make one observation in regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the distinction which arises in working out the 10 per cent. rule on the increment value. The difficulty was put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a broad way. He put the case of two properties side by side, each of them worth originally £300. Each of them, as the result of the lapse of so many years, becomes worth £400. The hon. and gallant Gentleman criticised the working of the Act in the case of each of those properties starting at the same lower value and each of them ending at the same higher value. He pointed out that a deduction of 10 per cent. is allowed in the one case to a different amount from that which is allowed in the other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is much too clear-headed not to see why. He is perfectly entitled to criticise the method of making the allowance by percentage, but if you are going to adopt the percentage method it is a perfectly reasonable thing that there should be a difference in the result between the two cases, for this reason: The first case he puts is one where there are no buildings at all. It is simply a piece of land without buildings. He says, "Here is a piece of land which, when the Finance Act comes into force, is worth £300 site value; £300 represents the whole value, and, after five years, it is worth £400, the difference being £100. You do not exact the Increment Tax on the £100, because you first allow the tax-
    1538
    payer 10 per cent. Ten per cent. on what? Ten per cent. on £300, and that is £500. The reason we tax him on £70 is because the property was land as opposed to land covered with buildings to start with. The whole of the value of that land to start with was due to the land itself as opposed to any structure put upon it. We allow 10 per cent. on the £300 and we tax him on £70 because he starts with land worth £300, and is a recipient of £100 unearned increment, and we think it is fair to tax him on the £70. In the other case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put, the owner does not start with land worth £300; he starts with land worth £50, and, in five years, it increases to £150. We apply exactly the same rule to that. We do not tax the buildings upon that land; what we tax is increment in the land itself, whether it carries buildings or whether it does not, and we apply exactly the same principle in allowing 10 per cent. in regard to the increment value of the land, but not the increment value connected with the houses. Even though we tax the increment value of the land we do not proceed to tax it the moment it begins to grow, but we allow a certain percentage of growth before we begin to tax at all. It is surely quite right that the percentage should be applied in each case, not to the total of land and buildings, but to the value of the land. I am quite conscious that other points have been fairly raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think I need deal with them, as they more properly come, being matters of administration, within the province of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. CASSEL: I should like to say at once that I entirely agree with the view of the Solicitor-General on the question of appeal, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should go one step further, so that at all events, when this lady comes co make her appeal, neither he nor the Attorney-General will raise the argument in court that she has no right of appeal. I am not without justification in saying that, because in the case of the King v. Wrigglesworth a certain interpretation was put upon the Act by the Solicitor-General, but the Inland Revenue Department proceeded to exact the duty.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not the Solicitor-General referred to, but the Law Officer who gave the interpretation did so as one of the Ministers endeavouring to give his bonâ fide judgment as to what certain words, not in the Act

    1539
    of Parliament, but in the Bill which was under discussion at the time would accomplish. For that very reason when the mistake was discovered, care was taken in a practical way to see that it was corrected, and it was corrected by my right hon. Friend in the last Revenue Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: I agree it was not the present Solicitor-General who interpreted the Bill, but the House was guided in its adoption of the particular Clause by the view of the construction of the words raised by the Attorney-General upon that appeal. On that construction the Inland Revenue authorities at once proceeded and claimed duty. On this occasion, the Solicitor-General having informed us that there is a right of appeal, I ask that when this lady comes before the court she shall not be met by the technical objection that no appeal lies. I think it is fair to ask that no such objection should be taken on behalf of the Government.
    Sir J. SIMON: I would point out that what I stated was in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I suggested that an appeal would lie, and certainly, if the true view of the Statute was that there was no appeal, I think there would be the strongest possible case for having that corrected. If I am asked to express the view whether there is a right of appeal, I say yes, and to that view I hold until reason is shown that I should alter my opinion. If there should be any obstacle to this lady's right of appeal of course that would be a proper case to be met and dealt with.
    Mr. CASSEL: I agree that the argument of the Solicitor-General cannot of itself affect the matter, but I do say that this lady, after his interpretation of the Act, should not be allowed to go into court only to be met with the objection that she has not the right of appeal. She would be mulcted in the costs, after having been encouraged to proceed by the interpretation which has been given by the Solicitor-General. I wish to say a word upon the general question. We must assume to-day that it is right to tax increment in land. Starting upon that proposition, I must say that even the most extreme land-taxer— I mean those who would tax the land to the last ditch—would not wish that the Act should become a mere trap for the unwary, and that people should become subject to taxation simply because they do not know their rights. As a rule they would be poor people who had not the opportunity of
    1540
    taking advice on all the intricacies of the statute, and who would not know that they had incurred duties for increment where there had been no increment, but actually a decrement. If we are all agreed on that view, I think we shall be all agreed that this is an extremely hard case, and one which ought to be set right if it can possibly be set right. Let me recall to the right hon. Gentleman what the case really means. At the very time that the valuers were making their valuation of this property they had before them the statement that it had been sold in September, 1910,. for £500, and that in May, 1910, it had been valued at £500 for Estate Duty. Thus we have the valuation of 1910 of £500,. and an actual sale in 1910 for £500. Having both those facts before them they proceeded for some unknown reason to value the property at £380, knowing that the result of that must be to place an increment on £120 upon these ladies, on their own basis. Where the injustice of this comes in is that they knew at the moment they made the valuation of £380 that in May, 1910, it had been sold for £500. They sent it in to those ladies, who thought, having sold their property, that it did not matter to them. It was not an unnatural' mistake for ladies to make, or for a layman to make, and they did not bother themselves any more about it. They sent it to the purchaser, thinking it concerned him. The Inland Revenue authorities waited their sixty days, or exactly sixty-three days, until the opportunity for appealing against the original valuation was gone, and they sent in their claim as upon an increment of £120.
    If those ladies had not been ladies in poor circumstances, and if they had been solicitors or lawyers, it is inconceivable that they would have allowed that valuation to pass. If you are going to take advantage of a mistake, an obvious mistake, of that character, then I say it is a gross and monstrous injustice. If there are any possible means of putting it right, even if it necessitated a special Clause in the Finance Bill, I think the Inland Revenue Authority and the Government ought to put it right, or ought to refund' the amount to those ladies. What is the result? They have valued for the site value at £58, and the duty which becomes payable, simply by a mistake, is £22, or 40 per cent. of the capital of the whole site value. That produces the absurd result that this property has trebled in value in the course of the year, while there is not a vestage of reason shown for

    1541
    any increase in value at all. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen who hold even the most extreme views as to Land Value Taxation. I am sure those Gentlemen do not wish the Revenue to profit by the mistake of those ladies, and that they do not wish to get a tax upon a supposed increment where obviously there has been no increment. So far as I can see the only way you could remedy the matter, and I am doubtful if it could be done in that way, is to extend the sixty days. I am not quite sure whether you could extend the sixty days after the occasion has arisen. If there is a means of doing so surely the very least the Government can do is to give the ladies the fullest opportunity of testing the valuation. That is only one instance, and the fact is that this Act is full of traps and pitfalls for the unwary. What you are going to do is to tax not only real increment but all sorts of artificial increment which you manufacture by algebraical formula which leads you to minus quantities. Those minus quantities show the absurdity of this hopeless business of acting upon algebraical formula.
    Mr. WEDGWOODmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. CASSEL: Minus quantities have arisen in very large numbers indeed, and the very fact that they do arise shows the absurdity of the principle of mere algebraical formula which leads you to a minus quantity for the value of land which everybody knows is worth something. The idea, as was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman), that you are going to tax a man on the difference between minus 400 and minus 200 and then arrive at 10 per cent. on that minus quantity is an absolute reductio ad absurdum of the principle by which you arrive at these results. Let me give one other case generally on the question of principle. You are going to manufacture any amount of artificial increment by comparing unlikely units. Take the case, and it is a constantly occurring case, of a plot of land which the owner contemplates developing, and which he may develop in the course of ten, or twenty, or thirty years. He divides it into plots for the purpose of valuation. Those plots are valued separately so that the back portions are valued as back lands without any access by road at all. The value of the plots separately gives you a much lower valuation than if you valued as a whole.
    1542
    Then, having the separate valuation, suppose the man dies. You then have an assessment for Estate Duty of the whole plot, and you get an increment on property which has remained exactly the same, which is the most ludicrous and absurd result. I am not dealing with the case which was met by the Revenue Act, which disposed of a certain hardship, but of the case where you begin the valuation in separate plots and then as a whole on the occasion of either death or sale. It makes all the difference in the valuation by the unit on which it is based. Why should a man have to pay a tax because a different unit has been taken and when you are not comparing like with like?
    Let me refer to the extraordinary way in which the Department have thought themselves at liberty to depart from the words of the Statute itself, and to make upon the subjects all sorts of claims, threatening pains and penalties, and the claims which are absolutely unfounded by the Statute, and let me refer to the means which they have taken and the devices to which they have resorted in order to prevent these questions being decided in the courts. Take the case of Form No. IV. A large number of people thought that that Form was altogether illegal, and, according to most recent decisions, inferentially it is. It was absolutely unwarranted under the Statute which the Government themselves passed in making demands upon millions and millions of subjects and threatening them with pains and penalties all over the country. Certain landowners thought it was fair to have this question decided for the people, and that the people generally should be guided by a declaration of the courts. They go to the courts for a declaration. What do the Government do? One would have thought that as this was an advantageous thing for the country to have decided that the Government would have been glad to have accepted a means of testing whether their action was legitimate or not. Not a bit of it. They set up the plea that you could not have a declaration against the Crown, and they went to the Court of Appeal, which consisted of the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton, and Lord Justice Farwell. All those judges concurred in giving a strong decision that the course which the Government was taking in trying to prevent a decision from being given was absolutely unjustifiable, and that they ought to allow the

    1543
    matter to be decided. Lord Justice Far-well said:—
    "There was no substance in the apprehension, but if inconvenience was a legitimate consideration at all, the convenience in the public interest was all in favour of providing a speedy and easy access to the courts for any of His Majesty's subjects who had any real cause of complaint against the exercise of statutory powers by Government Departments and Government officials, having regard to their growing tendency to claim the right to act without regard to legal principle and without appeal to any court."
    They did not resist a declaration any longer, and it was held on Form VIII. that it was illegal and that they were asking all sorts of things which they had no right to demand from the subject. I do say to the House that this is becoming a serious matter. I think it is a matter on which the whole House can agree and that is that this is a sort of intricate statute which ought not to be made a trap for ignorant and unwary people, and also that the Government Department ought not to exceed the functions which are given to it under the statute, and ought not to threaten people, unless they comply with their requirements, with all sorts of penalties, and then when the question comes before the court use every technicality in their power to prevent the courts giving a decision on that particular point.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I rise because of the appeal of the hon. Member to hon. Members on this side who are more particularly interested in the taxation of land values. The hon. Gentleman correctly interpreted our feelings when he says we agree with him and those with whom he is associated in so far that we have no desire that any person under this Act should pay anything except upon land value, and in so far as under any wrong administration it can be shown that any person is paying on. improvement or buildings of any sort or on increment otherwise than land value then we are perfectly prepared to associate ourselves with the hon. Gentleman to secure reform. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has stated this afternoon, and, indeed, has consistently stated throughout these Debates, that in his view no alteration in administration can put this matter right, and that as a matter of fact in his view no alteration by Statute which recognises the existence of land value would put this matter right. His view is that land value is a myth. I took the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who stated that "land value was a Mrs. Harris."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I said site value as referred to in this Act.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman draws some distinction between land value and site value, but it does not appear to me very material. In the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view site value is a pure myth, and does not exist. He has stated so, and his illustrations are illustrations to show that when you are dealing with a composite value, of land and buildings together, it passes the wit of man to discover what value appertains to the buildings and what value appertains to the site. I believe the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that nothing will be satisfactory, except the total and immediate repeal of the Land Taxes. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is not here now, because I intended to make an appeal to the responsible Leaders of the Opposition, and to ask them whether they associate themselves with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is what the hon. Member is not entitled to do. He is only entitled to deal with the administration, and not with the wisdom or unwisdom of legislation on this subject.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I defer to your ruling. But I may be permitted to say that I was at any rate addressing myself to arguments which were adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am sure you will allow me to say that so far as those with whom I am associated are concerned we speak for the rank and file of the Liberal and Labour parties on this question. I say this because I judge by the response we received for the memorial we recently presented to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was signed by 173 Members on this side of the House. The appeal which we made was that the Government ought to endeavour to deal not merely with the grievances of a few persons, but that the Government ought to expedite the valuation so far as possible. It will be most satisfactory if we secure the reforms necessary after the valuation has been expedited. I take it that it will not be in order to show that the hon. and gallant Member's statement makes out that the administration of this Act is falling almost entirely upon the poorer people, and is not hitting the large landowners of this country. I am glad to have that admission, but what

    1545
    a lurid light this statement throws upon the action of the 5,000 men who own half of the land in this country; who in the House of Lords declared they would be brought to absolute ruin if the Budget passed; who have been discharging their gamekeepers and giving as an excuse this Land Tax; who have been denying old age pensions to their workpeople; and who have been refusing to subscribe for the purpose—
    The CHAIRMAN: This is quite beyond all that is permissible in this Debate.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I thought I was addressing myself directly to the arguments which have been laid before us by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At any rate I desire, on behalf of those with whom I am associated, to say, that our view is that the action of the Government is open only to this criticism: that the valuation is proceeding far too slowly, and that it is desirable it should be expedited as far as possible. I do make an appeal to the Government to do all that in them lies to expedite the valuation. So far as these hard cases are concerned, I have only to say that since I have been a Member of this House I have listened, on every opportunity, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has brought these cases before us. They have, as a rule, been a stage army. We had the case from Aberdare brought before us four times. There was another similar case which was a matter of Debate in this House. Half-a-dozen cases were brought before us by the hon. and gallant Gentleman one after another. It was shown there was no basis for any reasonable complaint with regard to these cases, and they have vanished like the baseless fabric of a dream and left not a wrack behind. We have these new cases this afternoon, and I have again listened with interest to what the Secretary of the Treasury has to say regarding them. They will probably be found equally as easy of explanation as the cases which have preceded them. I do think what afflicts the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not the wrongs of these few people. He is a determined opponent, in the interests of the great landowners, of the liability which this Act places upon them. I think it is a small beginning, and which I hope we will be able to carry it forward.
    Mr. NEWMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement dealt shortly with the Land Value Duties. One of the few sentences he did say has caused
    1546
    a little anxiety up and down this country. This year he told us he hoped to complete the valuation of most of the urban sites, and to collect the Land Duty, which would produce £200,000 this year. Let me give an example in the Division I represent. I suppose there is not a single acre there which has not got a value apart from agricultural value, but I do not wish to suggest it is built over. Twelve miles from where I stand to-day there is land which is hunted over during the winter. I was standing watching a cricket match. I spoke to the owner of the land. I said, "You have got this cricket pitch; you will not be charged duty on it. What about the land all around? It has got a building value." The owner said, "I gave £115 an acre for this land, and if I were willing to sell for £115 an acre I could not get it." That gentleman has got to pay Undeveloped Land Duty. I wish also to deal with another class—the market gardeners. In the majority of instances these men own their own land. If I can make anything of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, these men are going to be charged in the near future a tax of 4s. an acre in the year. Are they going to be served not only with the taxation for this year, but last year and the year before. The gardeners asked me, and I am asking the House, is it fair that these men should have to bear this extra taxation at all? These market gardeners have not a monopoly, or something in the nature of a trust, and they do not hold up the price of bread. If they did, it might be right to tax these men. Or, again, suppose they were concerned in getting extra large prices for land by holding up land and preventing building on it. It might then be right to tax them. But they are not.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is talking about legislation. He must confine himself to administration.
    Mr. NEWMAN: At any rate, here we have an industry skilfully conducted by men, the bulk of whom have bought their land at more than agricultural value. If they have to sell, they will sell at a loss. Let me go on to another question. I desire to ask His Majesty's Government a few questions about the simplest Clause in this great Land Act—Section 26. It announces that all land shall be valued. As far as England goes, and Scotland, and Wales, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said his great work had been completed. I asked the Secretary of the Treasury how many

    1547
    Form IV.'s had been issued in respect of England, and the answer was something over 10,000,000, and that 91 per cent. had been filled up by the owners. We are also aware that a great number of provisional valuations have been served on owners as the result of filling up Form IV. In many cases those provisional valuations have been accepted, and in others they have been disagreed to. At any rate, the first stage of the valuation is completed. But what about Ireland?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARYto the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I submit that there is nothing in this Vote to cover valuation in Ireland.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is so that question cannot be discussed.
    Mr. CASSEL: Cannot the whole question of land valuation be discussed on this Vote?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is a separate item for land valuation in the general Irish Vote.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Would not my hon. Friend be justified in calling attention to the method of valuation in England, and, without going into detail, contrasting it with what is occurring in Ireland? It is desirable that such a comparison should be made.
    The CHAIRMAN: A contrast between the two methods, if not carried into too great detail, would not be out of order.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I submit that, although a comparison might not be out of order, I am clearly precluded from replying to any question as to what is happening in Ireland, because of the absence of any provision for Ireland in this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me under what Vote Irish valuation comes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the general Irish Vote there is a separate item, for the chief valuer and his staff in Ireland. That item is under the control, not of the Inland Revenue Department, but of the Treasury.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Surely I might discuss shortly the difference between the methods of valuation in Ireland and in England.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I submit that the hon. Member cannot go in detail into
    1548
    the question of valuation in Ireland on this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: I see that there is a separate item for "Valuation under the Finance Act, 1909–10" in the Irish Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that he is not responsible on this Vote for valuation in Ireland, I must rule the question out of order.
    Mr. NEWMAN: It is a fact that offices have been opened in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast to start the valuation under this particular Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: If it is not possible to make a comparison between the Irish and English methods on the English Vote, it will also be impossible to do so on the Irish Vote; so that apparently there will never be an opportunity to make such a comparison.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not dealing with the mere question of comparison. If the Irish valuation is paid for under another Vote, it must be discussed there.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood you to rule that the question might be referred to by way of comparison, although the details could not be gone into. It seems very desirable for purposes of comparison that it should be in order to mention that the Irish valuation is carried out on a different principle from that which obtains in England, in order to justify the criticism of the procedure of the Inland Revenue authorities here.
    The CHAIRMAN: A passing reference as matter of argument is certainly not out of order.
    Mr. NEWMAN: In Ireland the Act came into force on 30th April, 1909. It is impossible for anybody to say that since 1909 no houses or land have changed hands in Ireland. They have changed hands freely, and at fairly good prices. Has any Increment Duty or Reversion Duty been collected in respect of those sales or changes? The other day I received a letter from a solicitor in Dublin, in which he said:—
    "I know as a matter of fact the valuer has been engaged in Dublin and district, as he was with me in relation to several estates I am concerned in, but I have not received any official valuation yet. I have had several cases in Dublin and its vicinity where property has changed hands in the last two years. I have had transactions of that description at least once a month, and in no case has the valuation been made respecting Increment or Reversion Duty. Of course, in all these cases the particulars required by Form IV. have been required to be given, but as I have said no assessment for Increment or Reversion Duty has been issued."

    1549
    In reply to a question of mine a few weeks ago, the Secretary to the Treasury stated that 20,000 Irish Form IV.'s have been issued, but that none had been issued in respect to agricultural districts.
    The CHAIRMAN: This seems to be going into the Irish case, which is not in order on this Vote.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Then I will raise the question on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when I daresay I shall be in order. I must apologise for the trouble I have given you.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: We in this quarter of the House sympathise to some extent with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) in the hard cases he brings forward. I would point out to him, however, that all these difficulties have arisen simply and solely because he induced the Government to make the valuation a Government valuation instead of a landlord's valuation. If the Budget of 1909 had gone through as it was originally introduced, the valuation being made by the landlords, as it is in Australia and other civilised countries, the hon. Member would not have had all these grievances to bring forward. We would judge him far more leniently than we do at present if we believed he was really anxious to do away with these anomalies and hard cases. I have a proposition to make to the hon. Member, with which I should like the Government to fall into line. The Budget of 1909–10 passed under circumstances of great difficulty, and in the form in which it emerged from those long Debates, it undoubtedly puts before the country an extremely complicated valuation. Original site value, assessable site value, total value—all these different values undoubtedly complicate very seriously what ought to be a perfectly simple matter. Would it not be possible in next year's Finance Bill to introduce Clauses revising the valuation under the Budget of 1909–10, so as to make that valuation far more simple and efficacious, so far as both sides are concerned? We hate these hard cases just as much as the Opposition do, and we can put them right if we are allowed to get the valuation on a sound basis. I know that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman) is as earnest on this question as I am. What I would like to do would be to meet him, with some other Members from that side, and some of my hon. Friends, and with the Treasury officials go through the Budget of 1909–10—
    The CHAIRMAN: That question can hardly be dealt with now, as it is a matter for legislation.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am merely pointing out that the difficult cases which have been brought forward could be put right to the perfect satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, of hon. Members on this side, of the Government, and of the country at large. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether some such small sub-committee could not be formed, with the honest intention of improving the present state of affairs and of drafting Clauses which might obviate our having this constant procession of really hard cases. I agree that they are hard cases. I should like the Land Union and my hon. Friends to meet together to deal with the matter.
    The next point I wish to deal with in the administration of the Act is that we really must have the valuation made more quickly. It was said, I believe by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the valuation would take five years. Five years is an intolerably long time for us to wait. I am afraid that the Government are not really in earnest in trying to get the valuation done more quickly. I have been told over and over again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury that they have all the valuers in the country, and that they could not do it more quickly if they wanted to. That is absolutely not true; they could get more valuers if they wanted them. It may have been true a year ago, but now it is perfectly possible to increase the staff and to get the valuation done far more quickly. We want this valuation, but I am afraid the Government do not. They know perfectly well that, when the valuation is made, we shall force them to tax and rate land values whether they like it or not. Our business now is to see that the valuation is done as quickly as possible, and that the Government do not invent difficulties and put them in its way. As far as I can see the valuation is being done extremely well. It may be necessary to take sample acres of agricultural land and to find the average number of trees, but I am convinced that there are far more difficulties introduced simply through the unnecessary complication of the Finance Act of 1909–10. All these questions of stripping agricultural land of fruit trees and things growing on the land are quite unnecessary complications which we can eliminate in next year's Finance Bill. By

    1551
    that means and by enlarging the staff of valuers we can hasten the valuation and do something to bring Liberalism in this House more into line with Liberalism in the country.
    Mr. BOYTON: Hon. Members opposite who have spoken seem to lament that the valuation has not proceeded more quickly. I think they make a charge against the administration, but the administration are doing their very best to deal with a very great and very complex question.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I never said they were not. I said we wanted more valuers.
    Mr. BOYTON: Those whom the Government have seen fit to appoint must have had their hands very full, for they have not only to deal with Increment Duty and Reversion Duty, but also with the Death Duties and valuations under the Licensing Act, so that they have their hands exceedingly full. Of course their task must be a difficult one, because as has been brought out this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, the valuation of site values is a very difficult thing. It is putting up hypothetical cases. There is a very prominent London official who gave evidence a few years ago before the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Land Values. In that evidence he said:—
    "On the lines proposed for the new street—from the Strand to Holborn —the first time I went over that property for the purpose of making an estimate of the cost for acquiring the property we required for the street, it took me between four and five days. The last time I revised my figures I was able to do it almost within the day. I only had to go on the second morning for a couple of hours,"
    I am afraid the officers entrusted with the administration of the Act have found that their work is very difficult indeed. If we go back to that section of the metropolis with which the official that I referred to was then dealing what do we find? There is a building called the Gaiety Restaurant, which was leased for £6,000 ground rent not long ago. Over £100,000 has been spent upon the building. As an example of how difficult it must be, how very hypothetical it must be, to put a value upon any site in particular, you can now have that building for the amount of the ground rent. The London County Council, to whom the building has gone back—they being the owners of the land—would willingly let you the building and the site for about £6,000. That shows the difficulty of making an actual site valuation. These site valuations are hypothetical; they are
    1552
    based on one's experience, and on market value, but they should not be a basis for taxation.
    In this London of ours there are in single streets different values. In one case, in one particular house, the ground rent is 6d. per foot. A few yards further on the ground rent is 5s. The differences are thus enormous, and does entitle to the consideration of the House anyone engaged in working out this very complex question. I am surprised at the impatience of some hon. Members of this House at the speed with which the valuation is proceeding. There must be many millions of valuations to make. Some six weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) said that up to that date 380,000 valuations had been made. I do not suppose that in the six weeks ensuing they have gone on at a faster rate. Suppose the total is now between 400,000 and 500,000, it is very evident that the total valuations of this country cannot be made within the five years foreshadowed. If they could be made within the five years it would be a very wonderful work. I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite should be so impatient. If he wants to get a valuation to entitle him to another basis of taxation he will not get it for a long time. He must possess his soul in patience. The officers are doing their duty. They are getting through a difficult job as quickly as possible.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I think everyone who has had any experience of the working of this Act must agree that it is not altogether fair, not indeed at all fair, that the valuers should be blamed for their work, because everybody must see that they must be intensely overworked. I remember a gentleman who was appointed, and who, although appointed, subsequently declined to take up the job, because, as he told me, it was pointed out to him that he would be expected to make hundreds of valuations a week. Everyone knows that work at that pace does not lead to good work, and is not likely to give satisfactory results. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that the valuers are doing their best, and are struggling as best they may with a very difficult situation. They are being asked to do an impossible thing. It is not fair to ask a man to do an impossible thing and then to blame him if he cannot carry it out. I do not propose to deal with the cases which have been freely dealt with as to under-valuation. I hope in this matter that when the Finan-

    1553
    cial Secretary replies that he will be able to give us some explanation. I hope also that he will deal with the case in which the Government raises the valuation from £20,000 to £40,000. I would like to deal with another case. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the names and other particulars if he wants them, but the question is one of interpretation of the Act. In this case four cottages were left by a man who died intestate. He intended, it appears, to leave them to four different persons, to two brothers and two sisters—nephews and nieces. It was desired by the heir, one of the nephews, who was only a poor labourer and in weak health, to pass on the property, so as to carry out the original intention of his uncle. The cottages were valued at from £60 to £48 each. A conveyance was made, and the Stamp Duty calculated at 10s. in each case, or Stamp Duty on a value of £100 was paid, so as to be absolutely clear and cover the amount. This was paid at the local post office.
    The post office returned the document, and stated that an adjudication fee of 5s. was required. Complaint was made. The solicitors concerned inquired whether Section 74 Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, which is presumably the only applicable Section, was the Section relied upon by the Inland Revenue officials. It was pointed out that in this particular case not only was the property subject to Death Duties, full ad valorem Stamp Duty, but also the additional adjudication fee of 5s. They pointed out. that they could not think that what had been done was the intention of the Act, but the words—
    "No such conveyance or transfer shall be deemed to be duly stamped unless the Commissioners have expressed their opinion thereon in accordance with that Section…. "—
    appeared to make it obligatory; but they suggested that any such adjudication should be carried out by the authorities without any fee.
    The extraordinary answer they got was this:—
    "The Board cannot waive the fee of 6s. if the documents are forwarded through the post. But I am to point out that no fee would be charged if the documents were submitted for adjudication through a London agent on your behalf."
    The local solicitor sent to the London agents, who happened to be able to attend to this matter. There has been much correspondence—this matter began in February—but up to now no decision has been
    1554
    arrived at, and this conveyance cannot be carried out. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is a hard case, and one that ought to be put right. We ought to know whether, under that Section of the Act, the Board are justified in demanding a fee of that kind.
    One more point, and that is in reference to a question which I asked in this House not very long ago. I refer to the payment of Undeveloped Land Duty. In cases where the owner has not had time to give notice to the tenant he is not liable for Undeveloped Land Duty. But I have come across cases in which this has been demanded, and I asked in this House in how many cases such demands for Undeveloped Land Duty have been made, and in how many cases the demand has been withdrawn! In a particular case which I know about the demand was made for the years 1909–10 and 1910–11. As a matter of fact, the owner, aware that it was not due till the year 1911–12, wrote and pointed out in reply to a peremptory demand for payment by the Commissioners, that he was not liable under the Act. The Commissioners promptly withdrew the demand. In how many cases, I asked, had this been done? The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that in no less than 153 cases such demands had been withdrawn. That means that in no less than 153 cases, and I do not know how many others, 153 actually proved cases, a, totally illegal demand has been made, and because the owner happened to know enough about the law to withstand the demand, it was withdrawn. I asked a question as to what happened in the cases where payment has been made, what the Chancellor intended to do with the matter, and the reply was that upon the true facts being established satisfactorily, the money thus paid will be refunded. But the position rests this way: that if the Commissioners make a distinctly illegal demand it rests upon the owner to prove to their satisfaction that it is illegal. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse, putting things the wrong way round, for the party not in fault to prove to the party who has sinned that he has been unfairly treated, and that no expense should be cast upon the Commissioners, in view of the actual mistake they themselves have made? In view of the fact that so very many holders of property are not aware of the operation and details, or the effects of the various provisions of the Act, I think it must be obvious to everybody that 153 is not the

    1555
    total number of cases which have occurred. It is perfectly obvious there must be a great many more, and although I welcome the assurance which the Chancellor gave that in cases where it was proved that an unfair demand was made the money would be repaid, I think it is very unsatisfactory that such methods should be pursued, and I think great care ought to be exercised in making these demands, some of which have been proved to be absolutely illegal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us further assurance in the matter of minus valuation. He knows what it is, and I hope he will give a full explanation for the benefit especially of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I know all about it.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Gentleman, by his interruption of a previous speaker, implied that he did not know anything about it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will point out that it is a real and distinct class of case, and that it will have to be dealt with, and that these cases of actual minus valuation, which must occur, will be dealt with when they arise.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In answering the questions addressed to me in the course of this Debate I hope to show to the satisfaction of the Committee that the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite have been somewhat exaggerated. I think in the working of any new Act, especially such a large and complex one as the Finance Act of 1909–10, there must always arise some misunderstanding and mistakes. These misunderstandings and mistakes on the part of the Department dealing with the Act should, of course, be as few as possible; but I think it is only natural that some should be made by persons who are carrying on new duties, and it is not unnatural that complaints should be made and letters written to hon. Members of this House with a view to getting rid of these mistakes in order to remove all unnecessary hardship. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite brought a specific case, which he dealt with at great length, to the notice of the House at the beginning of the year. He told the House then as he told the House to-day, that there were thousands of cases exactly similar to the one which he mentioned.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: What I said was there were thousands and tens of thousands of
    1556
    cases under valuation. I said in these cases the claim was made. I said in thousands of cases the same issue was raised.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think I misrepresented the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He suggested that there were tens of thousands of cases in which the Inland Revenue had acted in such a way as to prejudicially affect the taxpayer; that was his general statement. We have had 800,000 valuations, and there have been but 100 appeals. There may, of course, be some more before all these provisional valuations become final, and I must frankly say to the Committee, I cannot at the present moment say how many of these 800,000 provisional valuations have actually become final.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: In how many cases have refunds taken place?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say offhand, but I will make inquiry.
    Mr. BOYTON: The right hon. Gentleman said something like 800,000 valuations had taken place. It will be within the memory of the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some weeks ago there were 380,000 valuations. That implies that 50,000 per week have taken place since then.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I noticed the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman and I referred to my expert advisers, and they can trace no record of any such figure as that which the hon. Gentleman quoted.
    Mr. BOYTON: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say so.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Hon. Members behind me rather suggested that the Government ought to expedite the valuation of land at a greater pace than at the present moment. In the course of the present year we have increased the staff of valuers by 187, and we have increased the clerical staff by 360 clerks. That is a very large addition to the valuation staff, and it will enable us to fulfil the promise, about which a great many Members on both sides of the House are very sceptical, of getting the valuation through in five years.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is that three-and-a-half years from now?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, in five years from the time when the Act came into operation. That will enable us to redeem that promise, and that period of five years will also bring us into the quinquennial

    1557
    period, when a re-valuation is to take place. I hope, therefore, that the whole Committee will be satisfied that the Government are keeping their pledges in that matter, and that the promise we made to the House as to the ultimate total valuation in this country will be completed in the time which we stated. There is only one other point to which I might refer on this particular question, and that is the question raised by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Yorkshire when he said that the cost of valuation was swamping the result. That is not so, for not only can the valuation staff of the Inland Revenue Department be used for the purposes of the Land Taxes, but that staff can also be used for the purpose of valuing for Death Duties, and the result is that in one particular case mentioned in this House a week or a fortnight ago an estate that was valued for Death Duties was found to be, and was admitted to be by the trustees of the estate, twice, or nearly twice, what it was as put in by the executors of the estate first of all, and a substantial sum has been realised by the Treasury for Death Duties, quite apart from these Land Taxes, which would justify the appointment of very much more experts on the staff than we had in times past.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Essex began by asking how the Finance Act of 1909–10 was being administered; and he went on to ask us whether he could have an assurance that the valuation should be conducted by official valuers on fair and reasonable terms. Well, in order that we may reassure him upon that point I promise to give the Committee a copy of the instructions which were given to the valuers of the Department when the cases arise in which they are called upon to act. I hope that will satisfy the demand of the Committee that while we do desire to exact all the Act entitles us to legally and rightly we do not desire to go beyond that by one single halfpenny. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to deal more particularly with the Richmond case, and as that was the case upon which he based the greater part of his criticisms of the Inland Revenue perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I refer to it in detail. Quite apart from the question of site value, which is under appeal at the present moment, I think I can satisfy hon. Gentlemen that the Department have acted fairly in their valuation.
    1558
    I think we are on common ground that the property in question was Richmond, Yorkshire. The gross annual value of the property, which was stated on Form IV., was rendered by one of the vendors as £22 a year. The deduction made for rates and insurance came to £2 10s. There was rent paid to an adjacent landlord for the right of way through a back yard £1, and the total deduction, therefore, was £3 10s., and the net annual value £18 10s. That was capitalised at 5 per cent. on twenty years valuation' which brought the amount to £370. In addition, there was a stretch of the property, which I think in that part of the world is called a moor, and that was valued at £10, bringing the total value of the property to £380. That is the sum of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complains. I do not think that, looking at these items of the valuation, that it can be claimed that they were unfairly valued.
    Mr. CASSEL: Did he appeal?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite if injustice is done we are not going to stand at this box and defend it. I am desirous of getting the full value for the Government and nothing more. We arrive, therefore, at the total value of £380; It is perfectly true that this property was sold for £500. There is no question about that. The district valuer has not only stated what, in his opinion, the value of the property was, but I am informed that, subsequent to the valuation by him of the property, the person who bought it for £500 had an independent valuation made for the purpose of raising a mortgage upon it, and that that independent valuation also worked out at £380. What is the explanation of the difference between the £500 and the £380? I am informed that the difference between these two sums—£120—is due to the fact that the person who bought for the sum of £500 was tenant of the business which was being carried on there. To that person, for the purpose of his particular business, there was the difference between the valuation which was arrived at by an independent valuation for other purposes.
    Mr. CAVE: But that is not increment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am explaining the reasons why this took place, and inasmuch as the question of what is the site value is still sub judice, I do not propose to deal with it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of the site value on the 30th April, 1909, is not sub judice, neither is it subject to appeal. The only matter which can be the subject of an appeal is the question of the value on the occasion. That has been appealed against. The matter of the original valuation is the subject of free debate and is not under appeal at all.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite agree. I am sorry I made a mistake. I am informed that the reason of the difference between £58 on the 30th April and the present £178 is that having regard to the dilapidated condition of the premises and other inconvenient circumstances, there was a far less value on that date, that is on the 30th April, 1909, than may be attributed to the site at the present time.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That was for the Death Duties.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The valuation of land for the purpose of land tax valuation and the Death Duties are done by different Departments, and they are not always cognisant of the multitude of cases arising. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) laughs and appears very much amused at my statement. I said this had been used for certain purposes in the case of the Death Duties, but it does not follow that every case is known in each of the two Departments. There has been a valuation of £380; £500 was based upon the Death Duties and was accepted for this purpose. We are quite willing to refund anything to the person who paid £500 if the £380 valuation stands good. We are prepared to accept the same valuation as that which was put upon it for other purposes. I do not know whether that is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I think it is an act of justice which ought to be done, and therefore we propose to carry it out. With regard to the Scotch case which the hon. Gentleman brought to the notice of the Committee, he omitted to say that in the case of the valuation of £25,000 and the valuation for £45,000 they applied to different areas and have reference to different circumstances. I am informed that there was an additional area brought in for the £45,000 valuation. If the hon. Member wishes I can give him some details on the subject. It appears that the amounts inserted in the amended valuation are not comparable because the original valuation was in respect of a net area estimated at 500 square
    1560
    yards, whereas for the purpose of the amended valuation a further area was taken into account which substantially altered the value of the property. The inclusion of this area—which was at the back and to the north of the main building which had been formally excluded—completely altered the character of the site and made a most important addition to the value of the building. The valuation of this particular property was made by a valuer who has undertaken valuation for the Department to the extent of many millions sterling, and so far as I know, he has never had his decisions questioned before. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), I have not got the facts before me, but if he will send them on to me I will communicate with him as soon as I have had time to make the necessary inquiries.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I especially said that I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to verify the details. All I wanted was an interpretation of the Act, and I wish to know whether the Act justified the fee being charged
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not really know the facts of the case. I certainly cannot, and will not, give an answer until I have had time to examine the case put before us from the other side. I have been asked a question as to the number of valuation cases which are outstanding, and the hon. Member who raised the point placed the number at 17,000. Approximately the hon. Member is correct, and I do not propose to challenge his figures. That, of course, is a very large number of cases, and the hon. Gentleman is rather derisive as to the number of outstanding cases. I regret it is so, but one of the factors which has made us increase the staff of the Valuation Department is that we desire to overtake the delay which exists in regard to these cases. We have now reduced that number, and, as far as we can see, we shall be able to work the number down to the ordinary average which existed before the Finance Act came into operation, which in the time when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, numbered something like 1,500 or 1,600 cases. I hope we may be able to get down to that figure without much delay. When you are working a new Act and creating a new staff, when you have to obtain a staff of experts in valuation which does not necessarily exist when the Act comes into operation;

    1561
    when you have to wait in this way, delay must occur which is regrettable, but which I agree it is the duty of the Department to overcome at the earliest possible moment.
    If we find it is necessary to employ more valuers for the purpose of expediting the work of valuation that will be done in the future. We have given a pledge as to the time in which the valuation shall be accomplished, and both on that account and on account of getting rid of the delay, I think it is better to be perfectly frank with the House, although it may cause a little laughter on the other side of the House, and state that we have endeavoured to overcome the difficulties which exist. Another hon. Member asked me a question with regard to site value. An hon. Member below the Gangway said these difficulties occur when there has been a fixed charge, such as a Feu Duty and a minus quantity. May I give a case which I hope will put clearly to the House how it is that a minus quantity can arise. Suppose you take a piece of land worth £100 and you erect upon it a building worth £500. I will assume that the fee farm rent or the Feu Duty is £10 a year. At twenty-five years' purchase that comes to £250. Now, if the fee farm rent was in existence before 30th April, 1909, its value has to be deducted in arriving at the total value. You have got a total value of £600, that is, £500 for the building and £100 for the land. From that you have to deduct the £250 I have mentioned.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the supposition is that somebody is renting a piece of land of the value of £100 at £10 a year.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The value of the land is £100.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And the assumption is that somebody is paying a Feu Duty of £10 a year for it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. I am taking an actual case, which I am informed has occurred.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am trying to understand the right hon. Gentleman's illustration. Does he mean that the value of the land subject to the duty, after allowing for the Feu Duty, is £100; or does he mean a piece of land, the total value of which is £100, and that he is able to find somebody willing to pay a Feu Duty of £10 for it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. The total therefore, is £600, the total value of the land is £100, and the value of the building £500. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is perfectly entitled to criticise rue, but perhaps for the purpose of my argument, he will accept my figure. I am endeavouring to explain how a minus value arises. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with my method, he has a perfect right to criticise me, but perhaps he will now allow me to explain how it arises. £600 is the total value. You have to deduct £250 from that, and that leaves £350. In arriving at the assessable site value, the difference between the gross and the full site value has to be taken into consideration, and has to be deducted. The deduction made for this purpose, the assessable site value, is equivalent to the value of the building, which is £500. You then get an assessable site value of £350, and this gives a minus value of £150. It may seem difficult to understand, but that is how you arrive at it. That being so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me how you deduct 10 per cent. from a minus value. You do not deduct it. You cannot deduct something from nothing. Therefore you do not deduct it at all, and the conundrum propounded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, never, in fact, need be answered, because it never arises.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That was not my conundrum. My conundrum was: How do you arrive at 10 per cent. of a minus quantity?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have just explained you do not arrive at it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then there is no allowance at all?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no deduction at all. I listened to all the hon. Gentleman's propositions. He may think some of my views are not sound, but perhaps he will permit me to add I think none of his are sound.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is all nothing but sound.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Somebody raised a question with regard to road surfaces. Let me say, if hereafter an appeal which has been raised, I think by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, goes against the view which the Department take, it would be to the disadvantage of persons in whose property road surfaces had been included that the effect of the judgment should be retrospective, because it would unques-

    1563
    tionably, I think, lower the value or would inflict an alteration upon them in respect of Increment Duty which they would not be willing to see done. Therefore, I think from their point of view the retrospective action of the judgment would not be desired. I hope I have dealt with all the points which have been raised, but, if I have not, another opportunity will occur, and I will then endeavour to do so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has the sincere commiseration of the House, and, if I may be permitted to go further and speculate on the state of his own mind, I think he feels he deserves it. No one who listened to him could help feeling he had a case he did not much like. He did his best for it, but the more he dealt with it the less good it seemed. I will not deal with the material with which the right hon. Gentleman has been supplied in order to illustrate the case of the minus value, but I venture to say the canny Scot who will deliberately undertake to pay a Feu Duty of £10 on land valued at £100 is only to be found in the valuation offices of the Treasury. What is of importance is not that very fantastical and absurd illustration, if I may say so without discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but the effect of these minus values and the position of the Treasury in regard to them upon the statutory rights of the taxpayer. It was clearly laid down in the Statute that when this tax was to be levied it should not be levied on the full amount of the increment, but that in each case an allowance of 10 per cent. should be made to the taxpayer free of the tax. Ten per cent. of the increment value was to go free of tax. We have it now that he and his advisers are unable to arrive at 10 per cent. of a minus value, and the taxpayer is to have no allowance made, in spite of the plain words of the Statute. Accordingly, if a taxpayer has land the site value of which, divested of its buildings, is worth less than nothing, in the terms of the Statute, and if it becomes thereafter slightly less unvaluable, still without having any positive value at all, not only is the unfortunate owner to pay an Increment Duty upon property which is worthless as shown by the Government valuation, and more than worthless, but he is not to have even that modicum of allowance made which Parliament intended to provide in all cases, and which would be his beyond the right of the Treasury to question if it was a valuable and not a
    1564
    worthless property that was being taxed. I really wish the right hon. Gentleman had not merely to explain his case to us in the House, but had to explain to enthusiastic audiences to whom at other times and in other places he expounded its virtues of what the Budget is like in its practical application to the affairs of poor people.
    The really serious question we have to discuss to-day is not anything that requires legislative action. It is the administrative action which has followed from the passing of the Budget. It would not be in order to discuss anything that requires legislative action, and, indeed, that is not now the most pressing matter. The Finance Act has become law, and the Budget is at work, and what is pressing is the way in which the interests of the individual taxpayer very largely—and especially poor people—are being dealt with under this Act. Anybody who listened to the specific cases brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend and then listened to the defence of the Secretary to the Treasury would know a man is no longer being taxed according to what he has or according to-the nature of his property, even bad as such a proposal as that would be; he is being taxed on a valuation, and that valuation has no relation at all either to the one or to the other. It is a purely arbitrary judgment of an official doing his best; it may be—doing his best certainly for his employers—which settles what is the tax which the individual taxpayer has to pay. Let us contrast the methods in the cases with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt. It seems to me the procedure which the valuers follow is the old rule, "Heads I win, tails you lose." The right hon. Gentleman submits to us a. defence of what is known as the Richmond case in Yorkshire. There you have a property valued for Death Duties and taxed for Death Duties at £500, and sold in the market at £500, both of those occasions being close to the original date for finding the gross value of the property for the purposes of the Finance Act. The Department, with the knowledge in their possession that they had taxed the estate as worth £500, deliberately put the valuation back to £380 in order to make another taxable value, and the right hon. Gentleman says this happens because one division of the Board of Inland Revenue does not know what the other division is doing. So upright, so honourable, and so careful are these people that their right hand does not know what their left hand does. The moment before the right hon. Gentleman

    1565
    was boasting that these land valuations, though they brought very little Land Tax, were exceedingly useful for Death Duties, because they enabled you to screw up the Death Duty valuation. Why docs not the branch of the Department which communicates this valuation for land purposes in order that Death Duty valuations may be checked carry out the opposite procedure as well. Why is this communication between different branches of the Department only possible when it is to the disadvantage of the taxpayer and not when it is in his favour.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must, in justice to the Department, point out a fallacy which, I think, underlies the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. What I intended to convey to the Committee, and what I hope I did convey, was that where the Department had reason to suppose a property was not valued up to its proper value for Death Duty purposes it had a Land Valuation Department, which it could send down, and which it did send down, to what I may call suspicious cases, with the result I have described to the Committee. But in cases where no attention had been drawn to the idea that there was any difference between the real value and the supposed value, there was no communication between the two Departments. I do not think that is an unreasonable attitude for the two Departments to maintain.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has greatly affected my case. I do not wish to defend the man who is under suspicion of making too low a valuation. I do not criticise the Department for examining his return closely, but I do say it is intolerable that two branches of one Department should communicate information from the one to the other when they think they can get more taxation out of somebody and not disclose information which is in their possession when it is a question, not of taxing anyone, but of protecting a man against unfair taxation demanded by one of those two Departments. Departments are run as a whole, and they have no right, having this information in their possession and having their attention called to it again and again, to act as though they did not know anything of the facts. They have no right to make a high valuation in one case and then in another case when their tax is dependent upon it to make a low valuation. What is the final explanation of the right hon.
    1566
    Gentleman of the difference between the price paid for the property, the price at which the property was taxed for Death Duties, and the price at which the Department have now valued it as on 30th April, 1909? His explanation is that, owing to the dilapidated condition of the buildings at that time, the site was actually worth; less than it was at the later date. The site value is the value of the land divested of buildings. If you have valuable buildings on it you divest the site of those buildings in order to arrive at the value of the site. Here the right hon. Gentleman gravely tells us the value of the site, denuded and divested of the buildings, is lowered by the fact that the buildings are in a dilapidated condition. It is nonsense, and whoever supplied him with that answer is not fit to be entrusted with the administration of these valuations or with the carrying into effect of the Finance Act, 1909–10.
    Let me go one step further. Observe that in that case, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in order to get the gross value, they do not inquire what the land had been sold for, and although they may know what it has been sold for they do not take it into account. In this case they went behind that information; they found out the rent paid, and worked out their figures accordingly. But they do not do it in every case, for when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the Scotch case, he admitted that they paid absolutely no attention to the rent. I must confess I cannot recognise the Scotch case as supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish we could cross-examine the valuation officer who supplied him with the brief from which he spoke. There were two properties situated within a few yards of each other in a leading street in one of the largest towns in Scotland. The site covered by buildings in each case was about the same area—in the case of one property it was 567 square yards, and in the case of the other 586 square yards. The cost of the buildings on the land was in one case about £9,000, and in the other about £11,000. One property was much more valuable than the other because it was a corner block with a large double frontage. The less valuable property had a small frontage running far back. The value of the corner block, including the buildings, was estimated at £65,000. The value of the other block was about £46,000. The rent in one case was about £3,500, and in the other about £2,500. Had the valuers on that occasion inquired about

    1567
    the rent and proceeded to make their estimate upon that basis they would not have fallen into the gross error they did. The two properties were valued by separate officers, and the result was that the higher figure was put upon the less valuable instead of upon the more valuable property. This is proof that these valuations are not matters of fact; they are imaginations, they are speculations; they are vagaries and fancies. The fate and fortune of the individual depends not on the property, but on the valuer whom the Government sends down to value it. One may get a fair valuation, but there are officers less skilled perhaps, and included in the several hundreds that the Government got together in haste and are going to discharge at leisure when it suits their purpose, who make a most unfair valuation. I say it is monstrous. Whatever be the intentions of Parliament with regard to the Finance Act of 1909-10, it certainly was not intended that the fate of any individual should be at the mercy of a valuation conducted in this manner. It really is a scandal that the right hon. Gentleman should have to stand at that table and give us these flimsy excuses. I should say no more if these valuations were merely grossly careless, but there is the fact that the error is always in favour of the Government. I do not observe that these errors occur against the Government and in favour of the individual; they are always in favour of the Government and against the individual. There is method in the madness of the valuation officers employed by the Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped he had answered all the questions put to him. I am afraid he has not. There was the question of the adjudication fee, raised by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire, which I confess seemed to me unintelligible, because in the case of some of these very small properties, fees amounting to double the Stamp Duty are to be paid if the documents are sent to the Inland Revenue through the post and are to be remitted if presented by an agent in London. That, I say, is an incomprehensible idea. But there was another very serious case—a Plymouth valuation affecting a nursing home, a charitable institution, which has no funds to enable it to fight law cases, and certainly should not be expected to waste its money on law expenses at all. What is the position in regard to that case dis-
    1568
    closed by the letter read by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman)? It so happens that owing to a bargain between the parties two people are interested in the amount of the increment. The solicitor for one of the parties has written that the officials have more than once offered, if the notice of objection were withdrawn and the Increment Value Duty paid, to advise the Commissioners to return to them their half of the duty as an act of grace. What does that mean? It means, if anything, an admission that the duty is not in equity payable; otherwise they would not offer to return it. But they do offer to return it if the appellants will consent not to go into court. Under those circumstances they would be allowed to get their half back, so that the Treasury might be allowed to retain the other half of the duty payable by somebody else. Thus the Commissioners are endeavouring to extract a duty which is not equitably due. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any reply on that case.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am sorry I missed it. The omission was not intentional.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was brought to the notice of the Government some months ago. It is a most serious case. All these things force one to the conclusion that this Act is being worked in a perfectly arbitrary way, that you are not being taxed by the law, but by officials; that you are not being treated according to a common standard which, whether it is a just one or not, has been established by Parliament, but that you are being taxed or not taxed at the arbitrary will of officials who interpret the Act as they please and dispense with it as they please. I think the Government ought, in the interests of the Department itself, to give an inquiry into the working of the Act, and allow a Committee of this House to examine the men engaged in carrying it out. Let us have an opportunity of finding out what are their methods, and let us cross-examine them upon them. The right hon. Gentleman tells the House, as if the mere mention of the fact would set the consciences of hon. Members at rest, that out of some 800,000 valuations there have only been 100 appeals, and therefore it is apparent there are not many who are suffering injustice. But how many people are there like the poor ladies of Richmond, with a total property of £500, and an annual income of £22 only between them, who get a notice relating to the property which they have already parted with, and

    1569
    who, being unskilled in the wiles of the lax collector, believe the demand must be met by the present owner of the property and so forego their right of appeal. We who are familiar with valuations know that as a general rule the lower the valuation the better, but under this Act for the first time the lower the valuation the more one will be hit when the moment comes for collecting the tax. That is a thing which poor people do not know. Rich men who can afford to employ advice do know it, and are protected by their legal advisers, and they also have a purse which will enable them to take the Inland Revenue authorities into court—where they are so reluctant to go. The poor man neither has the knowledge nor the money which will enable him to employ skilled advice, and, therefore, because there have only been 100 appeals in 800,000 valuations it does not necessarily follow that no injustice is being done. You cannot measure the amount of injustice which is being done by that means, especially as the injustice will only ripen gradually in years to come.
    How do the Inland Revenue authorities meet cases of injustice when brought before them? The right hon. Gentleman said to-day that the Treasury was willing to refund the excess Death Duty in the Richmond case if the new valuation were upheld. Yes, but they had, and I believe they still have the power, to give these ladies or their representative an opportunity of appealing against the original valuation which was allowed to go through by default, in ignorance of what it meant, and in ignorance on the part of the ladies of the fact that they were concerned in it at all. The Inland Revenue authorities definitely refuse to allow that opportunity to appeal, and, therefore, it is no good saying that they are behaving fairly under these circumstances, seeing that they are taking an unfair, harsh, and unconscionable advantage of the ignorance and helplessness of these poor women. We certainly ought to have an inquiry into the action of a Department in which such things are not only alleged but are proved to be true.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like to say a word about the Plymouth case. I find with regard to the offer supposed to have been made by the Commissioners that it is quite new not only to me and to my advisers, and they only heard of it about one o'clock today. I have already directed inquiry to be made into the facts. It has, of course, been quite impossible to ascertain them
    1570
    up to the present time, and, until the facts are disclosed, I do not see I can accept the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although I am quite sure it was made in good faith.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly the kind of answer we get. We bring forward cases in the course of debate, and are told that they will be inquired into. When the inquiry is made, and it is found that the facts stated are true, nothing happens, except that, perhaps, an attempt is made to justify them.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would like to ask whether any inquiry has been made at all by the right hon. Gentleman's Department into this Plymouth case, which I brought before the House on the 29th March last.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The case is entirely new to me, and I can only speak for myself in this matter. I have already given instructions that inquiry shall be made into it, and, until it is made, I think it is only fair to the Department that I should reserve my own judgment upon the facts.
    Mr. BOYTON: May I say, I have looked at the records of the House, and I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the number of valuations at 381,000.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are provisional valuations. Since then they have gone up to the number I have stated.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am a great supporter of the Increment Tax, but I do not think it is free from criticism if, as I understand, the Treasury propose to make the datum line a minus quantity. If they do that they are departing from the principle of an Increment Tax altogether. The basis of an Increment Tax is increment. The basis of this tax is decrement if you take the datum line as a minus quantity. I do not think my right hon. Friend quite understood the Scotch valuations. I have several of them here, and I will tell him exactly how it arises that there is a minus quantity. Ten or fifteen years ago a man. took a feu for which he paid, say, £10. Today the adjoining land, equally good, is only worth £5. The value of the land has gone down. If you add to that—and this is an extraordinary thing—the amount that he had expended on improvements you then get a minus quantity. I do not join with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) in blaming the valuers. They cannot help themselves. They must proceed according to the formula given in the Act, and this is

    1571
    the formula. Gross value, minus divested value, equals full site value. Then you have gross value minus deduction for fixed charges equals total value. Total value minus works executed equals assessable site value. The consequence is that if as I admit, it is the community that raises the value of any land, if my feu which I paid £10 for fifteen years ago is only worth £5 now, the community has not been busy enough except in knocking down my value. But to say to me that because I have lost that value you are going to make the datum line a minus quantity is a most unjust, a most unscientific, and an unheard of thing. Here is property which is not worth anything—which is worth £25 less than nothing—and if you sell it in the future for £10 or £100, more tax will be payable, not on the increment, but on the increment minus the decrement. That is a preposterous thing. Either my property is worth something, or it is worth nothing. It cannot be worth a minus quantity, and to deal with this justly you must begin at nothing. No one will complain if you begin at nothing.
    I am a good sound supporter of the Government, but I want things done honestly and justly. There is a case in Glasgow of a site value of a minus quantity of £400. The community has deteriorated it by £400—not the house, but the land. I sell it two or three years hence at a little rise—for £200 more than the present valuation. You come to me and say "you have made £200." I say "I have done nothing of the kind. I am still worth £200 less than nothing, and you are going to ask me to pay 20 per cent. upon that sum which is only getting me half-way to nothing." How can you say that man is earning increment when the assessable site value is still £200 less than nothing? Of course it is monstrous. With regard to valuation, I know what happens. Any amount of people came to me who feared that their valuation would be raised. I said, "Do not make any mistake, you must prevent them from making it too low." If the Government will say they will disregard minus quantities and start from a value of nothing I am content. That is what must have been meant when the Bill was before the House. I feel quite certain in my own mind that the intention was that any purchase within twenty years would be regarded, so much so, that in Form IV. you are asked to state whether the property has been bought or sold during the last twenty years. They
    1572
    do not take the slightest notice of that in the valuation. The right hon. Gentleman has said there were 800,000 valuations and only 100 appeals. But will he tell us how many of these provisional assessments were taken by the people to the assessor and complained of and adjusted and an addition agreed to? I believe there are very great numbers of cases of that kind. There must be any number of these minus valuations in England. In the whole of the suburbs of London twenty years ago ground leases were let at figures that cannot be got to-day, and there are houses by the thousand in nearly all the London suburbs which you can purchase at less money than the mortgage money, which does away with the site value altogether. It seems a very hard thing, and I press upon the Government to consider that it is a most unjust thing to say to a man, in effect, "You have lost on this property; the property is absolutely worthless. Nay more, it is a minus quantity. Nevertheless, we will start from the minus quantity, and on every penny that goes to make it up to zero we are going to charge you a duty." It cannot be right.
    Mr. EDGAR HORNE:I think there can be no doubt that a blunder has been made in this Richmond case. The valuation there was certainly a wrong one, and I hope that the blunder will be acknowledged and the matter put right. I think you can see that the valuer here has been rushed in his work. The great pressure which is put upon the valuers to get through their work in a great hurry does not make for accuracy nor good work. Here he apparently had given to him the values of the properties, and without considering each particular case he takes a valuation of twenty years' purchase of the rentals. It is a rule that, I think, every valuer knows that rent may be a useful guide, but it is never an evidence of value itself; and if it was to be taken alone most serious errors would arise in consequence. I should be sorry to endorse the indictment which has been made on these valuers, because I know myself that it is possible to make serious mistakes perfectly innocently, but I feel that the Department of Inland Revenue ought to protect their valuers by making good any blunder which the valuers may have made innocently. It is making it very hard for these valuation officers to do their work.
    7.0 P.M.
    There is another point I wish to put forward. In these provisional valuations the figures which are put forward by the

    1573
    Government valuers are in many cases informal in character. If the valuer comes in and is referred to a surveyor, if the property belongs to a rich man or is a big property, the owner has the wisdom to refer it to someone who is skilled in the matter, the Government figures are examined, and the surveyor acting for the owner will see the Government valuer and discuss the matter with him. It is a very usual course with surveyors to discuss figures informally in the first place, and, in doing it in this particular way they are doing nothing more than what is the best way to do their work. But when they find that their figures do not agree and when there are questions of principle which arise between them it is found, I am afraid, that the Government valuers will say "we will talk about this another day, and I will see you again on this particular point," but these further days of meeting do not arrive, and these difficult points which have arisen between the Government valuers and the other surveyors have not been settled in the way they should. There is no question of the sixty days and of forcing an appeal because the valuations very often are of an informal character, and at the present time, although the Act has been in force, I believe, for a year and a-half, there are still questions outstanding, with regard to agricultural land, the way in which the redemption of tithe is to be met and also the question of allowance for roads.
    It does not matter to the wealthy and wise men who have put their affairs in the hands of surveyors. They will see that they pay no more than they ought to pay and that their valuations are properly drawn up, but in the meantime there is an enormous number of poor people who have not had the assistance of those who understand the Act to help them, and in those cases valuations are being made very often, and I am afraid allowance has not been properly made, and they will suffer because they will have no opportunity of reopening the matter. I think we ought to have some assurance from the Treasury that in all these matters of principle which are outstanding between the parties on either side directions should be given that the matter should be adjudicated upon in some manner. We hear of 17,000 cases outstanding at the present time. I do not know in how many of them questions of principle are involved, but there need not be 17,000 cases if all these questions of principle had been adjudicated upon
    1574
    and we understood how we should go on in future. However much we may dislike particular measures, when once they have become Acts I believe it is the duty of every Englishman to try to carry them out to the best of his power. I think if we have proper assistance from the Government Department, we shall be able to make it not only easier in cases where those who are well off come to settle down, but we will be able to see that a large number of poorer people will not suffer because of ignorance of the steps they ought to take.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I rise to move a reduction of the Vote by £100, because I cannot accept the reply of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory. I propose this Amendment, not as a personal reflection on himself, but because I think there are hon. Members who would desire to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the Richmond case by a vote.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I think every person who wishes to become the owner of the house in which he lives, as well as every lover of justice and fair play in regard to valuation for taxation purposes, must be deeply indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) for bringing this question before the Committee. I venture to say that while I have been a Member of this House there has not been a heavier indictment brought against a Department than that which has been not only brought but proved up to the hilt, with reference to the injustice, or at least the carelessness, of the system of valuation which is being carried on. It seems to me that the valuers with the evidence that this Richmond property had recently been bought at £500, and that a valuation for Death Duty has been fixed at the same sum, should claim the original site value as £380, must show great ignorance, or it must show that they put this low valuation on the property in order that they might, when it was resold, or when it changed hands, be in a position to claim an increment value, not on any real increased value, but simply because of the low figure at which the original value was placed. It seems to me that that state of things must cause consternation and a spirit of uneasiness throughout the country among small owners who have lately become possessed of houses and gardens. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this case before the Committee. There are many people in my own Constituency at Tavistock and in the surrounding

    1575
    districts who have bought cottages at £120 or £130, more or less. If this system of valuation which has been exposed in the Richmond case prevails, we shall find the original value fixed perhaps at £100, and that when the owners die, or if they sell the property they have recently acquired, there will be charged an Increment Duty, not because there has been an increment, but because the original value was placed at so low a value. Most people wish to see a greater number owning the houses in which they live, but if there is this injustice it will be a deterrent from buying houses, and from the national point of view that will be an injurious as well as an unjust state of things. We were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there have been eight hundred thousand cases of valuation and only one hundred cases of appeal. That is easily accounted for. It is because people do not easily understand how to proceed. We all know that when valuations are put on property which are lower than the owners know the property is worth, they are inclined to think that they will have to pay so much less taxation, never realising that the abnormal and unfair valuation which is put on as the original value will mean when they die, or when the property is transferred, that it will enhance the duty payable. It is not an actual increment of value, but an apparent increment which arises because of the low and unjust valuation which was first put on it.
    I feel sure that there would have been a large number of appeals if people had realised that the putting of the valuation at a low figure was detrimental to their interests and to the spirit of justice. We want a fair valuation. We thought when the Act was passed that we were starting an immensely expensive system of valuation. Some of us were of opinion that it would have been better to have utilised the old system of assessment committees with increased representation, but since it has been decided that this system of valuation should go on, we do appeal to the Members of the Government to see that it is conducted on fair, just, and equitable lines. I think the demand that an inquiry should be made into this matter is one which the Government cannot refuse. It would be a serious matter if this feeling of uneasiness were to continue, and I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford has offered no real criticism or explanation of the charges which have been
    1576
    brought before the Committee. Consequently there is a feeling of alarm and unrest, and, though it is probably not the intention, it looks at least as if the principle of this valuation is to put the original value at a low figure so that when there is an exchange of the property there may be a demand made for increment, which has not really been created and which does not exist, but which simply arises from the fact that originally an unfair valuation was put on the property by the valuer. I do not know the valuers personally, but I say that they ought to be men who have not only knowledge but can be relied on to deal fairly with all interests, and who will not approve of doing anything to trap people. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford has done a great service to all who aspire to own the houses in which they live. Many in my Constituency are in that position, and I thank him most sincerely on their behalf, and in the interest of what I believe we all want to see, namely, the encouragement of the system of men owning the houses in which they live. We shall insist upon the valuation of that property being of an equitable kind, and not of a kind which will trap the owners into paying Increment Duty when property changes hands.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I venture to think that the whole business community have not got really so much to complain of as regards the work of the valuers, having regard to the circumstances, because these valuers have done an immense amount of work in an incredibly short space of time. But what I think the Department ought to recognise, and I believe the right hon. Gentlemen representing the Treasury will be open to recognise, is that in every case where it is suggested that owing to the rapidity and the immense amount of work that has to be done, the matter has not been fairly considered, these questions of days with regard to appeal ought to be put right by order of Parliament. I know myself of a very considerable number of cases where the valuations are clearly wrong, and where the time for appeal has gone. The attention of the parties has not been called to the operation of this new statute and the dangers and difficulties which it involves, and now they are liable to be met with the same answer as was made to the ladies at Richmond in Yorkshire—that the valuation was formally served upon them, and that the number of days for appeal had gone, and probably

    1577
    some trifle would be thrown to them in the way of compensation such as had been offered to these ladies to-day, but which does not meet the merits of the case at all.
    I rise for the purpose of supporting the appeal which is made in the interests of fair play and justice for the inquiry into the actual working at this stage of these valuations and the taxes that arise out of them, so that if possible, with the authority of the Department of the Treasury, something may be done to avoid these difficulties which have arisen. In thousands of these cases the injustice which these people will suffer in the amount of tax which they may have to pay improperly, which they ought not to pay on the merits, has not yet arisen, and in thousands of cases they will only be called on to do so when somebody dies, and duty is payable, or when the property happens to change hands. In this Richmond case there is one fact which has not yet been referred to. The property itself was bought for £500. That, I understand, appears upon the deeds. It was sold for £500. When a property is bought for £500 and sold for £500 where is the increment? This was the kind of thing that we argued at great length when the Finance Act was being proposed. An imaginary increment has arisen in this particular case, and it has arisen because the valuer going down to value a few months ago has valued it back to 31st March, 1909, a date when probably he did not know the property, and had never seen it; and it was very difficult to imagine what the property was at a back period when he did not know anything about it. And, moreover, he seemed to be ignorant of the fact that there had been a death, and that for the purpose of Death Duty it had been valued by the owners very properly at £500. They had given £500 for it, and they negotiated to sell it for £500; but when they sold the property for £500 and were conveying it a few weeks later down comes the Inland Revenue on them for increment, and makes out that because owing to this gentleman's ideal value it was only £380 these ladies should pay Increment Duty.
    That is a hard case. I do not think it is met by the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the Treasury saying, "We will refund the Death Duty if you will pay us some Increment Duty." It seems to me that it ought to be exactly the opposite, that there clearly was Death Duty on the value at £500, but as for Increment Duty in my opinion it is perfectly clear that it was not payable at all. In
    1578
    the Scotch case that has been referred to the right hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury said, "There was a difference between these two valuations, because we found out there was a big piece of land which had not been included in the first valuation and which added a considerable area." One Gentleman on the Front Bench went to consult some authority with a view to telling the Committee what that additional piece of land was. Needless to say, we never found it out. I believe the facts to be as stated in the solicitor's letter which has been published, namely, that a Government valuer valued that piece of land at £20,000, and within a week—his conversion was somewhat rapid—he found out that the value was £45,000, or more than twice the first amount. The importance of these valuations being correct cannot be exaggerated, because if they are too low the unfortunate person has got to pay the Increment Duty upon making a profit when the property is subsequently sold, and if they are too high the unfortunate owner is now or will be liable at a very early date to pay all kinds of taxes and all existing taxes on property which the Government are imposing on that new valuation, so that the owner, as regards the valuation, is between the devil and the deep sea.
    The subject of minus valuations has been referred to. It has been shown in the clearest possible manner in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the Treasury that the astonishing fact arises of a property being worth minus something. Of course it is obvious that when there is a ground rent, or feu, as in Scotland, and the property has gone down to less than the ground rent represents as the value of the site, then when you come to look at the value of the property subsequently you do arrive at a minus value when you take into account the ground rent or feu. This is exactly the point that was explained to the representatives of the Government in the course of the Debates as a difficulty that would arise. I pointed it out myself. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill got up and said it was ridiculous to suppose that under any system of valuation there could ever be a minus value, and he said it in such a way that a shout of derisive laughter arose from the benches opposite. Within a couple of years we find that these cases have arisen. It is absolutely indefensible that they should occur, and steps should be taken to prevent them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen went on to argue

    1579
    that in all future cases when you have a minus value you should at once start from zero. But the speech that he made was not conclusive on that point, because suppose the property has gone down to minus £500 and it goes up again to minus £200, that is, £300 better, it is quite clear that there ought to be due allowance for the rise in value of £300, and it seems to me when an Amendment Bill comes before the House with a view of getting rid of the injustice and difficulties of the minus values and the other points in the Act these questions should be dealt with.
    There is one other point that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire. It was not dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury, and I beg very respectfully to ask attention to it. In Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Finance. Act of 1909-10 "Increment Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this Act," and in Subsection (3) of Section 4 there are elaborate provisions importing Section 14 of the Stamp Act of 1891 into the procedure with reference to increment value, and also the point as to whether the necessary particulars have been delivered or the point that there is no Increment Duty payable. Then if you refer to Section 74 of the Valuation Act you find that there are in addition a number of cases both in Subsections (2) and (5) in which adjudication stamps are necessary. I desire to point out with regard to all these stamps upon ordinary deeds such as conveyances and leases it used to be the practice, and is still in a large number of cases, to have the stamp adjudicated wherever there is the slightest doubt with regard to the amount of the stamp being sufficient. The practice is to submit the document to the authorities at Somerset House and have them adjudicate upon the stamp as to whether it is correct or not. This has been immensely increased by the Finance Act of 1909–10. Practically now in every case in order to get rid of the difficulty that there might be some Increment Duty charged on property or some other duty not paid formerly it is now necessary in almost every case to have an adjudication.
    It was the practice in Lancashire to have only about 5 per cent. of the deeds that were stamped adjudicated prior to this Act. Now it is necessary in 100 per cent. The consequence is that in every transaction relating to land or the conveyance of property an adjudication stamp has become
    1580
    necessary. That involves delay and expense. Both these things are exceedingly objectionable, and they are a great hardship upon small owners and upon small purchasers. If the parties reside in London they can take the deed to Somerset House and it is adjudicated free and within twenty-four hours, and the work at Somerset House is done remarkably well, quickly and correctly. But a difficulty arises in such places as Sheffield, Manchester, and Liverpool, where there are stamp offices. These stamp offices were opened to meet the convenience of a large number of people buying and selling property in the Provinces, and in order to provide facilities for deeds being stamped. What now happens is this. In every one of the cases of leases and conveyances these local stamp offices cannot deal with the question of adjudication. The documents have to come to London in every case to be adjudicated, and a fee is charged. I am not quite certain for the moment whether they have to give 2s. 6d. or 5s. I believe it is 5s.; but that fee is required at all local stamp offices, and there is also the delay of some days before we can get the document through. Is that right? This seems to me to be another means of raising money for the purpose of paying these surveying people. It is very objectionable to have to send all these documents from Manchester to London to be adjudicated.
    If these places are stamp offices, and are authorised to impress stamps for very large sums, there should be in connection with them responsible officers of experience and ability. Why not give them the right to adjudicate stamps, at all events to a certain amount, say, £5, or £10, or something of that kind, so that all the small transactions can be carried through without the exaction of the fee and without delay. I know that the local law societies in all these places have been in communication with the Inland Revenue Department, and have urged this point upon them, but so far without result. These fees are still exacted, and these delays still take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury, or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, will give their attention to this matter, as I am sure they will, or at all events give it some reasonable attention, with a view to seeing whether it is not possible that equity and justice shall be done. For the reasons I have endeavoured to express, I join in the very earnest appeal to the Government to allow an

    1581
    inquiry to take place, and they can make their own appointment of those who are to make the inquiries into the working of this Act. I beg to assure the Government and the Committee that there are thousands of cases of hardship as to which the Government ought in all fairness to afford reasonable facilities for inquiry.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: We have heard a good many criticisms in regard to the question of the minus valuation. I wish to ask the Solicitor-General a perfectly straight question which occurred to mo during the Debate on the subject of the minus valuation. The question is whether minus valuations are legal or not under the Act. It is a perfectly straight question. I cannot find a single part of the Act which refers to minus valuations. Section 25 of the Statute in so many words says that the assessable site value of the land means the total value after making deductions. Where those deductions are greater than the total value, obviously the latter has been wiped out entirely, and consequently there is nothing left to represent the site value. I cannot see in the Act where it is possible to go below zero. I simply ask the Solicitor-General whether minus valuations are legal or not. A good deal depends upon the answer. I have never yet seen the question answered, and I should like a direct reply to it. A good many legal decisions are depending upon the answer, whether a minus valuation is legal or not; and, if it is, in what part of the Act does it appear.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In supporting the reduction of this Vote, I have only to emphasise one point, upon which, in my opinion, sufficient emphasis has not yet been laid, and that is that there are at least four important questions upon which a judicial decision is necessary before it is possible to determine whether valuations made upon certain bases are legal or not. These particular questions are, first, the manner in which the land given up for roads shall be dealt with under Section 25; second, whether deductions in respect of tithe shall be calculated on the apportioned or present value; third, the exact meaning of the term "value for agricultural purposes"; and, fourth, the proper method of dealing with arrears of rent under Section 20, Sub-section (2). It must be unfair to make a provisional valuation until there has been a judicial decision upon these questions. At present, as
    1582
    I understand, what happens in the case of the poor person who is not in the habit of consulting a solicitor, is that he is informed by the Inland Revenue officials that the Commissioners' ruling on this particular matter, about which he has his doubts, is so and so, as if the Commissioners' ruling had any particular legal value. It operates a great injustice in the case of those persons to whom I refer, because they accept the Commissioners' ruling as though it had a legal value, and they do not further contest the provisional valuation. If, when these matters are brought before the proper judicial tribunal, established under the Act, for decision, if the decisions are in a certain direction and against the view upon the basis of which a provisional valuation has been made, it should be possible for that provisional valuation to be revised, so that persons shall not suffer in consequence of the so-called rulings, which are not legal rulings, of the Commissioners. I wish to refer to two other matters which come within the purview of the Inland Revenue. About three months ago an attempt was made in the county of Hertford to levy an entirely new Income Tax upon the dairy farmers in certain parts of that county. A certain form was sent to them, and they were asked to make a complete return upon that form of the profits which they derived from the sale of milk as distinguished from any other farm produce. It puzzled a good many of these gentlemen to know why they had this unusual demand made upon them, and at their request, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 29th March why this new form was sent to them, and why it was restricted to certain localities only, and, in fact, what was the object of issuing so unusual a form. The answer I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he was not aware himself of the actual form, but at the same time he referred mo to the provisions of the third rule of Case III. of Schedule D, 5 and 6 Vic., Cap. 35, Section 100, under which the ordinary printed form of return under Schedule D is issued were necessary. On referring to the Income Tax Act I found that the rule to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred was as follows:—
    "Whenever the Commissioners shall, on examination, find that any lands occupied by a dealer in or seller of milk (which lands shall have been estimated and charged on the rent or annual value) are not sufficient for the keep and sustenance of the cattle brought on the said lands so that the rent or annual value

    1583
    of the said lands cannot afford a just estimate of the profits of such dealer, it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to require a return of such profits and to charge such further sum thereon as together with the charge in respect of the occupation of the said lands shall make up the full sum wherewith such trader ought to be charged in respect of the like amount of profits charged according to the first rule in this case."
    The last words of the rule refer to the ordinary traders' Income Tax return under Schedule D. What exactly was being done in this case was this. As the Committee is, no doubt, aware, the farmer is charged Income Tax under Schedule B on one-third of the rent he pays, and there is no doubt whatever that this rule to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred me was intended to apply to those persons who got a considerably larger income out of their business than would be represented by the rent they paid and in order that they might be made to pay adequate Income Tax. It may be that the farmer is occupying just outside a large town a very small area of land, packed with cattle which he feeds to a large extent with produce grown upon other farms. This rule, which has been in existence for many years past, is now brought to the front in order to obtain an additional tax out of the ordinary dairy farmer, because he happens to use, and very properly uses, concentrated feeding-stuffs, such as cattle-cake, to feed his cattle, in order, not merely to maintain the flow of milk from his cattle, 'but, what is very much more important, to maintain in that way the quality of his land. The object is to provide the owners of the cattle with milk, which they can sell as whole milk, instead of converting it into either butter or cheese.
    I daresay even the non-agricultural Members of this Committee are aware that in producing butter and cheese the manurial residues which are left on the farm are very considerable; and, in fact, the production of such articles does not detract to any great extent from what is called, though I think improperly called "the inherent value of the land." The milk being sold, and there being no residues, leads to a serious deterioration of the land, and that deterioration, I am sorry to say, is going on in very many parts of the country, where whole milk is being sold from, the farm. The one way
    1584
    to stop this is to use concentrated foodstuffs for the cattle. As every scientific agriculturist knows, and as every agricultural chemist confirms, it is good farming, and in the interest of the land, when concentrated food-stuffs are given to milch cattle. Because these gentlemen who are carrying on farming in a scientific manner, according to the most approved methods, use concentrated food-stuffs for their cattle, the Inland Revenue pounces upon them and asks them under this ancient rule to pay additional Income Tax. They are asked to fill up this form, because they are taking substances from outside their farms to feed the cattle upon their farms in order to make a profit out of the sale of the milk; whereas, in fact, this rule was intended for no such purpose as that to which it is being applied. In 1842, when this Act was passed, such things as linseed-cake and cotton-cake were absolutely unknown, so that it cannot have been contemplated at that time that this additional Income Tax should be charged on the dairy farmers in consequence of their use of such foods. I have to acknowledge, in fairness to the Inland Revenue, that when the matter was strongly represented in this House to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the obnoxious form was withdrawn. It is only an indication of the methods which the Inland Revenue are prepared to adopt in order to squeeze a little extra tax out of possibly ignorant people who have not got an accurate knowledge of the law, and who may be induced to pay the extra Income Tax demanded.
    I want to draw the attention of the representative of the Government to another form which has not yet been referred to, Form No. 99. The object of that Form is to enable agricultural landowners who pay Income Tax under Schedule A to obtain a rebate by the allowance of anything up to 25 per cent. in respect of insurance, management, maintenance, and repairs, provided for under Section 69 of the Finance Act of 1909–10. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when he made this very valuable concession pointed out repeatedly that the landowner who chose to fill up the necessary form and make application for this rebate of Income Tax would be entitled to anything up to 25 per cent. in respect of those various outgoings as regards his property as a whole, save such part as that upon which he lives or which is occupied by himself. Nothing was said at that time to the effect that

    1585
    cottages on the one hand and farm buildings and farm land on the other would be treated under separate categories, and so deprive the landowner of the full benefit of the allowances which he was supposed to get. The form which has been issued under this Section does so separate out the two headings under which allowance is to be made, and, in fact, although the agricultural landowner may have paid considerably more than 25 per cent. on the repairs and on the maintenance of his agricultural property generally, he may be unable to obtain anything like that amount. It is perfectly true that under Section 35 of the Finance Act of 1894, different allowances are made in respect on the one hand of cottages, and in respect on the other hand of farm buildings and farm land. I imagine it is in consequence of that distinction that it has been found necessary or advisable for the Inland Revenue officials to draw up the form which still stereotype the old method of separating the one class of property from the other and merely adds to the allowance which was made under the former Act the new allowance in each case which is provided by the Act of 1909–10.
    On the first page of this Form the owner is required or asked to fill up particulars of claim. In filling up these particulars he cannot avoid putting into two different categories the two different classes of property, possibly to his own detriment. Under the heading "Particulars of Claim," he has to set out the average cost, maintenance, etc. "as set forth in the First Schedule to this claim." When you refer to the First Schedule you find on one side of the page expenditure on land and farm houses, and on the other side of the page, expenditure on houses not exceeding £8 annual value, those of course being the cottages. Then we find a further item in the same summary, "maximum further sum allowed," which is in the case of lands one-eighth and in the case of houses one twelfth of the annual value. It must be common knowledge that a far larger amount is spent, and properly spent, on the maintenance and repair of cottages than is spent on agricultural property. But it is quite possible if this form is filled in in the way in which it is drawn up that a landowner who spends, say, up to 40 per cent. on his cottages, and at the same time spends from 10 to 15 per cent. upon his farm land and farm buildings, although the aggre-
    1586
    gate is considerably in excess of 25 percent, he will be wholly unable to obtain the maximum which he is supposed to be able to obtain under Section 69. I am perfectly conscious of the fact that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are very tender with regard to the way in which those forms are filled up. But if the form is not in accordance with the repeated assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the extent to which relief was to be given why should this form continue to be issued, and not a form which carries out the express intentions of the Government, and which affords the relief to the agricultural land owners which they may reasonably claim under Section 69. I sincerely regret that no representative of the Treasury is in his place on the Government Bench, because these are matters that I have been asked on behalf of a large section of the agricultural community to bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is very difficult to get them properly attended to in the absence of the representatives of the Department which is now under criticism.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I am sorry to intervene, but I do so in order to reply to a question put to me by the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire. He asks whether in the view of the Government it is possible that there should be such a thing as a minus valuation or, as I understand the question, are minus valuations legal or not? I do not myself entertain any doubt that the view which the Department has hitherto taken on this point is the right view, that is to say that if you subtract £600 from £400 the answer is, not nothing, but is minus £200. That really does not depend upon this or that Government, or this or that Department, but depends on nothing more than the rules of arithmetic. If the Noble Lord will examine the Act he will see that valuations are arrived at by taking a figure representing an element and by subtracting from that figure another figure. If the figure which is to be subtracted is a bigger figure I conceive it follows necessarily that you get a minus quantity. May I say, as the matter has caused some amusement, that though that may not be the most convenient way to measure a rise in value it is a perfectly possible way. There is nothing absurd in that way of measuring a rise in value at all. What we are aiming at is by a suitable valuation to arrive at the amount of increment and to measure the increment from one level to another level. The

    1587
    measure or scale by which you measure that increase is equally well applied and equally scientifically applied whether the zero point comes higher or lower in the scale.
    Let me take an illustration, not from the subject of land taxation, but from the subject of temperature. Some people have thermometers which are so arranged that when it begins to freeze they mark 32. Supposing it is freezing hard and that it marks under 22, then if anybody wants to say that the temperature rises from 22 to 32 he can say so. Other people have Centigrade thermometers where the freezing point is represented by nought and where, if the temperature gets lower, the figure is found to be minus ten or minus fifteen. There again if you want to measure the increased temperature you do so quite naturally by saying that the temperature has risen from minus fifteen to nought. That is not a subject of merriment or ridicule. It is a plain and simple way of measuring increment, and depends on a simple proposition. All you need to observe is the change in relative values, and it is perfectly immaterial whether the measure is a minus or positive figure. Let me say quite frankly I quite recognise that this justifies some criticism and inquiry as to the application of the 10 per cent. That is perfectly true, and nothing that I say is intended to skate over or avoid that criticism. All I am concerned in saying for the moment is that in the view of the Department it is possible, though I do not think it is likely often to happen, to measure from a value which is represented by a minus quantity if there is an increase from that original site value to a smaller minus quantity, that is to say, a rise by the addition of some positive element of value. May I point out if that is not so the object of the Finance Act in this regard would be defeated in the case which he is putting to me. Suppose we were dealing with the case where the original site value might be arrived at by subtracting £600 from £400. I conceive that that is a possible but very rare case. If you subtract £600 from £400 you get minus £200, and according to the other view you get nothing. Let me suppose that the land in process of time had an unearned increment which it had not previously possessed, and suppose that amount to be £100.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: You tax a decrement.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: It is not a question of decrement. It is a question of arithmetic, and very elementary arithmetic. If you move from minus 200 to minus 100, the Noble Lord will agree that that is an increase and not a decrease from the figure from which you started. I suggest that involves an increase of £100. If it involves an increase of £100 it is a subject for taxation. The Noble Lord says if you arrive at a minus quantity you write it down as nought. When the minus is decreased by £100 its value would still be put by him at nought, and the result would be, there would be no increment. But whatever scale we use, I think he can see that it involves a rise from a large negative quantity to a small negative quantity. I do submit that is a right view of the matter, and any other view would be to let some people off paying taxes when they enjoy an increment, although other people in the same situation would have to pay the taxes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do thank the Solicitor-General for his courageous and very ingenious speech. It was very useful to my argument when he admitted in his last few sentences that the Government are taxing a negative quantity and that a negative quantity ought to be taxed equally with a positive quantity.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I said nothing of the sort. I said a rise from a larger negative quantity to a smaller negative quantity should be taxed. The rise from a negative quantity should be taxed, for the rise would not be a minus quantity; it would be a plus quantity; that is a matter of arithmetic.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I may point out that I have not mentioned any arithmetic. What the Solicitor-General has just admitted is that he is proposing to tax a negative quantity.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I am going to tax a positive increment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: You are not taxing a value. You cannot say a minus quantity is a value. It is not a value, it is a liability. What you are proposing to tax is not increment value but increment. I will not say the hon. Gentleman is trying to bamboozle the House, but the fact is, he is confusing the issues between increment and increment value. It is an arithmetical calculation and nothing else. By that arithmetical calculation you arrive at a figure, but it is not a value. My hon.

    1589
    Friend asks, can you tax as increment value something which is not a value? Though the Solicitor-General is extremely ingenious, I think his legal ingenuity would be puzzled to prove to the Committee that a minus quantity is a value.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: It does not require any ingenuity at all. What I venture to suggest is that, if you want to know whether a property is increasing in value, you can measure that by a scale which involves comparison of two minus quantities. It is just as easy as by a scale which has two positive quantities. If we were both catching a train, and I were five minutes late and the hon. and gallant Member ten minutes late, the fact that we were both late would not prevent me from saying I was five minutes in front of him.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is obvious that before you proceed to tax increment value you must prove that there is value. You start with an assumption which is unjustified. You can prove there is an increment in the sense that there is less liability, but less liability does not mean more value. How can a minus quantity be a value? You cannot pay over a minus quantity. There is no such thing as a minus value in existence. It is arithmetical.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Will you make me a present of any land on your estates which works out at having a total value which is minus?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman asks me to present him with land having a total value which, he assumes, has no site value. I will present him with the site value if he can see it. This is a purely imaginary value. The Solicitor-General becomes confused with his own argument, and does not know the difference between site and total value. I never said total value could be a minus quantity. You produce a minus quantity and call it a value. You propose to put a tax upon it; then the Solicitor-General gets up and tries to defend it by all kinds of analogies—by his punctuality and my unpunctuality, and questions about thermometers. But he has not made plain to me or any Member of this Committee how a minus quantity can have a value. What he has proved is what you might call a reduction of liability, but what the Act taxes is not increment but increment in value. That point the hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The hon. and learned Gentleman means, I understand, that, practically, a liability is a minus asset. I understood this Act was passed to catch people who were making increment on their land. I did not know before, but now I understand that it is intended to fine those who are running their concerns at a loss. I started from the normal, he wants to start from a minus. He does not tell us where that minus is. I ask him if it is the legal opinion of the law officers of the Crown that minus values are legally assessable as site values. I understand total value is a plus quantity, and the Act says site value is part of the total value.
    Mr. CASSEL: I want to express a difference of opinion from the Solicitor-General. What we are trying to get at is assessable site value. You cannot say a minus value is not a contradiction in terms. If you were to put a tax on assets and deduct from these assets the liabilities, would you then call these liabilities minus assets? It is as absurd to speak of minus value as to speak of minus assets. There are other points which make it clear that the taxation of minus values was not intended by the Act. Gifts are not taxed. By the arguments used one would have expected to find a tax on these. Does not the Solicitor-General think that the person who is fortunate enough to give away a liability ought to be taxed on that minus quantity. Another point is the 10 per cent. which the Solicitor-General has not attempted to deal with.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I wish to put one point and to ask whether, if we discuss the matter again this evening, the Solicitor-General could give us a little more lengthy and detailed answers. It does seem to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming an impossible position if he is prepared to argue that negative value is increment value. Suppose I carry on a business where I lose £1,000 one year and only £500 next year, ought I to have to pay Increment Tax, and ought the Income Tax authorities to come in and say, "You have not lost by £500 what you lost in the previous year and therefore you must pay Increment Tax?" It is increment if it is looked at from the Solicitor-General's point of view. It is increment in that sense if I lose £l,000 in 1909 and in 1910 only lose £500. What would hon. Gentlemen opposite say if under these circumstances the Income Tax authorities came down and demanded

    1591
    payment of a tax upon the money which they have not lost? I hope the hon. Gentleman will himself, or through the Attorney-General, see his way to deal fully with the subject of this interesting discussion later in the evening. This Committee is indebted to the hon. Gentleman, who is always most courteous—
    And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceedings were postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH (LICENCE DUTIES).
  As amended, considered.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH (LICENCE DUTIES).

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to Minimum Liquor Licence Duties Affected by Cambridge Order.)
    For the purposes of Scale 3 (Minimum duty payable for Publicans and Beerhouse Licenses) in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, the boundaries of the existing borough of Cambridge the urban district of Chesterton and the rural district of Chesterton shall not be deemed to have been altered by the Cambridge (Extension) Order confirmed by this Act until the expiration of fifteen years from the commencement of that Order.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 3.
    I am taking an action which I am perfectly willing to confess is of a somewhat unusual character, and one which has been forced upon me by what I think is a departure from the usual practice in the consideration of Provisional Order Bills. This Clause was inserted in the Bill not, as is usually done in Provisional Order Bills, at the instance of the Corporation of Cambridge or of any other public body in the locality, but at the instance of a body of private traders, namely, the Licensed Victuallers' Association of Cambridgeshire. As far as I have been able to trace the proceedings in Committee—certainly at two or three stages in those proceedings —the legal representative of the Corporation of Cambridge confessed that they were very indifferent to this Clause, that they had never considered it in council, and that it was a matter of no concern
    1592
    to them as a public body. On page 2 of the proceedings of July 6, the representative of the borough of Cambridge said:—
    "With regard to the Corporation, of course we are very anxious that nothing should be put into this order which would in any way endanger its passing. Apart from that, we have no interests in this matter."
    "this matter" being the Clause which is now in the Bill. Again on page 4 he says:
    "With regard to this matter, it is a matter in which the Corporation have no direct concern, and we do not desire to take up one side or the other in regard to it."
    Again, on page 7 of the proceedings of July 7, a question was put by one of the Members of the Committee as to whether the Corporation of Cambridge had ever considered the matter, and the witness in the box replied that although the committee of the corporation had considered it the matter had never been before the council itself. The witness, who was either a past or the actual mayor, and professed to speak on behalf of the corporation, had to admit that the matter had never been before the corporation at all. Therefore I think we may take it that, whatever may be the views of individual members of the corporation, that body itself, which represents the opinion of the town in matters of this sort, had never been consulted, and had expressed no opinion on the subject. The Clause was recommended to the Committee by the Licensed Victuallers' Association at Cambridgeshire, and, as far as I can understand, it was recommended upon one ground, and one ground only, namely, that it would make a difference in the charge—I think it was said of 5s. in the £—on the licence holders of certain districts to be included in the new borough of Cambridge. That arises from the fact that under the third scale of the Third Schedule of the Finance Act the minimum duty is fixed at a much lower rate in places where there is a small rural population than is payable in cases where the population is much greater; and the population of Cambridge under the amalgamation jumps up from 30,000 or 40,000 in the actual borough to 56,000, which brings it over the 50,000 limit, and thus places it upon a higher scale. I think that that may be assumed to be common ground between the two sides of opinion in this matter.
    The net result of a proposal of this kind is that you will evade the provisions of a general Act of Parliament, passed by a large majority in this House, after considerable deliberation. A semi-private Act of Parliament will be enabled to override the general law. That, I think, is going behind the considered and delibe-

    1593
    rate action of this House in a way which this House ought not to tolerate. There are, I think, two precedents which were in the mind of the Committee when they considered this matter. The first was the precedent of Stoke-on-Trent, and the second was that of Dewsbury. I submit that there is all the difference in the world between those cases and the case of Cambridge as it stands to-day. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent there were six towns in the Potteries who had come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as they were continuous lines of habitation, it would be good for them to be federated for the purposes of local government. The Finance Act of 1909–10 was not in existence or, indeed, in contemplation when the federation of those six towns took place. The order for the federation was actually made before the Finance Act passed the Third Reading in this House; therefore, the conditions imposed by that Act in respect of public-houses, and the penalties, if you like to use that word, or the duties imposed upon licence holders if they came from an area less populated into one more densely populated, were not and could not have been in the minds of those who were responsible for the federation. The consequence was that Parliament in the schedule to which I have referred specially exempted those six Pottery towns from the operation of the Act for a period of twenty years. The case of Dewsbury was on almost similar lines to that of Stoke-on-Trent. The federation of Dewsbury and the adjacent district was complete before the Finance Act was in operation.
    The order for the federation of Dewsbury was passed, I think, on the same day or within a day or two, of that of Stoke-upon-Trent. That is again before the Finance Bill came into operation. Therefore the conditions which were in the minds of those who federated Stoke were also in the minds of those who federated Dewsbury. But the case was not presented to the House of Commons at the same time. The consequence was that the House of Commons dealt out different treatment to the case of Dewsbury compared to that of Stoke-on-Trent. The Stoke-on-Trent Bill went through this House without any division of opinion. In the case of Dewsbury there was strong opposition on the opposite benches, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will remember, to the inclusion of Dewsbury in the Revenue Act. They said: "You are not entitled after a Finance Act is passed
    1594
    to bring up a special case for consideration in this House; however good may be the arguments in support of your case, you ought not to bring up a single individual case to cover Dewsbury, but some general words should be put in your Act." The Postmaster-General, who was in charge of that particular Clause in the Revenue Act agreed. He said he would endeavour to find some general words to cover all such cases, and the Clause was withdrawn for that purpose.
    We have been unable—I tell the House frankly—to discover any general words which would cover all these kinds of cases. So the matter has dropped so far as the Government is concerned. Now come the licensed victuallers of Cambridge and say: "If you cannot find general words to cover general cases, we will find particular words to put into these quasi-private Bills which will enable you to get over the difficulty in any cases where there may be an extension of area." I submit to the Committee—and I cannot help thinking that the House will agree—that you ought not to get round a public Act of such an important and far-reaching character by means of any words in any quasi-private Bill. If you adopt specific words it is quite clear that three things must follow. First of all, there would be what I have suggested to the Committee—and I think I am entitled to use the words—an "evasion" of the general Act by means of private Bills. In every place in which it was proposed to extend the area of some locality or other, the Association of Licensed Victuallers will produce words, or get someone to move a Clause, will perhaps even not go so far as to consult, the local authorities1 in the matter; but will get their friends to place the matter before the Private Bill Committee to which these Bills are referred, to put forward a case, and the Committee will be persuaded to make an exemption. The example set by Cambridge will be put forward by every locality which desires to extend its boundaries.
    There is another consideration. If revenue for public purposes fails to be raised from the Cambridge licensed victuallers it follows that the revenues which are needed for the country's expenditure will have to be borne by somebody who are not the licensed victuallers of Cambridge. In other words, private traders will have shifted from their own shoulders on to somebody else—on to the general taxation of the country—their contribution towards it for the period of fifteen years. They

    1595
    will have declined to bear the burdens which this House has decided they ought to bear, and have placed it upon somebody else who may perhaps be in a worse position than themselves to contribute towards the revenue. It may be said, possibly it will be, in the course of Debate, that there are precedents for exempting districts from the general operation of the law, and that, therefore, we can do it properly in this case. So far as I am aware there is no case in which the operation of the general law has been stopped in any particular district unless some unforeseen hardship arose which was not contemplated by the general law when it was introduced into the House of Commons. I venture to submit to the House that this is not an unforeseen charge; that the case was deliberately considered when the House considered the case of Stoke, from which it differs. Stoke affords no precedent for the action which the Committee have taken in this particular case. The House showed quite clearly by the consideration of the Stoke-on-Trent case that it knew that the districts were federated, that the areas were extended so as to create a larger population for the purposes of Scale 3. It recognised that heavier charges would be laid upon the licensed victuallers of that district, and it decided to exempt a particular district because of what it considered were hitherto unconsidered circumstances. It decided to exempt a considerable district from the Clause it rejected in the case of Dewsbury. It cannot, therefore, be said, I think, by the members of the Committee that there is a precedent for exemption in this case following on precedents which have been created in similar and previous cases. I submit, therefore, to the House that this Clause ought to be deleted from this Bill, both because it places a charge upon—I am not going into the financial point or the technicalities of it—because it must place a charge upon other taxpayers, which, it is contemplated, should be paid by this particular class of taxpayer and this particular kind of case; also because it is, in my judgment, and, I hope, in the judgment of the whole House, a most improper proceeding to get round the general law; to evade the operation of the, general law by a Cause put into a private Bill.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: At the outset I may express some surprise that the Government has thought fit to deal with this matter by moving to omit a Clause rather
    1596
    than by recommitting the Bill. It shows that they assume that without this Clause the Committee would have passed the Bill. That assumption is hardly warranted. I admit, of course, that, technically speaking, the Committee has made a precedent in doing what it has done, but I think I shall show that that precedent is fully justified, and that it was necessary in order to meet the injustice which has been fully admitted by the Government themselves, and that there is no other adequate machinery by which that injustice can be met. This Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, was composed of Members from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman who sits behind the Front Bench, and whose absence this evening I also very much regret, has authorised me to say that, but for his unavoidable absence he would have spoken in support of the view I take. The Committee was wholly unanimous. The Members were the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Barnstaple (Sir Godfrey Baring), for North Meath (Mr. P. White), and North-East Devon (Mr. Walrond). The right hon. Gentleman has made some point of the fact that this proposal was not moved by the Corporation of Cambridge, but was moved by an independent body, the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association. I venture to think the Committee stage of private Bills exists very largely for the purpose of hearing grievances of any parties who think themselves aggrieved by general proposals. Therefore I do not think that fact applies very seriously to the question at all. The general accusation is that the action of the Committee has exempted from the general law a special class, and that that action introduced a dangerous principle. The principle of exempting from the general law a particular class is a principle which is accepted fully by the Government, not only in the two instances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but also a third instance. As he says, that principle of exemption was acknowledged in the case of Stoke, and, although not to the same extent, also in the case of Dewsbury, and there was a hope of finding general words which might meet all these cases alike. The Government themselves have acknowledged this principle in these cases in their Finance Bill of this year, Section 5, which puts it in the power of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to exempt a number of cases of a similar kind. It is in their power

    1597
    to exempt premises in districts which are essentially rural though included in urban areas. In fact, they do on a large scale what we propose to do in this Bill; but the principle of exemption is exactly the same, and it is obvious that the Government has admitted that justice will require differential treatment, and so far as the principle involved grows, though they say now it is dangerous, there is no doubt that they have fully accepted it.
    The principle on which we differ most is the tribunal to which these cases should be submitted. The question is whether these cases should come before a Committee of the House which is in a position to fully hear the evidence, and go thoroughly into the question before giving a verdict. Or whether these cases should come, as in the case of Stoke, before this House itself, which is not in a position to hear evidence; or, thirdly, whether these cases should come before an official of a Government Department who is in many cases an interested party. I have admitted there is no exact precedent for what we have done, but, of course, this case at Stoke and Dewsbury are analogous.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Not at all!
    Mr. MASON: To a very considerable extent, and the only difference is that the injustice in the present case is infinitely greater. It is true the exemption in the case of Stoke was granted before the Finance Bill passed through its stages in this House, and in the case of Dewsbury it is also a fact that the extension was decided upon before the Finance Act had finally become law, but on the merits of the case there is no comparison whatever between the two cases. What were the facts? In the case of Stoke you had the amalgamation of six large towns into one, making in all a population of over 250,000. Seven of these towns were already over 50,000 inhabitants, and therefore the increases of the minimum Licence Duties were very small compared with the case we have here. In most cases it was a question of increasing the minimum duty from £30' to £35. The total increase of the duties which would have been paid in the case of Stoke, had exemption not been granted, would have been £3,950 per year. But in the case of Cambridge the figure would not be £3,950, but £7,500. In Dewsbury the total increase was a very small one, something like £250, but nevertheless the Government said Dewsbury should be treated in a similar way, be-
    1598
    cause it bore precise analogy to the case of Stoke. In the case of Cambridge you have the inclusion in the new borough of some districts which are really rural. In one of these districts the population is only a few hundred, and the effect of that is that the minimum duty upon some of these houses rises from £5 to as much as £30 at a jump, and the total increase which would follow if you exclude this Clause of the Bill, in the minimum duties which would fall upon the payers of these duties, will be £1,480, or an average rise of 40 per cent., equal to 5s. 1d. in the £, and this falls upon a class of people who, of course, are in no way responsible for the extension. They have no power to prevent that extension and no one suggests that the mere fact that the borough boundary has changed its geographical position means that they will gain anything in the matter of trade.
    And it is not only the rural districts that are affected, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, but the town of Cambridge is affected by it. The town of Cambridge is the ordinary course of events would not reach 50,000 population for some years. Its present population is something like 40,000 odd, and therefore I think there is no denying that, on the question of merits or of injustice done to a particular class of the people, the case of Cambridge is infinitely worse than that of Stoke, which the Government did meet; or that of Dewsbury, which they were desirous of meeting. Now as regards the admission of the injustice by the Government and the desirability of meeting that injustice by words which would apply to all cases alike, I might mention that the House was entirely in accord in the case of Dewsbury that it was desirable if possible to meet the case by general words applicable to all cases, but it was found impossible by the Government to draft a Clause which will do that. I must ask the House to allow me to quote from the speech of the Postmaster-General because it fully admits both the injustice and the desirability of dealing with it. Speaking on the 29th of March this year the Postmaster-General said:—
    "The representations which were made by the publicans of Dewsbury, who, by the way, are not supporters of the Minister for Education, but are his most bitter opponents, were representations which could hare been made by publicans in any other locality similarly situated. That is the sole reason why this particular instance was proposed to be included in the Clause. But I take it it is the general desire of the Committee that an effort should be made to see whether or not general words

    1599
    should be used in this connection. While I give no pledge upon the subject, the Government are willing to withdraw this Clause and to see whether or not this principle of differentiation is the right line of discrimination in these cases. If it is. then we will see in what form words to give effect to that principle should be embodied in the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 29TH March, 1911, col. 1194.]
    On 30th March the same right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a few words out of a speech of mine, and his case was that the town of Cambridge and the town of Birmingham when their bounds were extended ought to be treated in the same way as Dewsbury. I replied that after all it was with the publicans of Dewsbury that these representations originated, and that it was from them they emanated. They first raised the matter and said that what the publicans of Dewsbury had done could be done by the publicans of Cambridge or Birmingham or any other town in precisely the same way."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1911, col. 1604–5.]
    Therefore it was the right hon. Gentleman who advised the publicans at Cambridge what they could do, and in what other way could they do it except by bringing their grievance before a Committee of this House? On the 30th March the right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "So much objection was taken to it the other day that the clause was withdrawn, and I undertook while giving no pledge to consider whether it would be possible to adopt any form of words that would deal with such a case. We have considered carefully with the authorities of the Customs and Excise, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible in those cases which vary so much to draft any form of words which would do justice to all the cases which may arise in future. And further, we should have to consider whether such words if they were adopted ought not to be retrospective validity. A large number of difficulties would therefore arise which the Government confess after full consideration they have not been able adequately to meet, and consequently they cannot present to the House a new form of general words that will deal with all the cases."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Both March, 1911, col. 1607–8.
    In those speeches we have a complete admission of the injustice and of the desirability of meeting such cases with some general form of words to cover all similar cases. The Government failed to meet us in this way. What other course is there open than to meet the case in some other way? What other way is there of meeting the injustice? I am sure the House does not desire, having admitted an injustice, to continue it. What other way is there but to meet each case on its merits as it arises. I fail to see how it can be met in any other adequate way except by allowing the petitioners to bring their cases before the Committee. I cannot help thinking that the words of the Postmaster-General were an absolute invitation to the Committee of this House to deal with each matter as it arose. As I have already said, the Committee, after hearing the evidence, was unanimous, and
    1600
    it it quite obvious that these cases, if they are to be dealt with on their merits, cannot be dealt with by this House owing to the lack of adequate time and because we are not in a position to hear the evidence brought for and against. I may mention that an attempt to partially meet this sort of thing has been put into the Finance Bill this year by the Government, and I will read the proposed Clause. Clause 5 of the Finance Bill of this year provides as follows:—
    "Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any premises situated in an urban area are situated in a part of the area which has only a small local population, and is essentially rural in character, and that the more populous parts of the district are so remote as not to affect the amount of business carried on upon the premises, the premises shall, for the purpose of scale 3 in the First Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, be deemed to be situated in an area which is not an urban area."
    This is an attempt to deal in a small way with this matter, but it does not deal with it in an adequate form. It is an attempt to exempt and leave it in the power of some other authority to make an exemption to the general law. You put it into the hands of the Commissioners of Excise-instead of in the hands of a Committee of this House. Hon. Members may ask why was the Committee, when deciding this question, not satisfied to leave it to the operation of Clause 5. To begin with, the Finance Bill is not an Act yet, and that is not our fault. I do not think we are justified, sitting on a Committee of that kind, in assuming that the Bill will become law as it stands or that that Clause will remain unmodified. That particular Clause might be withdrawn, and we had to decide not by taking into account a law that, might be passed, but the law as it stood at that moment. I say that Clause 5 is not wide enough to cover these cases, because it deals with districts essentially rural, but the reason given for it is that the business in those rural districts is not effected by the proximity of the larger towns.
    I submit that this tribunal of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is not so good as a Committee of this House, because it is a biassed tribunal. A Commissioner of Customs and Excise has as his first business the collection of revenue, and he cannot help considering that question above all others in dealing with these

    1601
    cases. Therefore, the injustice we complain of in these cases would not be properly dealt with by such a tribunal.
    The Committee which sits on these Private Bills has to take a much wider view. We have to take into consideration other facts besides the question of loss or gain to the revenue. We have to consider whether, if an injustice is allowed to continue, it militates against extensions which may be justified in the future. Corporations would be very much influenced by the fact that they were going to inflict an injustice upon a certain proportion of their inhabitants. That has to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the imposition of higher taxes has a very serious effect on the rateable value of the premises, and the result is that you are taking away money from local taxation and putting it into the pockets of the Exchequer. That is a matter which ought to be taken into account. The Government accepts the principle of exemption. The whole difference between us is not a difference of principle at all, but a difference as to the tribunal that should decide the particular cases, whether it should be an official from the Government Department or whether it should be a Committee of this House sitting upstairs. These Committees on Private Bills exist to a very large extent for the purpose of allowing parties who think they are interested in the passage of private Bills to bring their grievances before this House, and I think the House of Commons has to decide whether in this matter the grievances of these people are in future to be brought before this Committee or whether they are to be placed entirely at the goodwill of an official of the Customs and Inland Revenue Department.
    I think the House of Commons has also to decide this evening whether, having admitted—and no one would deny it—that a gross injustice is done in these eases, it is not under an obligation to meet it by some means or other. If they decide that this sort of question is to be determined by an official of a Government Department, then I say that to a very great extent the advantage of the Committee Stage of Private Bills is reduced to a minimum, if not destroyed altogether. If, on the other hand, it is admitted that these grievances are to come before Committees of this House and to be dealt with by them, then I say there never was a case in which a Committee was more justified in introducing a Clause into a Bill than the case which we are now discussing. The
    1602
    House of Commons confers, I know, great honour on its Members when it asks them to sit upon these Committees, and it places upon them at the same time a considerable amount of responsibility. It puts these Committees in a judicial position, and the House will agree with me it is all important these Committees should be protected from any outside influence. I am sure the House of Commons will agree nothing is more improper than that petitioners to Bills should write private letters to the Chairmen of Committees endeavouring to influence their decisions. Yet such letters are sometimes written. I admit they are usually written in entire ignorance. If it is improper these letters should be written by petitioners, is it not a gross outrage such letters should be written by Government Departments? The Local Government Board at a Committee over which I presided, read a statement from the Treasury putting forward the Government reasons why the verdict should be given in the way they desired. They were very much the same reasons as the right hon. Gentleman has given. I admit that is a perfectly correct and proper proceeding, but it is sufficient. They were not satisfied with that. A letter was written from the Treasury to the Clerk of the Committee, mentioning me by name and suggesting he should endeavour to influence my decision. I have tried to get that letter, but I find it has been destroyed on the ground that it never ought to have been written. This is the first case I have had to deal with in the capacity of chairman, but I feel bound to protest against this grossly improper attempt to colour the views of the chairman of a Private Bill Committee. I say such conduct is entirely incompatible with the efficiency of a Committee or the dignity of this House.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I know nothing of such a letter. I have never seen it. I never knew what its contents were, and it certainly was never authorised by me. I never even heard of it.
    Mr. J. MASON: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The letter came from an official of the Treasury and was signed by him.. I regret very much I have been unable to obtain the letter. I find, as I have already mentioned, it was destroyed, and I cannot, therefore, read the exact words.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE:I never even heard of it until this moment.
    Mr. J. WARD: You have seen the letter?
    Mr. J. MASON: Yes.
    Mr. J. WARD: Who signed it?
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. MASON: One, Mr. Headlam. Passing from that matter, I say, in conclusion, that justice absolutely requires differentiation of the law in this case. That differentiation is admitted by the Government to be necessary both by what they have done in the case of Stoke and what they contemplate in the case of the Finance Bill, Clause 5. We are all agreed it should, if it could, be dealt with by general words which would cover all cases, but, if not, then I submit the best machinery with which to deal with this case is an impartial Committee of this House with an appeal to this House itself, and not a Government official from whom there is no appeal.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Member for Windsor has based the whole of his argument upon the theory that an injustice is committed by the general law of the land and that it was incumbent upon the Committee to remedy that injustice.
    Mr. J. MASON: It was admitted by the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Whatever the Postmaster-General may have admitted, I, as a Member of this House, entirely repudiate the suggestion that the House has admitted any injustice is done in this case by the operation of the Act of 1909. The hon. Member accuses the House of being biassed. I do not accuse the Committee of being biassed, but I do say the speech the hon. Member has made and the theory he has set up that it was incumbent upon the Committee to remedy an injustice under the general law of the land does explain the extraordinary Clause which they allowed to find its way into the Bill.
    Mr. MASON: I did not say the House was biassed. I was speaking of the Commissioners of Excise and Inland Revenue.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the hon. Member said, if we did not allow an impartial Committee upstairs to decide this, it would be decided by a tribunal here.
    Mr. J. MASONdissented.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not press that at all. Whether there is an injustice or not, I do not admit a Private Bill is the place to remedy an injustice committed by a general Act. That, at any rate, is the position of the Government, and I think it is the position of every Member of this House. Indeed, I see the greatest danger
    1604
    to our Private Bill procedure if members of Private Bill Committees are going to presume, because they consider an injustice is done in some general Act of which they disapprove, it is part of their duty on that Private Bill Committee to put right such an injustice. I think that really would destroy our Private Bill procedure altogether. A Committee sitting upstairs must accept the injustices of the general law. What they have got to do is to see that the Bill, conforming with the general law, does not inflict injustices which ought not to be inflicted by a Private Bill. The argument used by the hon. Member is very dangerous, so far as our Private Bill procedure is concerned. He has rested his case, I suppose, largely on the eases of Stoke and Dewsbury. But these are very different cases indeed, and they have been differently dealt with by this House. There is no analogy between the case of Stoke and the one now under consideration. The Stoke arrangements for amalgamation have been arrived at before the Finance Act, 1909-10, had been passed, and when the parties concerned entered into that arrangement they had not foreseen what would be the effect of the Finance Act. Had they done so, they might not have wished to amalgamate. Under the circumstances it was thought right to exempt them from those particular provisions. I agree that it was right; I made no objection. In the case of Dews-bury also the negotiations were going on before the Finance Act passed through this House, and I rather think it was more an oversight than anything else that it was not exempted at the same time as Stoke. It was, as a matter of fact, hon. Gentlemen opposite who declined to have Dewsbury treated on the same basis as Stoke, and the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) took action in that direction.
    Mr. CAVE: The intention on this side of the House was that the exemption should be granted to Dewsbury, and we only objected to the Clause on the ground that if Dewsbury was being specially favoured, Cambridge and other places, ought to be similarly treated.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am in the recollection of the House when I say it was a letter written by the Minister for Education which caused the great sensation about Dewsbury, and if it had not been for the publication of that letter I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would have taken up the attitude they did. They raised an

    1605
    objection which might have been raised from this side of the House if it had been left to us, and they must take the consequences. Even conceiving that Dewsbury should be exempted, there is nothing to justify Cambridge being treated in the same way. The whole case of Dewsbury as I understand it was that the negotiations had been practically settled by the time the Finance Act was introduced. But with regard to Cambridge the negotiations respecting amalgamation were carried on after the passing of that Act. In my opinion you would be inflicting an injustice on the ratepayers of Cambridge by retaining Clause 3 as part of this Bill. The Borough of Cambridge and the other boroughs concerned did not raise the point which has been raised by the licensed victuallers of the district. On the contrary, they entered into and carried through the amalgamation negotiations in the full knowledge that the Finance Act of 1909 was going to operate, and that, consequently, this higher scale of Licence Duties would have to be paid. By keeping this Clause in a heavier burden will be inflicted on the other ratepayers.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Why?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Because you would be exempting the trade from some of the burdens which ought to fall upon it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The money in question is collected by the Treasury; it does not go to local rates.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The ratepayers made no representations to the Committee.
    Mr. CAVE: There is the evidence.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I submit you would create an injustice in this case which was not created in the cases of Stoke and Dewsbury. I will substitute the word "taxpayers" for the word "ratepayers." It comes to the same thing. My point is that these amalgamation negotiations were entered into with the full knowledge that the Licence Duties would be levied on the higher scale, and if you now change that arrangement you will be changing the basis on which the negotiations were carried through. I submit further that it is a most undesirable precedent for the House now to create—to continue these exemptions from the operation of the Finance Act of 1909. It is obvious if you exempt Cambridge, in which case the whole negotiations were carried through with
    1606
    full knowledge of the provisions of the Act, you must also exempt every other case that comes forward.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That was just the point made by the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I certainly did not understand that to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I can only say that, although I am a loyal supporter of the Government, I should offer the strongest possible opposition to any such suggestion. I think it very undesirable to create any such precedent. Any future extensions of the boroughs must be carried through with the full knowledge that the provisions of the Finance Act will be enforced. There must be no more of these exemptions. I do not complain that it was granted in the case of Stoke. I should not have complained in the case of Dewsbury had it been done at the same time as Stoke, as the circumstances were practically the same. But now, when boroughs extend and surrounding localities are taken in with full knowledge of the provisions of the Finance Act, there is no reason whatever why they should be exempted from the operation of the general law. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having moved the omission of this Clause.
    Mr. PAGET: The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. Leif Jones) evidently had not prepared his case very carefully, for he seemed to be quite unaware of what became of these duties. Undoubtedly in this case the injustice is suffered by the licensed victuallers of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, in the earlier portion of his speech, deprecated the general idea of private Acts overriding the general law. I can hardly see where justice is to come from if you cannot get justice by means of these private Acts. As far as I have been able to see these private Acts are practically prepared for in Committee rooms upstairs. In this particular case we have been extraordinarily fortunate in having as chairman the hon. Member (Mr. James Mason). He certainly makes a very clear case for justice for a trade which T consider is very hardly used under the Clause which affects them in the Finance Act. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Stoke-on-Trent, but I do not know whether he made it very clear that the people of Stoke-on-Trent hardly realised what was in the Finance Act when they

    1607
    were partly responsible for bringing about the amalgamation of the different areas which compose Stoke-on-Trent, which now has a population of 260,000 or so. He also referred to the town of Dewsbury, and it is in my recollection that the reason why the case for Dewsbury was hurriedly withdrawn was that it was known that there were other places—Cambridge is one of them—which felt that they were justified in coming in under the Act. The excuse, I believe, which was made in that connection was that the Postmaster-General has not been able to devise a Clause which would meet the case. I am sure it must be the general desire of the House, if it is humanly possible, to devise a Clause which will mete out justice to any interest which is concerned. I suggest that a Clause can be drawn which will cover the interests involved, whether they be in Cambridge or in any other part of the country. This is a suggested Clause which could be introduced into another Finance Act:—
    "Where through the extension of the boundaries of any borough and the consequent increase of its population the licensed houses in such borough are, for the purpose of ascertaining the minimum licence duty payable, brought into the higher class under Scale 3 of Schedule 1 of the Finance Act of 1910, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that the business of the licensed premises situated in such boroughs is not likely to be increased by the extension of the boundaries, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power to assess the licensed premises in the borough, for a period not exceeding twenty years from the passing of this Bill, under the same scale as they were assessed previous to the extension of the borough boundaries."
    I merely put that forward as a Clause, which has been suggested, which would cover the point of this injustice, but I think it is my business here to say a word for an interest which is hardly treated under the Clause. As far as the borough of Cambridge is concerned it has been accepted upstairs that the increase in the duties which affect Cambridge is a matter of the difference between £3,050 and £4,259, which amounts to a rate of 5s. 1d. in the pound. The rateable value of the property affected is £4,749. As I understand it, in the Finance Act the duty im-
    1608
    posed is one-half of the rateable value. It is perfectly obvious that the effect, so far as Cambridge is concerned, is that it is nullified because it amounts to very nearly the full rateable value—the difference between £4,259 and £4,749. Hon. Members know what the principles of that Bill were. The idea was that the duty should be higher in proportion to the increased business consequent upon the increased population, but so far as Cambridge was concerned it will not be affected in that way. It was proved in evidence upstairs that there would be no room for building within the present borough, and it would be a long time before there could be any very considerable increase in the other districts. It is quite possible that there might be a little more drinking in the suburbs by virtue of the Bill passing, if it is fortunate enough to pass, but otherwise, except for the first night or so, it could not permanently affect the drinking habits of that part. If I may make a very plain suggestion I would say to the House if you put a pony into a stable with horses you are not necessarily thereby going either to increase the speed of the pony or to enable it to carry a greater burden. The argument is perfectly good as regards Cambridge. The people concerned will not get any greater benefit if this Bill is passed, whereas the licensed trade will have to pay a considerable increase of cost. It is also well known, to the House that the licensed trade has already had to pay something like 40 per cent. in extra duties under recent legislation. As far as the corporation is concerned, they are perfectly sympathetic, and, indeed, it is rather surprising that they do not go further. It is perfectly obvious that the rateable value of these houses will be decreased by the extent of the increased duties, and consequently the revenue of the town will be affected, and the other ratepayers will have to pay so much more.
    I do not think any Members of the House will dispute with me the general proposition that it is for the benefit of boroughs generally, and that it conduces to economic government that boroughs should be enlarged. That is certainly the case with Cambridge, and it has received the support practically of a very large majority of the people. The Secretary to the Treasury quoted Dewsbury. As I understand it, the question of Dewsbury came up, but the Government has not been able to devise a form of words which would cover the case. Clause 5, as it is

    1609
    at present, deals only with rural areas incorporated, and does not affect Cambridge in any way. I believe in the general proposition very strongly. I feel that most Members of the House will regard this as a case of very great hardship by reason of this Clause. If the only objection to be raised is on the ground of precedent, I think it is most unfortunate. I believe generally in the principle of adhering to precedent, but, at the same time, I think we can carry that too far and make the law simply ridiculous. It is the business of statesmen and of the Government to be able to draw up Clauses to cover cases where great hardship would be involved. On these grounds I am very glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor in appealing for ordinary justice to be meted out to a trade which has already had considerably increased expenditure put upon it by reason of the Finance Act.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) called attention in the concluding portion of his speech to a most important point. I refer to the action of a Treasury official in writing to him to influence his judgment when this Bill was under consideration before the Private Bill Committee.
    Mr. J. MASON: Writing to the Clerk.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: The principle, of course, is the same—writing without knowledge of the Gentlemen in this House responsible to the Treasury. I venture to suggest that that is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) who represents the Treasury ought to pay particular attention to in order to see that a recurrence becomes impossible, and that we ought to have Treasury management by Treasury representatives on the Front Bench. While I say that to emphasise the importance of this point of Parliamentary control over official departments', I want to give my strong support to the action of the Government in moving to delete Clause 3. The hon. Member for Windsor spoke of the Private Bill Committee acting in a judicial capacity. That is precisely the attitude which a Private Bill Committee ought to take up, but in this case it would appear to me that we have had an attempt made to convert a judicial attitude into the making of law by judgment which some who sit on these benches have had experience of to their cost. That is a principle which ought not to obtain in private Bill legislation. I speak as a new Member with limited ex-
    1610
    perience of Private Bill legislation, but I do remember the guidance given by the Chairman of our Private Bill Committee when we had an important Bill to consider. A new principle was suggested in that Committee, and our Chairman's guidance was that it was not for a Private Bill Committee to give judgment and a lead to this House by introducing the important precedent which would have been set by our judgment if we had accepted the new principle. We therefore struck out the Clause which would have set the precedent, and we took the correct attitude in that matter—an attitude which I venture to suggest was not taken by the Private Bill Committee which considered the Cambridge measure.
    I have another objection to the carrying of this Bill at this juncture. We have in the Bill the principle of exemption on the recommendation of a Private Bill Committee. This House has had small opportunity of considering what is involved in Clause 3. The Bill, through procedure, which I understand has been the regular procedure, was not circulated to Members, and I doubt whether half of the Members of this House are aware that there is an attempt at exemption from legislation which has been determined by the House as a whole. I understand that there is a desire to amend this procedure, so that Provisional Orders of this character which involve large changes shall not be considered and passed as Provisional Orders until the proposed changes have been for some time before the House so that opportunity shall be given for the consideration of the changes and of suggesting amendments. Another point which makes its appeal to me is that the local authority appears to have been indifferent in this matter. Local authorities are not indifferent when it comes to the question of appealing to the Treasury for additional aid. Here was an opportunity for the local authority to assist the Treasury and to secure additional income whereby the Treasury could have been replenished and enabled to give assistance to local authorities, many of which are overloaded. The local authority cannot afford to be indifferent in this matter. This is an important precedent, and we may have appeals to Private Bill Committees and local authorities may be overridden in connection with extensions where they are directly concerned. They may expect to have an income through rates from local areas added, and they may find that other interests may be able

    1611
    to divert the rates which ought to go into the coffers of the local exchequer. No local authority can afford to be indifferent in a matter of this kind, and to allow it to go by, thinking it may never have any connection with their own affairs. It may well be extremely important to them, for when they extend their borders they may be looking for new sources of revenue where, as in the case of Cambridge, districts may contract themselves out of local liability.
    Another point raised is the hardship to the licensed victuallers, and the case has been quoted of the increased Licence Duties they have to pay. May I remind the House that the gentlemen who are now going to pay a little more, as I hope they will by the deletion of this Clause, have been for a number of years enjoying rural conditions in the neighbourhood of a town. They have been on the outskirts of Cambridge, and they have been within reach of the residents of Cambridge. Their business has been considerably benefited as the result of the nearness of that town. Therefore, they have enjoyed business at less than the town rates, and now they have to pay. It is presumed by hon. Members opposite that they ought to have another term of fifteen years under rural conditions. I say that, as they have enjoyed rural conditions for a number of years, they ought to be prepared now to under- take the added duties which will fall upon them if this Clause is deleted. The hon. Member opposite referred, by way of illustration, to a pony living with horses. It is not so much a case of a pony living with horses as a horse living with other horses and wanting to pay pony rates. I hope for a number of reasons that the Government will proceed to a division on this proposal, and I myself, and I think the majority of the Members who sit with me on these benches, will go into the Division Lobby to support them.
    Mr. CAVE: I will not dwell at length on the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) referred to, because following a precedent which I am afraid is rather growing in this House, the Government disclaimed responsibility—
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I disclaim no responsibility at all. I said I never heard of such a letter. I knew nothing of it, but I disclaim no responsibility for any official who may be temporarily under my Department. '
    Mr. CAVE: If I could have thrown on the right hon. Gentleman the responsibility of the letter I should like very much to do so, and to express my opinion upon it. But having regard to the fact that he disclaims knowledge he really disarms me, because I am quite unwilling to make any kind of attack upon an official whom we all know by name, and who is so very able. I think that my hon. Friend has done service in calling attention to the matter, but as far as that is concerned, I propose to say nothing more. But there is another very strange feature about this particular Motion. One Government Department, the Local Government Board, promoted the Bill before the Committee. Objections were made, a Clause was inserted in the Bill, and they got the Bill through on the condition of having the Clause in it. If they thought fit the Government might have dropped the Bill and said, "we will not have the Bill with this Clause," but they proceed with the Bill, and now in this House the Government move to omit from the Bill the very Clause upon the condition of whose insertion they got the Bill through the Committee. I think they have no right to depart from the condition imposed by the Committee. They have no right to take the benefit of the passage of the Bill and repudiate the condition upon which it was obtained. In the Committee no distinction was drawn between the two Government Departments. In the Report, at page 103, a representative of the Local Government Board was asked "On what grounds do you oppose the Clause being inserted?" He said, "I ought perhaps to say that the Local Government Board as a Local Government Board have no views on the subject. It is only as a Government Department." So as a Government Department they oppose the Clause by the insertion of which in Committee the Bill was enabled to pass, and they propose to strike it out.
    I think that is a very bad system which the House ought not to favour. The Committee heard the evidence, and it was really all one way. They had no option but to insert the Clause, acting upon the evidence. The next question— No. 104—put to the same official was, "On what grounds do you oppose the insertion of this Clause? Is it on legal grounds, or on grounds of common justice? Can you give me an answer?" His answer was, "I am afraid I cannot." So really no reason was given by the responsible Government Department for opposing the

    1613
    Clause. I think that the Committee acted perfectly fairly, perfectly impartially, and quite in the ordinary course in inserting the Clause. A proposal is made to widen the boundaries of a borough. It is made, of course, on public grounds. The effect of the enlargement is to increase the Licence Duty, not only in the added area, but in the borough itself, because by putting up the population of the borough, as a whole, you, of course, increase the minimum duties on the houses in. the borough itself. Those houses gain no custom by the change. They gain absolutely nothing by it, but the mere change of the conventional local government boundary. Then it is put to the Committee that by the mere alteration made for local government purposes these people would have their duties increased with no increase of custom, and in order to ease the transition between the old state of things and the new this Clause is inserted that the increase of duties shall not operate for a period of fifteen years. We are all familiar with what is done in so many of these extension cases where differential rating is imposed. In providing for differential rating, when by a private Bill you modify the effect of public statutes, you are doing the very thing which is here objected to, yet nobody thinks of describing that as an improper or unfair operation.
    There are hundreds of cases where in order to facilitate the union of areas or the enlargement of one area by taking in part of another differential rating is imposed, say, for fifteen years. It is recognised that the operation of the scheme, unless some special Clause is inserted, is to raise the rates in the added -area under the general law, which it is obviously unfair to do. For that reason a special Clause is put in. This principle is exactly the same. It is seen that the operation of the extension is, at all events, prejudicial to certain individuals and therefore they are given a little time, fifteen years, in which to grow into the new system. And not only is it a very fair proposal, but one which few Committees acting without bias would refuse. I think it would be a great pity if, after the Committee have gone into the matter and considered it and by a unanimous vote given by Members on both sides of the House approved of the Clause, it is now struck out on the Motion of a Government Department. When you strike out these Clauses and will not give special consideration to special cases you produce this very un-
    1614
    desirable effect. You raise up new opposition to these extension orders. I have always been in favour myself, where a case is shown of a surrounding area getting the benefit of the improvements and facilities, and sometimes the amusements, of an urban area, that they should be brought into the urban area. I think it is for the public good in very many cases that that should be done, but if by this kind of thing you produce this effect that the operation is prejudicial to individuals, I think you raise up new opponents of these proposals. I commend that consideration to the House. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) did not do justice to us in this quarter of the House. It is not true to say that we opposed the giving of this temporary exemption to the licensed victuallers in Dewsbury.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: What I do say is that but for the action of the right hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him the Dewsbury Clause would not have been withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: The hon. Member is right in a way. It was proposed in a public Bill to insert a special exemption for Dewsbury, which happened to be represented by a Member of the present Government. We thought it our duty to call attention to the fact that exactly similar cases could be made out for other places, such as the borough of Cambridge, which I myself mentioned in the Debate, the city of Birmingham, Wakefield, and, I think, other places. We said, I do not think improperly, that if you provide that for Dewsbury you should provide it for other places also. The justice of that observation was recognised, because the Government at once withdrew their Clause, saying they would consider whether they could not frame a general Clause to apply to all cases. On that basis, and on that only, we agreed to the Dewsbury Clause. A few days afterwards the Postmaster-General came to the House and said that the Government had not been able to frame a general Clause, and so no general Clause was framed. I venture to think there is no difficulty at all in framing a general Clause, but what I want to point out is that in the course of that Debate the Government said they could not frame such a Clause as would cover all cases, and we should make special provision to meet them. That is exactly what we have done. And now the Government will not accept our special Clause, and say they will propose a general Clause.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. CAVE: It is said that Clause 5 of the Finance Bill will meet those oases. I submit that it will not in any degree meet the grievance. The terms proposed are that where it is shown that a part of an urban area "has only a small local population and is essentially rural in character and that the more populous parts of the districts are so remote as not to affect the amount of business carried on," then there may be a special exemption. But does that meet the grievance? The grievance, or part of the grievance, is that a house within the borough of Cambridge would have to pay a higher rate and get nothing for it. You could not possibly bring that case within the new Clause proposed. The Government do not provide for the case at all. I think the proposal of the new Clause is inadequate, and I think it is a pity to interfere with the decision of the Committee, unless a very strong case is made out. I have always made it a practice to support a Committee whenever I could. Apart from that, the real grievance is that the Committee have supplied a fair and reasonable remedy, and I urge upon the House and the Government to give further consideration to the matter, and not to press the Motion.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I think it is a somewhat singular doctrine that there is never to be an attempt made to try and reverse the decision of a Committee in the House. That surely is pushing the rights and privileges of Private Bill Committees rather far. The Committee consists of four or five Members of the House, chosen no doubt with great care, and no doubt well qualified for the task they have in hand. But their decisions are not invariably right, and we surely are accustomed, over and over again, to see the Government in Private Bill Committees and in Grand Committees upstairs, reversing the decisions. Four or five Members of the House have gone through the case and have heard the evidence, but surely it is not claimed that the decision of a Committee is to be the final test of any matter of real importance.
    Mr. CAVE: I confined my observations to the case where the Government themselves promoted the Bill, and I think where the promoters of a Bill have got the Bill on condition of inserting a Clause in it they are not entitled to move to leave it out.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Government promoted the Bill, but not with this Clause. Why should the promoters of the Bill take it with this Clause in it? It seems to me an impossible contention. I saw an allusion to this matter in the papers, and I took some pains to find this Clause. One of my great objections to Private Bill Committees altering the general law by means of these Provisional Orders, is that it is exceedingly difficult for anybody who has to follow them to find the Clause after the Committee have parted with it. I have hunted from pillar to post all over the House—the Vote Office, the Private Bill Office, and the Library, and, finally, I found out that the Clause is not reprinted. If we are to have Private Bill Committees that are to carry through important decisions, claiming that those decisions, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, must not be reversed by the House, it does seem to me to be pushing the claims of those Committees to a very considerable extent. Here is a case in which, according to the contention of the other side, there is a real case of hardship and injustice, imposed, according to their contention, by the Radicals. Let us take another instance of a tax imposed by a "tyrannical House." Let us imagine the case of a landlord who says we are crushing him by the iniquitous proceedings of this House. If in twenty years he were to put in a plea for exemption from the Increment Duty I do not suppose that any Private Bill Committee would listen to him for an instant. Still, if you claim the right to dispense with the general law in one case, why should you not do it in another?
    I would put this point, that the real test is the desire for incorporation. If their desire for incorporation is there, then I do not think that the locality can expect to escape from the general incidence which attaches to being incorporated, at all events so far as the general law is concerned. We know, as the hon. Member for Kingston put it, that you do get differential ratings. I admit that you have to concede on those points when there are claims to be met and that it is a mode of bargaining, but I do not think that you ought to push that further. Take this very case. The Committee which has decided on this very point has conceded to the licensed trade in this place some of the advantages of being incorporated. The Committee has treated them when it comes to a question of the extension of their privileges as though they were an urban area, and it is only when it comes to a question of

    1617
    burden that it is to be treated as a rural area. It is to be a rural area for the purpose of taxation, and it is to be an urban area for the purpose of drinking hours. It never occurred to the Private Bill Committee that in this essentially rural district in this remote part of the country, which is entirely distinct from any urban area, that they are going to get an additional hour of drinking privilege. Everybody knows that in the rural areas the closing hour is ten p.m., but by means of this incorporation you are increasing the drinking hour by one additional hour to eleven. If you are going to make those areas rural in one respect you ought to make them rural altogether. I know well enough that in some of the Birmingham districts there was strong objection taken to that. The hon. Member for Cambridge said that there is going to be no increase in the drinking habits, but there is.
    Mr. PAGET: Not in Cambridge town.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes, in the rural district which is going to be incorporated in Cambridge borough. To that extent you are going to put them in a better position to pay those increased taxes, and at the same time you are going to let them off the taxation which ought to be the equivalent of their urban privileges. As a matter of fact the duties in the rural areas at present are ludicrously low. The minimum is £5 still; the high minimum duties do not apply to rural areas. I have been through New England villages and there the minimum Licence Duty in the smallest area is £200 or a thousand dollars for a full licence, and it is paid in some cases. Our scale is ludicrously low. They have the advantages of being fairly close to urban areas; they have all the advantages of the lower scale and now when they come to be incorporated with the town I think they ought to pay the taxation which is laid down for the urban area. They were imposed as a check upon the number of licences. I think there are plenty of licences in Cambridge, and I think that the existence of a minimum which is not a very high minimum is a thing which is desirable and which should apply to all those licensed houses which are affected by the incorporation.
    10.0 P.M.
    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having opposed this Clause which the hon. Member for Cam- bridge treated as leading up to his general Clause which he had in his hand. He was setting a prece-
    1618
    dent. It is no doubt the first step, and if we sanctioned it to-night we should have to sanction it in all other cases. Even the Government Clause, though it is much more moderate in the Finance Bill, has, I think, something to be said against it. At all events, if you are going to differentiate the taxation under the new Bill, may I put it to the Government that yon ought wherever you let off taxation on the ground that an area is purely rural, to maintain the rural hours of drinking. That I hope the Government will be willing to do when the time comes. So far as the Dewsbury case is concerned, I believe that it and the Stoke case are simply and solely a question of date. In those cases the date of the Provisional Order was before the Budget, and when the extension of boundaries was decided upon in both those cases they entered into their bargain without the knowledge of what was coming. Directly the line was drawn and that you get full knowledge of what the general law is, then I must finally say again I think it is highly improper for a Private Bill Committee to attempt in this, I will not say surreptitious, but at all events by a method which is indescribable, to set what may be a precedent and to attempt to alter the general law.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and addressed it as he always does on these questions, with ability and knowledge, has, if I may respectfully say so, really missed the point of hon. Members on this side of the House in regard to this matter. I should myself, and I think all my friends would probably concede, that if you have a public statute which imposes laws, however onerous, or taxation, however iniquitous, upon any section of the community, that, as a general rule, it would not be competent for this House in. its Private Bill Committee to reverse that legislation. I think that is true, speaking very generally, and I think it is more true with regard to legislation of a taxing character than it is of any other class of legislation. But let the Government think for a moment what really they are doing here. What has happened here? I look at the figures, and I find that the imposition by the Finance Act of additional taxation. upon Cambridge—that is, upon this area, is about £2,200 per annum upon the licensed houses. This Provisional Order Bill—private legislation promoted by the Local Government Board—imposes additionally upon, the licensed trade of this

    1619
    area a further most onerous tax of £1,400. So you have had, in the course of a few years, an onerous taxation imposed by general statute, and then you have superimposed upon that by private statute a further taxation upon the same trade in the same area. We do not for a moment, in support of the Committee of this House, seek to set aside the general rule that you must not by private legislation reverse public legislation. What we seek to do here is to prevent by private legislation additional and onerous taxation being placed upon the subject. If hon. Members examine the matter they will find this absolutely correct. We are, therefore, absolutely free in this matter from any consideration of any principles of public and private legislation. We are free to consider this case upon its merits. I think there must be only one conclusion. We have the unanimous desire of the Committee of the House, and it will be admitted by everybody in this House that we ought to support the Committee unless strong grounds are shown on principle why we should differ from, them. No ground has been shown on a question of merit. The matter has been argued on a question of principle. I can see it would be fair that if the rural area was exempted from further taxation they should revert to the original state of rural licensed houses. Let me pass from the question of principle to the question of merit on which there has been no argument in this House. Let me take the Government's own opinion. In the case of Stoke and Dews-bury they admitted the principle, but they came away from their position because it was pointed out to them that probably their intentions might be misrepresented if they absolved the case of Dewsbury, which was represented by a Cabinet Minister, and left cases which were less happily circumstanced. The House ought to remember that at the same time as that Clause was abandoned by the Government the Postmaster-General pointed out in the most expressive terms that a general Clause was the proper way to deal with it. Then, on reconsideration, no doubt, after conferences with the Treasury, who never liked general Clauses that may operate against taxation—the Postmaster-General came down to the House and said he found a general Clause was impossible. What that means is that the Treasury do not like it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must protest against the statement of the hon. Gentle-
    1620
    man. The Postmaster-General was not influenced as now stated.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I do not see the point of that interruption at all. He admits there was consultation with the officials, and I say again it is not impossible to draft a general Clause. No matter what excuses were given by the Postmaster-General he receded from the advice he had given to the House. He said the general Clause he had advocated could not be drawn, and stated the proper way to remedy the grievance of such people was by a special Clause in special private legislation. Now you have the direct invitation by the Government to these licensed victuallers at Cambridge. It does not stop there. At the Local Government Board inquiry the inspector advised then the proper course was to come and represent their grievance and get a Clause inserted in the general Order. You have an invitation in this House, and you have an intimation given by an official at the local inquiry that that was the proper course. You have further this provision by Clause 5 of the Finance Bill of this year which is an admission by the Government that these cases are exceptional and to be dealt with by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and not by the Private Bill Committee of this House.
    I ask the House to consider what the impression has been upon the licensed victuallers in Cambridge when they saw Clause 5 of the Finance Act. They saw in that Clause an admission that they have a case and a grievance and a hardship which ought to be redressed. But the special machinery set up by the Government has not come into being. The licensed victuallers bring forward their case before the Private Bill Committee. The Local Government Board does not say a word upon the merits of the case. The Committee are unanimous, the Committee insert the Clause, and then the Local Government Board comes down to this House and do what is entirely without precedent. They come down here, amend the Bill, which imposes this most unjust taxation, and seek to repudiate the Clause on which they obtained that legislation. That is what I would say to the President of the Local Government Board, if in another sphere, was not cricket. Let me say just one last word upon this question—it is a very important one. Although I do not seek for a moment to say a word against the official, as to whom I entirely echo the words of my Friend, that he is known

    1621
    as a most capable and zealous official, what I do say is—and I speak with considerable experience—that it has been for years the endeavour of the Treasury and other public Departments to get their views before Private Bill Committees, which are judicial Committees, not in the proper way by witnesses subject to cross-examination, but by private memoranda, which the opponents of their views have not the opportunity of meeting. I do not blame as an individual the Gentleman who did this. He was probably acting under orders, or at any rate in the spirit of the Department, when he wrote the letter. But it has been for many years the endeavour of the Treasury to treat themselves, in the matter of Private Bill Committees, as a part of the tribunal, and to state their views without being subject to cross-examination or criticism by the other side. I hold that that is an improper procedure. Only this afternoon we had exposed by my right hon. Friend the danger that may arise from the close inter-action of Government Departments. If Clause 5 of the Finance Bill is carried, and if you have the Treasury and other Departments writing to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise behind the backs of the parties affected by the measures concerned, you will have a state of things which will be repugnant to this House and to all fair-minded people. I hope the Government will repudiate this practice and cause it to cease. I desire to emphasise the extremely important point put by my hon. Friend, that if these grievances of the licensed trade, which are not defended by anybody who brings an unbiassed mind to the subject, are left unredressed, the natural, inevitable and, I think, deplorable result will be that the amalgamations of great cities and surrounding districts, which are very often greatly desired by the districts and by the Local Government Board, will be met with an opposition not in the best interests of the districts concerned.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained of their inability to ascertain the real merits involved in this discussion, because, owing to the comparative privacy of Provisional Order Bill legislation, they have not seen this matter as they would have done had it formed the subject of an ordinary Bill. That makes it necessary for me to say briefly what the Bill is. It is an ordinary Provisional Order Bill, promoted by
    1622
    municipalities, endorsed by the Local Government Board, and taken upstairs to a Private Bill Committee, to enable the town of Cambridge to include within its new area two or three outside areas which bring the population of the enlarged area to over 50,000. It is the fact of the population of the new borough reaching 50,000 that is responsible for some of the discussion to-night. The Committee before whom the Provisional Order Bill came decided that the new areas should be added to the borough, and they did so, presumably because the areas were urban in character and not rural as has been implied. If they had been rural in the sense suggested by some speakers they would not have been added to the new borough. So far as the public-houses are concerned, it is important that the House should know the facts. There are 154 public-houses in Cambridge before the extension. The extension of the area will add nineteen in Chesterton and four in the rural districts.
    By a Clause which the Local Government Board did not initiate, which the municipality did not pioneer, but which was inserted in the Bill on the initiative of the Committee itself at the instance of the licensed trade of the area, it is proposed to exempt the whole of these houses for the next fifteen years from the new Licence Duties that must attach to a borough with over 50,000 inhabitants. If those nineteen public-houses, plus 154, are to escape their proper and statutory liability—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] —well, that is my way of putting it— if that is not so, what is the object of the Clause exempting them for fifteen years from the new licensing scale? What does it amount to? The present duty is £3,382. If they paid the increased duty it would be £4,869, or £l,487 increase, which for fifteen years they want to be exempt from. I can understand Cambridge municipality not opposing this, because their line was the line of least resistance. It did not affect them, but it did the Treasury. The Treasury says that it has no right, by virtue of that extension, to be deprived of £1,487, money which the Treasury is being increasingly asked for by local authorities and by Members to secure for them for educational, social, and progressive purposes. I think that if Cambridge itself without extension, had increased its population beyond 50,000 these licensed houses would have to have paid this increased amount. I endorse the Treasury reason

    1623
    very strongly indeed. I endorse the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that if we do by Statute impose a tax upon a community it should not obtain a release from it by a private Bill. I say "ditto" to that dictum of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton). It is the case for the Treasury which the Local Government Board approves.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: If you turn to page 39 of this very Bill you will find it is already done.
    Mr. BURNS: I will deal with that point; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston made some play about a letter. He lightly touched upon it, but another hon. Member earlier in the Debate rather portentously referred to it. There is nothing in that letter. It was a very proper letter, written by an official of the Treasury to the Clerk to the Committee, the Chairman of which he, I think, subsequently saw. The effect of this letter was embodied in the memorandum that on behalf of the Treasury the Local Government Board officer submitted to the Committee itself. Here are the contents both of the letter and the memorandum. Mr. Wood, one of my officers, stated:—
    "The present Amendment endeavours to secure exemption from the general law for a particular locality, that is, would introduce a very dangerous principle into Provisional Order procedure. The Local Government Board would not have inserted such a provision when making a Provisional Order, and they must protest most strongly against its insertion in the present Bill. There is no special circumstance in the present case which would justify any exemption such as was made in the case of Stoke."
    My officer would be neglecting his duty had he not communicated that by means of a memorandum to the Committee. And what is embodied in that memorandum is only an amplification of what a Treasury official asked a reliable officer of the Local Government Board to communicate.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say it was a proper course for any official of his Department to communicate privately with the Clerk to the Committee, with a view of influencing the chairman?
    Mr. BURNS: He did not do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you the letter;"] I have not got the letter. The hon. Member for Kingston suggested that this was part of a bargain with the municipality of Cambridge, that it was part of an understanding or bargain for getting the Bill
    1624
    through. That is not so. We had nothing to do with it; we protested against it and the Treasury confirmed our action. Even were these things not so, the suggestion of the hon. Member is that the House of Commons should be deprived of the power of reviewing what a Committee on its own initiative, without consulting the parties concerned, put into a Bill. Then the hon. Member for Kingston, with that ingenuity which we all admire, but which is sometimes misplaced, and never so much so as on the present occasion, said that Provisional Order Bills sometimes contain suggestions with regard to differential rating. Let us examine that for a moment. Differential rating affects areas, and not trades; it affects large sections of the community, and not individuals. It deals with collective interests of whole districts, and not with private interests or vested interests or a trade, whether it be liquor or any other trade that has to pay taxes or obtain licences owing to the dangerous nature of the particular calling.
    I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor. The hon. Member really made a strong case out in many particulars for the Treasury. He admitted that the Committee had created a precedent, and a precedent, if he will allow me to say so, which ought not to be adopted by the House of Commons on the initiative of a small Private Bill Committee which was instituted and created not for this particular purpose. Everybody will admit Stoke was not a precedent, which the hon. Member for Windsor implied. Dewsbury was attempted to be created a precedent, and hon. Gentlemen opposite on that occasion did their best and succeeded in preventing such a Clause from being embodied in the Dewsbury Bill, and if we wanted strong argument in support of that not being done, we have only got to turn up the Debate on that occasion. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Gretton), who is not unacquainted with spirituous and alcoholic trades, said on that occasion, "You have no right to cite a special case and give it general application." The hon. Member for Kingston was on that occasion a Daniel come to judgment. He said, "My argument is that the Government ought to have provided not for one isolated case, but for all cases coming within the same principle and having the same grievance. They should come within a general Clause." [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought hon. Members would cheer that, but they could get

    1625
    their Clause, not in a Private Bill, but in Clause 5 of the Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Kingston could be relied upon to display his ingenuity in pressing for general terms seeing that on the Dews-bury Bill he specially emphasised that this should not be a matter for isolated and exceptional treatment. I could go on and quote other Members who took precisely the same view—in fact, the hon. Member for Windsor said he would prefer a general method ' of dealing with these cases. That, however, is no argument for this exceptional treatment of a Private Bill. I submit that Parliament ought not to remit it to a Provisional Order Committee to undo or rectify what only ought to be done by a public Bill of national finance, and which ought not to be altered in this almost surreptitious way. That would be bad in principle and invidious in practice, and it would introduce into our Private Bill legislation a lot of extraneous party and political matters which are always evoked when licensing questions are discussed either by publicans or temperance advocates. It would be impossible for Private Bill legislation to go on if Private and Provisional Order Bill Committees were made the cockpits for licensed trade discussions from whatever point of view they were considered.
    I do not agree with the hon. Member for Windsor at all, and I would rather the Commissioners should determine whether certain licensed houses should come in or not, or should have diminished rating or taxation, than I would have those questions determined upstairs by a Private Bill Committee, thus depriving the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his public responsibility of dealing with taxation on the floor of this House. I am convinced that if the local authorities were consulted on these matters, if they were submitted to the Chairmen of our Private Bill Committees upstairs, if they were asked their frank opinion as to what would be the effect if this Amendment were adopted and made general in every Provisional Order Bill brought before the House of Commons and before their Committee, they would say that what would happen would be that our Committees upstairs would lose that respect and authority which they now have in the opinion of the House, because they are elected to deal with local and municipal matters, and not with questions of taxation at all. If this precedent was created to-night and this Amendment was carried, we should not be
    1626
    able to get through our private Bill Committee work half as well as we do now, and even when we got that work through all the questions would be discussed again at considerable length when the Bills came down here.
    We should have licensed trade debates for and against on every local Act and upon every Provisional Order Bill, and as my Department get forty to sixty such measures through every year, teetotaler though I am, I have no desire to listen to the sixty temperance and anti-temperance debates on Clauses in local Acts and Provisional Order Bills. Fortunately this is not possible because Parliament has hitherto taken the view that taxation should be dealt with on the responsibility of the Government on the floor of the House of Commons, and should not be dealt with by a tribunal upstairs which is not qualified either by its procedure, its methods, or its personnel to deal adequately with matters which ought to be discussed in public by the Members of the House of Commons with everybody knowing the facts. It is because this system is not possible in private Bills upstairs, and because I consider this is a very bad attempt to rectify a grievance arising under a public Act through the agency of a private Bill that we support the Treasury, and I appeal to hon. Members, in the interests of Private Bill legislation and public taxation, not to accept this Amendment, and to delete this proposal from the Bill.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I rise, as one of the Members of the Committee, to support the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) in the position he has taken up to-night. Our position on that Committee was to decide the issue put before us without bias and without any feeling except a desire to do justice and fairness on the case presented to us. We went carefully into all the facts of the case, and decided it would be unfair to put this increased liability on the licensed trade. We unanimously came to the conclusion it would be only fair to exempt them. We did not seek by a single act of ours to alter the general law. The law remains the same, no matter what we put in the Bill, but when the Bill was before us and we were asked whether it was right or wrong that the Provisional Order should pass we said that in our judgment, and in our conscientious opinion, if the Provisional Order should become law certain, exemptions should be made that would be

    1627
    fair and just in the matter. That was our position, and that was the position taken up by the promoters of the Bill, the municipality of Cambridge. An alderman of the city, who appeared before the Committee, was asked what the council thought about the increased licensing duties on the licensed traders, and he said the council were prepared to offer no opposition to the Clause. He was asked if the licensed victuallers ever complained to the council when they were considering the extension, and he said that at the initial proceedings in the matter the licensed trade presented a petition to the council, and the mayor, with the full consent of the Committee, promised the assent of the council. The promoters therefore were in sympathy with the licensed traders, and the licensed traders were invited, in the words of the Postmaster-General, to come to our Committee and have justice done. They were also invited by the Local Government inspector who held the inquiry to come before Parliament, as the only tribunal which could do them justice. The Dewsbury case showed a disposition on the part of the Government, if they could, to get a general law dealing with this subject. They said they were unable to find words which would deal with it generally. Apart from that, they were in sympathy with it. Were we not justified, in a specific case which came before us, acting on the assurance of a responsible Member of the Government, to deal with the case on its merits? The President of the Local Government Board admitted that the effect of this increased licensed duty would be to reduce the rateable value of licensed premises, and thus increase the burden on the ratepayers as a whole. The Gentleman representing the Treasury said it was not a Treasury matter at all. It was only the Local Government Board that was affected. Between the two Departments we did not know which was predominant in the matter. I think the action of the Secretary of the Treasury will strike a blow at the confidence which the public have hitherto felt in Committees of this House. We considered the case on its merits, having heard the evidence, and yet this House is asked to reverse our decision without hearing the evidence. I believe hon. Members who are supporting the omission of this Clause, if they had heard the evidence, would have decided in the way we did.
    1628
    The Secretary to the Treasury had suggested it is most improper to evade the general law in this way. We are not seeking to evade the law; we are only trying to protect certain members of the community from the consequences of our own act, and I am sure this House would not willingly pass any Act which imposed an unfair burden on any section of the community. How does the Finance Act affect the licensed trade of Cambridge? It imposes a gross sum of £900 on the trade; and in consequence of the borough extension that additional burden will be increased by £1,400. What change has taken place in the condition of Cambridge to justify such an increase of burden within a short period of two years? In my opinion we should have been lacking in our duty if we had come to any other decision than that at which we unanimously arrived. I am sorry the President of the Local Government Board has so far departed from the democratic principles he formerly professed by preferring a paid Commission to a Committee of this House—a Committee fair and unbiassed, acting without fear or favour. I say we did not overstep our duty. We were advised by the Speaker's counsel that we were well within our rights in inserting this Clause, and we should have been wanting in our duty if we had not agreed to this exemption. I believe this House will create a great blunder if it sets aside a judicial finding by party votes.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I would appeal to the House to support the decision, of the Committee, not only upon the merits of the case, but upon broader grounds. The President of the Local Government Board said these matters ought to be decided by people who know all the facts. I should like to ask him what is the object of referring a matter of this kind to a Special Committee upstairs, except in order that they may investigate the facts and come to a decision upon them. Does anyone for a moment suggest that he is in an equal position to decide this question as a member of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The hon. Member has not seen the witnesses nor heard them cross-examined, though he may have read the memorandum which some official has sent to the Chairman most improperly. Such a tribunal as we are is much inferior to a Special Committee which has taken great care to investigate the details. I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is not the fact in

    1629
    all these cases where a borough comes to Parliament for an extension of its boundaries that over and over again a particular trade is represented at the enquiry? Witnesses are called before the enquiry to give their reasons why it would be inequitable to extend the boundaries and increase the taxation upon that particular trade and all the matters are gone into, the pros and cons. Over and over again we have heard of railway companies objecting to an extension of boundaries
    unless they get special terms, and their objections are heard and very often acceded to. It is simply because the exemption is sought to be granted to the licensed victualling trade that we have had so much opposition.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 217.

    Division No. 295.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Nield, Herbert

    Amery, L. C M. S.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nolan, Joseph

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, J. L.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hills, John Waller

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Stanley, Hon. G. P. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Swift, Rigby

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cator, John

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

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

    Croft, Henry Page

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mooney, John J.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Walrond and Mr. Patrick White.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Plus

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clough, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Alden, Percy

    Brace, William

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Crooks, William

    Barran, sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Cullinan, John

    Barton, William

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Bethell, sir J. H.

    Chancellor, Henry George

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    De Forest, Baron

    Johnson, W.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Delany, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Donelan, Anthony Charles

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Reddy, Michael

    Doris, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Keating, M.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Richards, Thomas

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Richardson, Albion Peckham)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lansbury, George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Law, Hugh A (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Elverston, sir Harold

    Lawson, Sir w. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Falconer, James

    Logan, John William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Manfield, Harry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gill, A. H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meagher, Michael

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Sutton, john E.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hancock, J. G.

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Munro, Robert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Neilson, Francis

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Grady, James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagn, S.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Hodge, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Toxall, Sir James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Resolution agreed to.

    Sir JAMES YOXALL: I beg to move that the Southport Order contained in the Bill be considered upon this day three months.
    I desire to call the attention of the House to the other portions of this Bill. The Bill contains two Provisional Orders, one dealing with Cambridge which has already been discussed by the House, and the other dealing with Southport. The terms of the Bill were only accessible to Members today in their final form and—
    And it being Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Thursday.

SUPPLY.— [18th allotted day.]
Considered in Committee.
SUPPLY.— [18th allotted day.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

    INLAND REVENUE.
    Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum not exceeding £964,000 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the salaries and expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
    Which Question was, "That a sum, not exceeding £963,900, be granted for the said services."
    And it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

PACIFIC CABLE [MONEY].
Resolution reported, That it is expedient to make provision for the construction and working of a new Pacific cable, and to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the purpose."
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Pease.

PACIFIC CABLE [MONEY].

  PACIFIC CABLE BILL,
  "To extend The Pacific Cable Act, 1901," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  House of Lords (Salaries and Pensions).
  House of Lords (Salaries and Pensions).
  Income Tax (Smith v. Lion Brewery Company).
  Income Tax (Smith v. Lion Brewery Company).
  Land Valuation (England and Wales).
  Land Valuation (England and Wales).
  Transvaal Mines (Natives Employed).
  Transvaal Mines (Natives Employed).

EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
BARONY OF LATYMER.
BARONY OF FITZWARYN.
BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM.
Committee for Privileges met; incidental petitions considered and Counsel heard thereupon: Then the Committee resolved that the prayers of the said petitions be complied with, and the reports thereof to be made to the House.

LORD DOUGLAS.
The Right Honourable Aretes Akers-Douglas having been created Baron Douglas of Baads in the County of Midlothian and Viscount Chilston of Boughton Malherbe in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES BILL. [H.L.]
  HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MARPLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 4th day of July next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read a second time; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill I desire to put a question to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I criticised the Bill as an infringement of the Act of 1908. That Act was passed to give county councils compulsory powers to acquire land from large farms in order to make small holdings, but a provision was added that holdings of fifty acres or less in extent should be excluded and that county councils should not have power to take them. This Bill proposes to alter that entirely and to allow small holdings of any size to be taken by county councils. The noble Earl did not answer fully my criticisms on that point but stated that there had been instances where individuals had broken up farms of certain sizes and distributed the land amongst various relatives with the object of evading the provisions of the Act. I said at the time that I did not think a sufficient case had been made out for breaking into the Act of 1908 in the way proposed. Other noble Lords put questions to the noble Earl on the same point, and the noble Earl concluded the debate by saying—
"I shall be prepared, of course, to substantiate my claim. I had a great, many other instances to give, but I did not wish to weary the House. I will do my best to adduce categorical cases, because the only object of this Bill is to remedy these cases of hardship."
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he has since inquired into the matter and whether he can give us the categorical cases to which he referred in justification of this measure.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for raising this question, because it gives me an opportunity of stating my position as regards this Bill before we go into Committee. I am sure it is the desire of all of us on both sides of the House that the subsection in question, which provided that no holding of fifty
630
acres or less in extent should be authorised by an Order under the Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of small holdings and allotments, should work as was originally intended. I brought forward on the Second Reading an instance where the Act had been deliberately evaded by a person cutting up a large farm into small portions of under fifty acres and then letting them nominally to different people, the farm continuing to be cultivated by the same person, and I promised that I would do my best to bring other cases before your Lordships at a future stage. The case in Buckinghamshire, to which I referred, was a flagrant case. I have done the best I could to obtain information about other cases; but the House will see that as the procedure is ultra vires we are the last people to whom such cases would be referred. That they do exist there is no doubt, but we should be the last persons who would be able to obtain information direct.
My object—and I am sure it is the object of noble Lords opposite—is simply to protect bona fide small holders in their occupations. That was the sole reason why I brought forward the Bill. As I said before, we have had three main difficulties. There was the question of by-takes—that was the first difficulty—in which a coach-and-four was driven through the Act. Then there was the question of the occupier, and we also had the difficulty of the subdivision to which the noble Marquess referred. But I do think, on reflection, that perhaps this Bill as originally introduced by myself went too far. My advisers thought it was the best way of dealing with the subject, but when it was inquired into and debated I recognised that perhaps the Bill might have been misunderstood. It might—I do not say it would—cause difficulties to a very worthy class of persons, and reasonable doubts were expressed that the rights of small holders might be jeopardised. I see that there are three or four Amendments on the Paper this afternoon. Those Amendments, I am certain, have been brought forward in the same spirit as that in which I introduced the Bill, and I want to be permitted to receive them in exactly the same spirit in which they are offered. I hope these few introductory remarks will be satisfactory to the noble Marquess, who has the same cause at heart as I have myself.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, when this Bill was last before the House I

631
ventured to say that I opposed it because I felt that the small holders throughout the country who now enjoy the protection which the Act gives them ought not to be deprived of that protection because of an isolated case of evasion in Buckinghamshire. The noble Earl met that by saying he had a number of other cases with which he had not troubled the House. The noble Earl has now been challenged to produce those cases, but he has not up to the present moment added a single case to the isolated case which he gave us on the former occasion. He has, moreover, admitted that the Bill goes a great deal further even than the necessities of the case require, and that, in fact, the Bill is a bad Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: No, no.
LORD HENEAGE: Well, a Bill that goes beyond the necessities of the case cannot be a good Bill. Whether that is so or not, I do not think the noble Earl has made out any case for this Bill. Therefore, speaking for myself, I shall certainly oppose the Bill unless there is a good deal more to be said for it than has been said already.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl has so frankly admitted that he was misled as to the facts of the case that I am sure we on this side would be reluctant to press him too hardly. But I am extremely glad that the matter was taken up as it was, because this really is an object-lesson to us. It shows how a Bill of this kind can be put forward upon charges which I must say were of a somewhat odious nature, and which appear to be entirely without foundation. The House will remember that the noble Earl told us on the Second Reading that there had been a number of cases where the Act had been evaded by means of bogus sub-division. He mentioned the case in Buckinghamshire, and assured us that he was aware that a number of other cases were in existence. It now turns out that not a single other case can be produced, and the basis on which this Bill was brought forward crumbles away altogether. I think the noble Earl ought to be grateful to us for having put the matter in its full light before the House, and we shall now be able to discuss the Bill in Committee with some knowledge of the actual facts of the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Repeal of 8 Edw. 7. c. 36. s. 41 (3).
1. Subsection (3) of section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (which prohibits the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of small holdings or allotments of holdings of fifty acres or less in extent), is hereby repealed.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to leave out the last three words of the clause, "is hereby repealed," and to insert, "shall not apply to any holding which has been created since the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and seven by the sub-division of a larger holding where the occupier who was in occupation of such larger holding at the time of the sub-division remains in occupation of any holding created by the subdivision aforesaid."
The noble Duke said: I am very much encouraged by what fell from the noble Earl just now to hope that he will be willing to accept my Amendment, because he told us that all he wanted was to do that which the original Act intended to carry out. Now the original Act defended the position of the landowner as well as that of the small occupier, but the Bill which is now before us does nothing of the kind, nor, as far as I have been able to follow it, does the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl (Lord Carrington). I have drafted my Amendment in the hope that it might do something, although I am afraid it is not a complete protection, towards protecting not only the occupier but also the landowner, and in saying this I should like to emphasise what it is that we want to protect both the landowner and the occupier from. There is a strong desire on the part of county councils to multiply the number of small holdings, and where they, knowing the local circumstances, find it difficult to do so, the Board of Agriculture puts every kind of pressure upon them to exert themselves to discover people who want small holdings and then to discover small holdings for those people. Cases where the landowner has abused his power—if abuse of power it be, and I use the expression for the moment because that is the view which the noble Earl takes of the proceeding—have dwindled to next to nothing. I do not think I need add anything after what has fallen from the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench with regard to this point, except to

633
say that it seems to me very novel and rather disgraceful that a Minister of the Crown should come forward and tell us that there is a state of things serious enough to require legislation and then to tell us that the state of things is such that it cannot possibly come to his knowledge. Therefore it is only supposition and hearsay that we have to go upon. I have never before heard a Minister of the Crown submit a Bill with such a recommendation. Consequently it seems to me all the more necessary that we should guard against the innumerable cases of hardship that would accrue under this Bill owing to the pressure put upon county councils and the activities of county councils themselves in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("is hereby repealed") and insert ("shall not apply to any holding which has been created since the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and seven by the subdivision of a larger holding where the occupier who was in occupation of such larger holding at the time of the sub-division remains in occupation of any holding created by the sub-division aforesaid."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Duke in this Amendment seeks to provide that the powers conferred on a county council for compulsory acquisition of land under the Act shall not apply to any holding which has been created since December 31, 1907, by the sub-division of a larger holding where the occupier who was in occupation of such larger holding at the time of the sub-division remains in occupation of any holding created by the sub-division aforesaid. I was glad to hear the noble Duke say that it was the desire of county councils to multiply small holdings and allotments, and I would take this opportunity of thanking the noble Duke for the assistance he has given to my Department in connection with farms in Northumberland which he has been good enough to offer for small holdings. But I must take exception to the language he used when he said that my action in coming forward with this Bill was disgraceful. What I said was that a coach-and-four had been driven through the Act to my certain knowledge. I quoted to the House one case, and I stated that I believed there were many similar cases in the country. Perhaps I ought not to have said that. It was, however, my firm belief, and I have no doubt in my own mind that other similar cases do exist though I confess I am not able to bring them before the House.
634
There is no doubt that subsection (3) of Section 41 of the Act of 1908, which subsection I desire to repeal by this Bill, has proved an obstacle in three respects which were not anticipated. The first obstacle is this—it prevents the acquisition of the small by-takes held in conjunction with large farms under separate tenancies. Secondly, it prevents the acquisition of small holdings and allotments held by tenants under notice to quit where such acquisition is desirable to protect such tenants from disturbance. Lastly, it enables landowners to evade the operations of the Act by the division of a large farm into several small holdings under fifty acres still cultivated by the one farmer. I have given an instance where that has been done, and I think we ought to make it impossible for a sub-division to be made in those circumstances.
The noble Duke's Amendment is not very easy to understand. I will state what I understand it to be, and the noble Duke will correct me if I am wrong. I understand it to be this, that so long as the occupier at the time of the sub-division remains in occupation of any part of the original big farm the county council can make use of the compulsory powers to acquire his holding or any portion of the holding, but the instant that that man dies or gives up his farm or goes out of his holding the powers of the county council lapse, and none of the lettings of fifty acres on any farm, some of which may be bogus, can be interfered with. I really do not think that that would be a very desirable Amendment to put into my Bill, bad as my noble friend below the Gangway (Lord Heneage) was good enough to describe it. I quite agree that the object which the noble Duke has in view is a good one, but it seems to me a very ineffective way of dealing with one only of the three defects which I think I have the sympathy of the House in trying to remedy.
What we wish to make plain is this. If a man cultivates fifty acres or less, I think the House will agree that he is entitled to protection from compulsory acquisition; but if he cultivates more than fifty acres he is not entitled to that protection, and to endeavour to make that as plain as I possibly can I have withdrawn my original proposal and in substitution for it I have an Amendment on the Paper which I will explain when it comes to my turn to move

635
it. Lord Clinton has put down an Amendment to my Amendment, and I would be prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment with a slight modification. I sincerely hope, if I have made myself intelligible, that the noble Duke opposite will not press his Amendment. If he does it will entirely wreck my hope of settling this vexed question. I respectfully hope, as I have said, that the noble Duke will not press his Amendment, but will allow the House to consider my Amendment in conjunction with Lord Clinton's Amendment, which as I have indicated I shall be happy to some extent to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture seems to have taken to heart the expression of my noble friend (the Duke of Northumberland) behind me, but I would point out that the noble Earl has not produced the further cases which he promised he would produce. I am considerably disappointed at that. I read out to the House a little while ago the promise of the noble Earl that he would produce to the House categorical cases to justify this Bill, but he has not produced a single additional case. I venture to say that if the noble Earl had told us on the Second Reading that he had only the one case, the case in Buckinghamshire, to produce, your Lordships would not have given a Second Reading to the Bill. There are a great number of small holders who view this Bill with apprehension. They have relied on the security of subsection (3) which was moved by Mr. Harcourt. They now recognise, however, that the Board of Agriculture, with an officiousness which was unnecessary, has appointed a number of highly-paid officials to, as was vulgarly said by one member of His Majesty's Government, "ginger" county councils in this matter. Before your Lordships agree to pass this measure as it stands we ought to have some assurance that these small holders will not be ill-treated.
LORD HENEAGE: The Amendment we are discussing is really the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment, but as the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has referred to his own Amendment, perhaps he will answer this question. What is the difference between the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper and the provision in the Act of 1908
636
as it stands? I have read his Amendment over and over again, and it appears to me to be the same as the provision in the Act of 1908 in different words. If there is any difference I should like to know what it is.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not in the least complain of what has been said about my mistake, but I do think the use of the word "disgraceful" is, to say the least of it, a little bit far fetched, and goes beyond what the circumstances of the case justify. In answer to Lord Heneage I can say that the Amendment standing in my name is worded in the best possible language that a very eminent member of the legal profession could put together to prevent a repetition of the difficulties to which I have referred. If the noble Duke will very generously not press his Amendment, then we shall be able to get on to my Amendment. I would then be able in a few words to explain to my noble friend what it really means, and I think we should come to a reasonable and proper solution of this difficulty.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I hope we may nave some clearer explanation from the noble Earl than we have had as to what he really wants to do by this Bill. The provision he desires to repeal runs as follows—
"No holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such holding shall be authorised by an Order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily for the purpose of small holdings and allotments."
There is nothing there about value. It is purely area. The noble Earl wants to repeal that subsection, and in place of it he now proposes in the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper that the limit should be fifty acres, as is already the fact, and "where it exceeds that area if the annual value thereof for the purposes of Income Tax does not exceed £50." That addition may be perfectly right, but does the noble Earl mean to give value as a test as well as area? And how far does he mean to go towards meeting the views of Lord Clinton, who would allow an individual to occupy two holdings provided that taken together they were not more than 75 acres in area or more than £75 in value? I confess I am not quite convinced that there is any need for legislation at all.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Are we not on the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment, and would it not be well to settle that first?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has appealed to my generosity. So great is the fund of generosity I possess that I believe it is equal to my withdrawing my Amendment. I will even go further and withdraw the term "disgraceful" if it hurts the noble Earl.
EARL CARRINGTON: Thank you very much.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: But if I were to tell your Lordships that I knew the noble Earl had once been overtaken in some fault, and that I knew he had been guilty of it very often but I could not prove it, I think he would say it was a disgraceful accusation. I withdraw my Amendment because I admit the situation is one very difficult to cover. There has been considerable difficulty experienced in drawing up this Amendment, and it is possible that it does not cover the whole ground. I am not sure that any Amendment which could be drawn would adequately protect owner and occupier from hardship. It has really been proved that there is no reason at all for this Bill, and I hope it will be rejected. The noble Earl stated that we all have the same object in view, but he has never said one word about protecting the owner of the property as distinguished from the occupier. Although I am willing to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, I reserve to myself the right to bring forward an Amendment of the same kind at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON then moved to substitute for subsection (3) of Section 41 of the original Act the following new subsection:—"(3) The powers conferred on a council by an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land under this Act shall not authorise the council to acquire or extinguish the interest of any person in land comprised in the Order and cultivated by him, if the total area, including such land, cultivated by him does not exceed 50 acres, nor where it exceeds that area if the annual value thereof for
638
the purposes of Income Tax does not exceed £50."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment makes it absolutely impossible for a man who cultivates fifty acres or less to be interfered with in any circumstances. I am informed on the best authority that that would be, the practical result of this Amendment Lord Clinton, in his Amendment to my Amendment, suggests that the acreage should be raised to seventy-five acres, and the value, of course, in proportion. I think he is asking a little too much; but if the noble Lord would consent to make it sixty acres I would accept his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("repealed") insert ("and in lieu thereof the following subsection shall be substituted—
"(3) The powers conferred on a council by an order for the compulsory acquisition of land under this Act shrill not authorise the council to acquire or extinguish the interest of any person in land comprised in the order and cultivated by him, if the total area, including such land, cultivated by him does not exceed fifty acres, nor where it exceeds that area if the annual value thereof for the purposes of income tax does not exceed fifty pounds").—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We are still somewhat puzzled as to the policy of the noble Earl. Let me remind the House what the condition of the present law is. Under the present law the holder of a farm under fifty acres in extent is immune from all interference by the Small Holdings Commissioners. The noble Earl does not wish to disturb that arrangement, but he introduced a Bill the avowed intention of which was to throw these small holdings open so that the small holder would no longer enjoy that immunity and might have a part of his small holding taken away from him in order to create a small holding for someone else. But now I understand that the noble Earl is ready to abandon his original proposal. Now his intention is not to deprive a small owner of his immunity but to increase that immunity, because if the Income Tax valuation of his holding happens to be less than £50 he gets a second dose of protection. The noble Earl appears now in a very different rôle from that in which he appeared when he presented this Bill to the House, and we want to be quite clear that we are under no misapprehension on that point.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We understood that this Bill was introduced to meet a largo number of cases of evasion, but those cases have now been boiled down to the single case in Buckinghamshire. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said, the noble Earl began by proposing to do away altogether with the immunity which small holders enjoy. He now proposes to increase it. May I ask him what would happen in regard to the odious case in Buckinghamshire? In fact, the noble Earl has really boxed the compass, and I submit to your Lordships that this Bill ought not to proceed. The noble Earl has abandoned his case altogether and taken up quite a different case. The moment we on this side of the House saw this Bill we asked ourselves why in the world the Government proposed to do away with the exemption which they had so carefully given in their Act. They now propose to increase the immunity. Surely the noble Earl must see the absurdity of this proposal, and he must not be at all surprised if at some future stage of the Bill a Motion is made to stop the Bill, because it is quite patent that this legislation as now proposed is merely for the purpose of saving the noble Earl's face and for no other purpose whatsoever.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend Earl Carrington's Amendment by omitting the words at the end after "50 acres" and inserting "in one holding, or 75 acres in two or more holdings; nor where they exceed those areas if the annual value for purposes of Income Tax does not exceed £50 or £75 respectively."
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl has told us that under his Amendment every small holder of fifty acres will be quite as safe as he was before, but I am very doubtful if that will be the result of his Amendment. If your Lordships will read it carefully, you will see that it provides that an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land under the Act shall not authorise the council to acquire or extinguish the interest of any person in land comprised in the Order and cultivated by him if the total area, including such land cultivated by him, does not exceed fifty acres, and so on. But while that Order may not be put in force against him, yet there is nothing to prevent the Order
640
being made. Apparently an Order can be made for the compulsory purchase of the I small holding, and it is quite obvious that if the holding has been compulsorily purchased and the council or the Commissioners or whoever it may be get into possession of the land they will exercise full right of ownership over the land and get rid of the tenant. If a county council have a passionate desire for a piece of land it is obvious that they will use their compulsory powers under this Amendment to acquire the land, and having got it into their own hands will split it up for small holdings. We really ought to go back to the older exemption which kepi the small holder safe. I heard with pleasure the statement of the noble Earl that he is willing to accept some part of the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, but that does not wholly do away with my objection to the noble Earl's Amendment as it is drawn, because I still say that it does take away the proper exemption from the small holder which it was the policy of the Act which the noble Earl himself passed to give him. Under the noble Earl's Amendment that protection is very largely taken away. I suggest that we should put in the extra exemption suggested in my Amendment so as to protect the small holder who is progressing and probably on the up grade. As I say, I am glad that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment, but at the same time I object to his Amendment as it stands because it does take away from the small holder the protection which the Act originally gave him.
Amendment moved—
To amend the Amendment as follows—
Line 8, leave out from ("acres") to the end of the subsection and insert ("in one holding or seventy-five acres in two or more holdings; nor where they exceed those areas if the annual value for the purposes of income tax does not exceed fifty pounds or seventy-five pounds respectively"). —(Lord Clinton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I will accept the Amendment if the noble Lord will take sixty.
LORD CLINTON: It is seventy-five for which I ask.
EARL CARRINGTON: Well, will the noble Lord take sixty?
LORD CLINTON: Very well. I amend my Amendment accordingly.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment, agreed to.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I take exception to the noble Earl's Amendment as amended being added to the Bill because the little difference there is between this and the Act itself will render the Bill an absolute absurdity. The Bill ought to carry out, if it was thought necessary that it should be introduced, the original purpose of the Bill. To simply put the old words of the Act back again with a slight difference is to render the Bill an entire absurdity.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Title:
An Act to repeal Subsection (3) of Section Forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to omit the word "repeal" and substitute "amend."
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("repeal") and insert ("amend").—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 146.)

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I have to explain to your Lordships briefly why this Bill is introduced. The subject is no new one. It has been under consideration for a long time by the Defence Committee, and the Bill is their work arrived at after consultation with the naval and military authorities and with the legal advisers of the Crown. It is a Bill that has been
642
prepared alter a good deal of deliberation. Its purpose is to strengthen the law for dealing with the violation of obligations with regard to official secrets and with espionage generally. It is a Bill that applies to our own countrymen as well as to strangers, and its purpose is not to enact any large body of new restrictions, but to make more effective the law as it was intended to be made by the Official Secrets Act of 1889.
The main change which the Bill makes is a change in procedure. In order to convict any one under the Official Secrets Act, 1889, it is necessary to prove a purpose of wrongfully obtaining information. If a man is found in the middle of fortifications he may say he strayed in in the dark or was only there by accident. You have to prove that he was there for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining information, and that is difficult to prove. This Bill adopts a method for which there is a precedent and which is much more effective. We still, of course, keep the criminal purpose, but the criminal purpose under this Bill is any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and if a person is in a place where primâ facie his presence is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, he has to satisfy the jury that his purpose was a right one. That, as I have said, is nothing new. It is a section taken from the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871. Under that section certain classes of offenders have to justify themselves when their character and conduct raise suspicion.
I will give one or two instances showing what our difficulties have been. Not many months ago we found in the middle of the fortifications at Dover an intelligent stranger, who explained his presence by saying that he was there to hear the singing of the birds. He gave the explanation rather hastily, because it was mid-winter. Then there was another case, in which somebody was found looking at the emplacement of guns in a battery at Lough Foyle, and he declared that he was there for the purpose of paying a call upon somebody. Then there was another case of a man who was sketching fortifications. He ran away, but was caught. The case was one which attracted attention at the time, but our means of proving his purpose were extremely inadequate. Again, we have found photographers taking

643
photographs of things of which they ought not to be taking photographs, and they said they were merely taking photographs of an interesting object. There have been cases in which we have found people close to magazines—very convenient targets for dropping explosives from above. There, again, they have claimed to be there by accident, and because the burden of proving that there was a purpose of wrongfully obtaining information lay upon us we could not prosecute with any hope of success, though in most cases we were convinced that there were good grounds to prosecute.
Now under this Bill what has to be shown is that there was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and if your Lordships will look at Clause 1, subsection (2), you will see that it is enacted that a person's motive may be inferred if from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character he may be taken to have been there to no good purpose. Of course, he has the opportunity of clearing his character in the fullest way, but the circumstances are such as to throw the burden of proof on him. That is the main provision of the Bill. The other provisions are shortly these. Under the Official Secrets Act the places which were barred from public access were but few. For instance, it may be just as important that strangers should not go into a private dockyard where a Government warship is being built as it is that they should not go into a Government dockyard; and there are many other places which have grown up in importance in the last twenty years which were not covered by the limited descriptions in the Act of 1889. Therefore it is proposed to widen the definition of these places and to give the Secretary of State the power—a power which will only be exercised in time of emergency—to prescribe other places. There is a provision in the Official Secrets Act of 1889 which we keep—the provision that you cannot prosecute without the assent of the Attorney-General. That provision was construed to mean that you could not arrest without the fiat of the Attorney-General. The result was that many of these persons with whom we wished to interfere were a long way off before any warrant could be obtained for their arrest. Therefore there is a provision in this Bill analogous to that which exists in the
644
present law in the case of all felonies. Then there is also a power of searching, which is essential. I think I have now told your Lordships the extra provisions except one, and that is that harbouring spies is made an offence, and that is necessary for concrete reasons.
As I have said, the Bill is not directed against anybody in particular, but applies to our own people as well as to people of other nations. If I were asked whether there is much espionage in this country I should say that foreign Governments direct espionage in this way very little indeed; but I do believe that a great many zealous people of all nationalities are anxious to obtain information by which they may recommend themselves to their Governments, and that there is a great temptation to people with expert knowledge to acquire this information. I have certain knowledge of persons—who may have done it, and probably did do it, in an entirely private capacity—making maps which they ought not to have made, and it is not desirable that that power should remain unchecked. This Bill is a carefully considered attempt to deal with the subject on an official footing. I hope it is a Bill which will commend itself to your Lordships as not being brought in through any excess of caution, but merely one which marks the stage in these things which, with the necessary evolution of matters, we have now reached.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, it is now twenty-two years ago since the late Mr. Stanhope pressed the original Official Secrets Bill upon the attention of Parliament, and I remember that grave apprehensions were then expressed that the Bill had been drawn too severely and would bring too many people within its clutches; but, as the noble Viscount has said, it has been proved that there was no ground for that apprehension. There is no real difficulty in preserving official secrets if you know and fix your mind on the fact that they are desired by somebody else and determine to preserve them by the exercise of all possible care. The Brennan torpedo, for which a large sum was given by our Government about the time that the

645
Official Secrets Act was passed, did, I believe, remain a secret for a long period of years, and certainly the advantage which we expected from it we had the monoply of during that period. But our difficulty always has been that our officials are inclined to take things very easily. There is of course no difficulty with regard to special questions on which the minds of the military and naval authorities are so set that every officer is aware of the danger that would be incurred in letting the secret out of his possession, but practically almost all other questions are open.
The noble Viscount has given some instances, and I will state one which perhaps he does not know, and I will give him the names privately if he desires them. An officer of very high rank told me some little time ago that he had taken two young officers in his command and said to them, "There is a particular fortress. Go in plain clothes and bring me back sketches of every place where there is a gun in that fortress. I will give you, to be used at the last moment when you are being hailed into custody, this safe conduct pass to explain what you are doing and that you are doing it by my orders." In a week they returned with the disposition of every gun in that fortress, having had no credentials with them except that they spoke English glibly—and such men could, of course, be obtained by any foreign Power. I think, therefore, that this Bill which is not an extension of powers but merely the adoption of existing powers with the necessary amendments to make those powers effective is urgently needed. On the other hand, I do think that our military and naval authorities must take care that the sort of openings and undue confidence which we have shown in the past are not allowed in the future. I congratulate the noble Viscount on having taken up this subject. It is always difficult for anybody in his position who is not a lawyer to feel sure that he is not asking for something which those who have to administer the law may feel to be unduly burdensome and dangerous to the; public interest. The noble and learned Viscount has taken advantage of his own knowledge to fill up most necessary gaps, and I can only say from my own experience that I feel this Bill is urgently needed in the interests of the country.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, having had a great deal to do with the drafting of the original Act, I should like to say that it was pointed out at the time that there were several gaps not properly stopped but it was thought that we had better see the working of the Act before any Amendments were made. I was Attorney-General for several years after the Act was passed, and I should like to endorse what has been said as to the extreme difficulties we experienced in instituting prosecutions. Consequently I am very glad that the noble Viscount has brought in this Bill. There are, however, one or two matters in the Bill to which I hope the noble Viscount will pay attention before the next stage. I would call his attention, first, to the words "known character as proved" in subsection (2) of Clause 1. It is opening the door of criminal law for which some justification will be required. It is quite true that when people are found under certain circumstances their previous record as actually proved can, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, be given in evidence; but I have never known any Act to go so far as to say that a man's known character may be proved and I am afraid that in the working of the Bill this will create difficulties. I think the words will be found too wide unless some indication is given. The only other point I wish to raise is with regard to Clause 3. I think the definition of "place" will require a little more careful consideration. I think it will be found from some points of view very narrow. I may add that I shall be glad at any time to discuss these points with the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount has brought forward this Bill, and I hope that, it will be persevered with in another place and become law this year. Too many people in this country appear to consider that preparation for war is a mere question of payment of money. There are many other preparations necessary. A recent occurrence near Portsmouth has shown that it is quite clear that our law needs strengthening. As far as I have been able, to ascertain, the codes of other countries as regards spying are far more severe than ours.
I regret that His Majesty's Government do not appear to be taking any steps towards bringing in a Bill to prevent the dissemination of news during war or

647
emergency. I have no doubt that when war is once declared a most stringent Bill will be brought in and passed; but inasmuch as naval surprise in time of peace or during the first week of a war is the greatest danger to which we are exposed it would be much wiser to pass such a Bill in a time of profound peace and give the Government the power of bringing it into action by an Order in Council. If the noble Viscount cannot give it now, I should like an assurance before going into Committee that the captains of our gunnery, torpedo, and submarine and wireless establishments have been consulted. If they have not yet been consulted, there will be time enough to consult them before taking the Committee stage and of embodying their suggestions if thought proper in the Bill.
I wish also to call attention to the wording of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 1. It might be argued before a Justice of the Peace not learned in the Jaw that as we are at peace with all the world we have no "enemies," and that an accused person would therefore be entitled to an acquittal. The wording of those paragraphs should, I think, be altered by substituting the words "foreign Power" for the word "enemy" in a drafting Amendment. I hope that the noble Viscount will proceed with the Bill, and that it will receive a good reception in another place.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out Clause 1, which ran—
Unlimited jurisdiction subject to right of removal.
1.—(1) County courts shall, save as hereinafter provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action which can be commenced in the High Court, notwithstanding that the debt, demand, or damage claimed is not limited to one hundred pounds or under.
(2) Where an action is commenced in a county court which could not but for this section have been so commenced except by agreement of the parties, the action shall, if the defendant or one of the defendants makes an application for the purpose within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, be removed into the High Court and shall proceed in London or in a district registry as provided by such rules.
(3) Nothing in this section shall extend the jurisdiction of county courts as respects any action of ejectment, or in which the title to any corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments or to any toll, fair, market, or franchise is in question, or for any libel or slander, or for seduction or breach of promise of marriage, or as respects any action on a judgment in the High Court.
(4) Nothing in this section shall extend the jurisdiction of county courts as respects actions of a class for the time being assigned to the Chancery Division or the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court, nor shall anything in this section affect any revenue proceeding or appeal.
(5) Where, in an action commenced in, or remitted to, a county court, the defendant or one of the defendants counter-claims an amount of money not limited to one hundred pounds or under, and the plaintiff objects in writing in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1884, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) The plaintiff may, in accordance with county court rules, apply to the judge for an order refusing permission to the defendant to avail himself of the counter-claim, and if on such application the judge is of opinion that the counter-claim cannot be conveniently disposed of in the pending action, or ought not to be allowed, he may make an order refusing permission to the defendant to avail himself thereof.

(b) If no such application is made, or the judge refuses to make an order refusing such permission, the whole proceeding shall, in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court, be removed into the High Court, and shall proceed in London or in a district registry as provided by such rules.

(6) Where any action or proceeding is, under this section, removed to the High Court, the record shall be transmitted by the registrar of the county court to the proper officer of the High Court in manner prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, and the action or proceeding shall thenceforth be continued and prosecuted in the High Court as if it had been originally commenced therein. The removal of any such action or proceeding shall not affect the validity of any order made or act done in the county court prior to such removal, and any such order may be enforced by the High Court as if it had been originally made therein.
(7) Section one hundred and sixteen of the County Courts Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), which relates to costs in actions brought in the High Court which could have been commenced in a county court, shall not apply to any action brought in the High Court which could have been commenced in a county court by virtue of this section or by agreement, but not otherwise.
(8) Section sixty-four of the principal Act, which confers jurisdiction on county courts by agreement of the parties to an action, shall not apply in the case of any action which may be commenced in a county court under this section.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty that a great many of your Lordships are in in having to discuss this Bill without sufficient information from those who are familiar,

649
not only with the law, but with the administration of the law, and I think those noble Lords who are members of the profession to which I have the honour to belong would do well if they would give us the result of their experience. Happily I think I may say that this Bill is beyond the reach of Party controversy; and I would equally welcome from the other side of the House information on the subject. It is not desirable that we should again discuss this matter at great length, and I will, therefore, put the broad points as shortly as I can before your Lordships.
My first broad point is that County Courts are already too crowded, and that the effect has been to crowd out the small people for whose sake the County Courts were originally instituted. On the last occasion a most valuable piece of information was given to your Lordships by an ex-Attorney-General (Lord Robson), and I would desire no better advocate than himself of the view that I take. I believe his experience is the experience of almost everybody in the County Courts. On the last occasion that this matter was before your Lordships my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell mentioned that this Bill was the outcome of a Report of a body of Commissioners in the year 1872. My noble and learned friend mentioned one or two great names as recommending this change, but I do not think he sufficiently distinguished between those who approved of it and those who did not.
LORD GORELL: My noble and learned friend is under a misapprehension. I mentioned no names at all.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: A man does not always remember what he said. I think I caught the name of Lord Cairns.
LORD GORELL: If the noble and learned Earl will refer to the Official Report he will see that I mentioned no names at all. I merely mentioned that a majority of the Commissioners were in favour of the Report.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am now told that it was the Lord Chancellor who mentioned the names. Whoever it was, I am bound to say that it would have been as well to have mentioned the names of those who disagreed. Among those were
650
Lord Cairns, Lord Penzance, Chief Justice Erle, Mr. Justice Blackburn, and the then Attorney-General, Mr. R. P. Collier. They all disagreed, and gave reasons for their disagreement. Some of those reasons, I think, are very relevant. Lord Penzance wrote—
"I am entirely opposed to the substitution of Registrars for County Court Judges in the hearing of contentious cases, however small the amount in dispute. … The economy to be effected by these changes would not, in my opinion, prove great in the end, and would be too dearly purchased by lowering the standard of Judicial excellence."
The authority of Lord Penzance is somewhat high. Mr. Justice Blackburn wrote—
"I have great doubts as to the expediency of establishing any such intermediate class of Courts at all. I attach much importance to the keeping up of the great central Bar of England. The only real practical check on the Judges is the habitual respect which they all pay to what is called 'the opinion of the profession,' and the same powerful body forms, as I think, the real and the principal check on the abuse of patronage by the Government."
Sir Robert Collier, afterwards Lord Monkswell, said—
"The County Courts were established as Courts for the trial of small causes, and as such have been successful; if they be raised to a position intermediate between superior and inferior Courts and be entrusted with the trial of a large number of important causes in substitution for the Courts of Assize, I doubt the continuance of their success. I think that their jurisdiction has already been extended somewhat too far, and that it at the least deserves consideration whether under an improved circuit system some portion of that jurisdiction might not, be conveniently re-transferred to the superior Courts."
I have other authorities, but I do not want to pursue this. I may add that I had a very large practice in the County Courts and know of what I am speaking, and I would be glad if any lawyer familiar with the County Courts would give your Lordships such information on the subject as he possesses.
Consider what it is proposed to do. You are about to add to the jurisdiction of the County Court every ease of litigation in the State. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says, "Yes, but the defendant can have the case removed to the High Court if he desires." There comes in the vice of costs, which largely depend upon these interlocutory proceedings. Does anybody believe that a person who is sued in the County Court will himself apply to have the case removed to the High

651
Court? He will go to an attorney, whose advice will cost him money. That is one of the difficulties. Then the noble and learned Lord pointed out that anybody could bring a case of the kind in question in the County Court by consent, but he added that it was necessary that there should be a little pressure. The object of this Clause is to force upon litigants something which you cannot get them voluntarily to do, and to then place upon the defendant the obligation of objecting and having the case transferred to the High Court. Then the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack adds a provision which would enhance to an infinite degree the amount of costs and delay, because one of the sources of difficulty is as everybody knows the number of appeals. The noble and learned Lord now opens the door to the whole inquiry being taken over again, for he proposes to enact in this clause that there shall be a right of appeal upon questions of fact in cases above £50. It appears to me that if you want to destroy the system of County Courts you could not go a greater way in that direction than by passing this provision. At present when once you have the facts found by the County Court Judge they are, as it were, facts found by an arbitrator; you cannot go behind. Now it is proposed to give a right of appeal upon questions of fact in all cases above £50, and we know how considerable is their number. I protest against that very much.
I dare say your Lordships hardly know the class of work that is done by a County Court Judge, and it was upon that point that what the late Attorney-General (Lord Robson) pointed out when this Bill was last before us was so useful. He referred to a case where the time of the County Court Judge was occupied until 3 o'clock in the afternoon hearing judgment summonses. Now do your Lordships know what that means? It means an examination into the pecuniary resources of every man who was summoned before him, into how much the people earned, and how much they could afford to pay. In view of the, nature of the work which County Court Judges have to do, to force every other kind of litigation into the County Court seems to me a monstrous abuse. This clause would prove a destruction to the Junior Bar, and besides that it would, in my i opinion, entirely destroy the real purpose for which County Courts were instituted.
652
It has become quite a common thing for a County Court case to be adjourned over and over again. In saying that, I must allude to one observation made by Lord Gorell. He referred to the statistics that had been collected, and I think he was a little hard upon those who had supplied those statistics. They were I collected, I think, at the instance of a Commission appointed in connection with the proposal to confer upon County Courts jurisdiction in regard to divorce. Lord I Gorell presided over that Commission, and perhaps his tendency towards this may have been a little tinged by his desire to show that County Courts were efficient to be entrusted with divorce jurisdiction. However that may be, those statistics were given by gentlemen who had no interest whatever one way or the other. The information was given to the best of their belief, and they are entitled to have the evidence which they gave at the instance of the Commissioners treated with respect and treated as if it was accurate, as I believe it to be. I do not wish to argue this matter over again as it has been several times before your Lordships. I therefore conclude by moving the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 1."—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I shall not venture to trouble your Lordships with a speech at any length because I spoke on this subject very fully a short time back, but I should like to summarise quite shortly what I conceive to be the real position of this matter. May I say at once, with regard to the statistics to which the noble and learned Earl has referred, that I have never questioned their accuracy for one moment. They were supplied for the purpose of the Divorce Commission to show what was the state of business in the County Courts.
The summary of what I should like to say about this clause is this. In substance it only changes consent into want of objection, which gets over difficulties where people are asked to consent who do not like to consent to anything in law. If a case is started against them and they are asked to consider whether it is easier, cheaper and more convenient to try it in the County Court, they have to face the

653
question of transferring it to the High Court if they object to its being taken in the County Court. There will be no additional expense necessarily than if the suit had been entered in the first instance in the High Court. Next, this proposal has been before the country for a very long time. As to the Report of the Judicature Commissioners of 1872, to which reference has been made, the noble and learned Earl is quite correct in saying that there were five or six objectors. But the fact remains that there were eighteen signatories on the other side. I do not propose to mention names, because all that it came to was that a majority decided to report in favour of a proposal practically on the same lines as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has put into this Bill. It is also important to remember this. I stated on the last occasion that this clause met with favour from the various law societies in the country. Since then I have received a communication from the secretary of the Law Society which practically amounts to saying that it meets with the approval of the Law Society and, what is perhaps more important still, of all the provincial law societies in the country.
The next point is this. The real objection to this clause is the block which it is suggested it will create in the County Courts. The noble and learned Earl has suggested that the experience of those engaged in the County Courts should be brought forward on this point. I have received a communication from Sir Mackenzie Chalmers. He was on the Committee over which I presided, and he was for twelve years County Court Judge at Birmingham. He had also had other Judicial experience, for he was a Commissioner of Assize, and I think he held a Colonial Judgeship for some time. At any rate for twelve years he held the position of County Court Judge at Birmingham. He found exactly the difficulty which is set forth in the reports of the gentlemen who furnished the statistics to the Bar Council and he instances exactly the kind of thing that happened and which I venture to suggest is met by this Bill. When he went to Birmingham, one of the largest County Courts in the country, ho, found a case which had to be adjourned and the result was that eight months went by before it was finished. He thought that a great scandal, and he did exactly what this Bill if carried would bring about. He
654
proceeded at once to institute for the heavy cases a counsels' list and set apart a week for it, and by giving a week in each month he was able, without any interference with the ordinary work of the Court, to dispose of all the substantial business which the Court had before it. Clause 7 of this Bill is drawn for the special purpose of meeting the difficulty of the heavier class of work being brought to these Courts, and it provides machinery by which substantial cases shall be taken at special sittings for the purpose of getting rid of the block referred to. And if at the larger centres where the Judge is continuosly sitting that can be done, the only difficulty to consider is what is to happen in the smaller places. The answer to that is again suggested in this Bill. It is that cases which are of substance shall not be taken necessarily at each tiny County Court, which only requires a visit of a day once a month, but shall be concentrated at the nearest county centre so that the Judge can there make a list which will enable him to deal with that class of case; and if that is done the difficulty of blocking and the danger of expense and adjournments of cases will be got rid of. That, it seems to me, is the answer to the whole of the statistics which have been put forward on this point. There ought not necessarily to be any great difficulty in the concentration of this work; and I think, with all respect to those who take a contrary view, it would be an immense advantage to the Bar. They would be able to concentrate their energies at one spot, and convenience would be immensely increased to all parties.
I wish to say that I was in error on the last occasion when I said that the only changes that had been made lately in regard to the High Court were at the last places on circuit. I was not aware that an Order in Council had been passed a day or two before I spoke which made changes of a substantial character advantageous to the general administration of the circuit system. What I was aiming at was that, although I firmly believe that the Lord Chief Justice and those who assist him are ready to make every change which can be made to work the circuit system as it stands properly, an adequate change is not possible while the present system endures on its present footing. As far back as 1892 the Judges of the King's Bench Division recommended that the fifty-six places, I think it is, at which Assizes are

655
held for civil business all over the country should be concentrated in eighteen. Local opinion was against that, and nothing was done. In 1896 a further attempt was made and some changes were brought about, though they did not amount to very much. And in the Report which my Committee prepared on this question we expressed the opinion that the circuit system should be entirely remodelled, that the principle of the concentration of civil business should be applied, and that so far as possible, having regard to the convenience of access afforded by railway communication, civil cases should be grouped at suitable centres. And we pointed out that this would have the effect of giving almost continuous sittings locally at those centres. That is a suggestion which cannot be met by preserving civil Assizes at places where the work is trifling. If that is not done it seems to me that the proposal as to County Courts would be a great advantage, because it would enable these eases to be brought fairly continuously and at much less expense. Therefore I venture to suggest that this clause would be an advisable one to pass, and that the difficulties where they exist are got rid of by the provisions to be found in the later part of the Bill.
LORD ROBSON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Earl opposite has drawn attention to the fact that this is in no sense a Party measure. I am not ashamed to confess that by conviction and habit I am accustomed to obey Party calk, but this is a matter within my own personal knowledge as to which I have a strong sense of responsibility, and I feel bound to give such assistance as I can to your Lordships in dealing with a matter of this kind.
We have to consider this matter from two aspects, as to one of which little need be said. The Bill proposes to transfer a large quantity of business from the High Court to the inferior Court. As far as the High Court is concerned, no one has suggested that there is the slightest necessity for any transfer of business. Owing to the increased Judicial staff the High i Court is able to get through its business with expedition. That is the state of things in the High Court from which this work is proposed to be taken. Now look at the state of things in the County Courts, to which the work is proposed to be trans-
656
ferred. That was the main subject of discussion when your Lordships dealt with this Bill in Committee. There was then produced a body of evidence on this point which has been rather obscurely referred to to-day. Reference has been made to a statement issued by a number of barristers at the request of the Bar Council. The suggestion having been made that jurisdiction in divorce proceedings should be given to County Courts, my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell asked the Bar Council to collect for him statements as to how far the state of business in the County Courts would admit of this increase of jurisdiction.
What the Bar Council did was to approach twenty-eight barristers having County Court practice and ask them to give their own personal experience, collected from their fee books, and to state what they thought of the proposal to increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts. As my noble and learned friend has stated, the statements made by these gentlemen have not been impeached. They cannot be impeached. They are accounts of specific cases with specific dates, and the time over which the cases ranged is given in each particular case. These twenty-eight barristers have shown how in each of the cases mentioned there was delay, costs, trouble and inconvenience owing to cases suitable for the High Court being taken in these small debt Courts for which their machinery and time are not adequate. My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has said that these statements were not interested statements on the part of the Bar. I would go further. Not only were these gentlemen not making their statements from interested motives but they were making them against their own interests, for they were. County Court practitioners and the more business the County Court had the better it would be for them. The proposal to allow divorce proceedings in the County Court was professionally to their benefit; but the whole twenty-eight of them to a man pointed out, in the most explicit and careful way, what the result has been of the many recent increases of County Court jurisdiction. Their experience is unanimous.
I mentioned the other day the evidence of the first two, and I took them simply because they were the first two. One of those instances contained the experience

657
to which the noble and learned Karl opposite has referred, where a batch of counsel with heavy cases proper to the High Court were kept waiting while 200 judgment summonses were being tried. Those summonses were dealt with with great rapidity—at the rate of fifty per hour, or nearly one a minute—and then at three o'clock one counsel's case was taken and at six o'clock was adjourned, and the hearing extended over three or four successive days. As I have said I took the first two cases when I addressed your Lordships last upon this subject. I will take the last two on this occasion. One barrister says—
"My experience in the County Courts in and about London is that there is great congestion and considerable delay. Rarely is a case heard on the original return day, while a case of any magnitude has to be taken piecemeal. The County Court Judge's engagements on his circuit preclude him taking a lengthy case de die in diem. In a fairly recent case in which I was engaged we spent one day without being reached, and five subsequent days were given to the case by way of special sittings prolonged over a period of six weeks."
And here is the final case. The barrister states that the case was down for hearing at the County Court on a particular circuit on November 28, 1908. It was not reached. He then goes through a series of dates which end in judgment being delivered on October 11, 1909. It is beyond all doubt that the primary purpose of the County Courts, which is to give to the poorer classes in this country a rapid and cheap means for the settlement of their disputes for small amounts, is already being adversely affected by the enormous mass of work which has been thrown on the County Courts. Therefore the proposal to take work from the not overworked High Court and throw it upon the very heavily overworked County Court in particular districts is not exactly what strikes me as a model law reform.
What is the difference which Clause 1 makes? Many of your Lordships might think from the course which this debate has taken that this is a clause to enable persons to have their cases tried in County Courts who are not able at present to have their cases so tried. That is not the object of this clause. At present County Courts have full jurisdiction up to £100, and beyond £100 they have unlimited jurisdiction by consent. Now how is consent signified? It is signified by a mere letter. The plaintiff before putting his case down
658
writes to the defendant and says, "I am going to sue you. You have to be sued somewhere. Will you take it in the County Court?" The defendant says "Yes" or "No" to that, and the matter is ended. But under this clause the defendant is not asked for his consent beforehand. The plaintiff is permitted, I might almost say invited, to put down his case in the County Court—the writ is cheaper and the practice would become common—and then instead of the jurisdiction of the Court depending on the defendant giving his assent, the Court has only jurisdiction where the defendant does not dissent.
You might say that that is so small a matter as not to be worth troubling about. But the defendant is not allowed to intimate his dissent by merely writing a letter. He is compelled under this clause to go into the High Court at once and to make in the High Court, or in some district registry of the High Court, an application to have his case transferred—a purely superfluous interlocutory proceeding, and precisely the class of proceeding which law reformers are anxious to get rid of. He is thereupon as I have said, compelled to make an application to have the case removed, and such application the High Court must grant. It is a purely superfluous, expensive and unnecessary proceeding to put upon the defendant in order that he may be discouraged from entering the Court which exists for the purpose of trying his case. And notice this also. His lawyer is obliged to be put into operation at once, because the application has to be made in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court within so many days and in a manner to be prescribed. And if the defendant fails to obey these rules then he is compelled to have the case tried in a Court to which he does not wish the case to go.
It is suggested that the defendant would only want to get into the High Court for the purposes of delay. The defendant who desires delay is not afraid of extra interlocutory proceedings. He will take them gladly. That is not the defendant you would hurt by this Bill, but the defendant who seriously and honestly wants to have his case tried in the High Court. He is the man who will find it inconvenient, expensive and troublesome to have this extra interlocutory proceeding

659
unnecessarily put upon him. A man who has an important case which may involve his fortune or his character wants to go to the High Court where he can get the case fully tried, or it may be a case involving the technique of his trade or business. He would naturally desire to have the case tried in a Court where he could get continuous sittings, and not in a Court where he was badgered by judgment summonses one day and workmen's compensation cases the next. The plaintiff may have a very different wish. He may prefer a Court where the justice is not only summary but very unsatisfactory. Plaintiffs get a great advantage in English Courts of Justice. They get the first word and the last word. The defendant's lot in an English Law suit is not a happy one, and the defendant is far more interested in the excellence of the tribunal than is the plaintiff. He wants a Judge who can keep his mind open, and that is not such a common faculty as is generally supposed. By this clause the defendant is to have put upon him this absolutely superfluous proceeding for the purpose of preventing him from getting his case heard in the High Court. *It is true that the law societies, which are composed of solicitors, are not unwilling to have the business of the High Court transferred to the tribunals in their own localities, but their evidence must be weighed a little, and I am not aware that they have more than expressed their own opinion. My noble and learned friend has an excellent provision in this Bill for special sittings. I do not, however, think that they will cure the evil. But still it is a good provision. The law societies, however, do not approve of special sittings and have expressed their disapproval.
There has been a good deal of discussion on the Report of the Judicature Commissioners of 1872. I would like to take the Report of the Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor to inquire into certain matters of County Court procedure and presided over with such distinction by Lord Gorell. It is dated 1909, and this is the last Report, according to Lord Gorell's statement, on which this Bill is founded. Lord Gorell told us on the last occasion that he thought those who were opposed to this clause had not given that Report adequate consideration. I am prepared to base my case upon this Report. There is a little inconsistency between the premise and the conclusion which not infrequently
660
happens. The Report begins with a long list of Acts which have increased the jurisdiction of, and thrown extra burdens upon, County Courts The list contains something like seventy Acts. Then under the heading "Effect of in crease of work and added duties" I find this passage—
"It is not surprising to find that, with the increase in the ordinary work and the numerous duties cast upon the County Court Judges in many Courts, the amount of work to be done has reached a point at which the strength of the Courts as a whole is heavily taxed to cope with it, and the information which the Committee has been able to obtain shows clearly that attempts to try cases of any length have frequently resulted in serious inconvenience and waste of money."
The statements get stronger as material accumulates. On page 15 the Committee say—
"It must be observed that the vast mass of the work of the County Courts has been, and is, the enforcing of the payment of small debts and claims; that, no more work should be placed on these Courts which would interfere with their primary and most important duty; that almost all their work is in eases which are either without any defence or without any substantial defence, and that a very simple and inexpensive procedure, such as prevails in the County Courts, is absolutely necessary for such cases, whereas cases in which there is any real contest usually require procedure of a more formal character."
Then the Committee submit this conclusion—
"The County Courts, with the mass of small cases which are brought in them, must continue to dispose of the poor man's cases, This is their primary business, and the statistics above given show how us population increases the work of these Courts also increases, and may be expected to continue to increase. It is essential that that work should not be interfered with by attempts to deal to any serious extent with larger cases taking up much longer time in hearing, when the Courts which were originally constituted only as small debt Courts hare already had added to their primary duties a quantity of other work and have their time practically fully taken up. As it is, the Committee understand that great inconvenience and waste of time and expense are occasioned by cases in which there is any lengthy contest, as the small debt cases must be disposed of at once, and parties in contested cases may or may not have their cases reached and disposed of on the day fixed, or may have costly and inconvenient adjournments."
Then a little lower down the Committee say—
"The conditions under which a local Judge must work in a Court with a district which is necessarily limited in order to deal with the aforesaid primary business of the Court, are not likely to make such

661
a Court prove a satisfactory tribunal for the trial of cases of legal difficulty or of importance. In most cases he is out of touch with the other Judges and leaders of the legal profession, without opportunities of discussing legal cases with them, will not have any, or hardly any, opportunity of hearing cases argued by eminent counsel, and, as a rule, has not an adequate library with books or works of authority at hand."
Again they say—
"We are strongly of opinion that the true remedy to be sought for is not by encouraging litigants to contest their cases in Courts which were not intended to deal with these cases, and must for the reasons already given find difficulties, and be at a disadvantage in attempting to do so, but to provide that completely adequate facilities should be given by the High Court for disposing of every case which it is reasonable should be both commenced and continued in it."
Those are the opinions of the Committee, and I am glad to think they are the opinions of Lord Grorell and of Sir Mackenzie Chalmers. But what was the recommendation which the Committee made? And I ask your Lordships to notice the difference between the Committee's recommendation and Clause 1 of this Bill. In this Report it was not suggested that the defendant should be driven to make this unnecessary interlocutory application. What was suggested was that the plaintiff might be empowered to issue a plaint in the County Court, but that the defendant should have an absolute right, to be indicated to him in the plaint—there is nothing of that sort in this Bill—to have the case removed to and tried in the High Court, and to effect this all he had to do was to give notice thereof to the Registrar of the County Court out of which the plaint was issued. So that in their recommendation the Committee keep as nearly as possible to the letter. There would be no necessity for the defendant to make an application to the High Court. He could send a letter to the Registrar of the County Court to say that he was not entering an appearance in the County Court. But instead of that we have in the clause this interlocutory application, which casts upon the defendant an unnecessary burden, and a burden which I really think under all the circumstances can scarcely be called quite fair to him.
It is only Clause 1 to which we object. We have no objection at all to the rest of the Bill. I think no case whatever has been made out for this clause. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said on
662
the last occasion on which we discussed this subject that the average sittings of County Court Judges numbered 153 days in the year. I pointed out at the time that there are, of course, many underworked Courts. Courts in rural districts are underworked; Courts in districts where the Judges do not happen to have found favour with the business community are underworked; but that is not so in the large and important centres. Moreover, County Court Judges have to do a great deal of travelling. A County Court Judge often leaves home at six o'clock in the morning to travel to his Court and gets home late at night. A man cannot keep that up every day in the week. These are considerations which I invite your Lordships to take into account in dealing with this clause. As I have said, if this clause is deleted there is no reason why the rest of the Bill should not have a safe and easy passage.
LORD MERSEY: My Lords, may I say a few words about Clause 1? It is the only clause in the Bill to which any real objection can be taken, and I will state what I understand the effect of that clause to be. Hitherto the jurisdiction of the County Court has properly been limited to comparatively small cases. Clause 1 of this Bill opens the doors of those Courts to all actions whatever the amount involved may be. I am going to say nothing as to the block which such an introduction of new work into the County Courts would cause. It is sufficient to remind your Lordships that the County Courts were originally instituted, and in my opinion are still intended, for the cheap, satisfactory, and speedy disposal of poor men's cases. I turn to the particular provision in this clause. The Lord Chancellor on the last occasion, if I may say so, quite accurately stated that the clause gave to a defendant who was brought into the County Court an opportunity of at once taking the case out of that Court, for he could by an intimation to the plaintiff claim to have his case tried in the superior Court. So he could. But in my opinion that protection, if it can be called a protection, is quite illusory. I will tell your Lordships what in my opinion would happen, and I speak from considerable experience. The plaintiff is represented by an advocate-solicitor in the County Court district out of which the Summons is issued. The solicitor for the defendant—a defendant

663
who probably also resides in that district—is himself practising in the district and in that County Court. It is to the interests of both the solicitor for the plaintiff and the solicitor for the defendant that the case should be retained in the Court in which they practise. The lay defendant will never know that he has an opportunity of having his case removed from the County Court into the High Court. It is not to the interests of his solicitor that it should be removed, and the result will be that the so-called protection will be illusory and the defendant will know nothing of it. That is all I have to say about this matter. I think the Bill in other respects a most excellent measure; but I do hope that this driving of large cases into the County Court against, as I believe, the will of defendants, will not take place.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I argued this matter at length the other day and I only rise on the present occasion to make one or two observations on points which are really new. I must first be allowed to make a correction, although there bus been a slight withdrawal by Lord Gorell to-day of the statement which went out with the great weight of his authority as to the reluctance of the King's Bench Judges to meet the necessities that had arisen. The noble and learned Lord stated that nothing had been done except altering some dates at the last places of Assize. On the contrary, we have arranged for extra civil assistance at a large number of places on circuit. The point I make is that the proper place for the trial of these cases is the High Court. Nobody suggests that they ought not to be tried by a Judge of the High Court, by juries of the High Court, and with the advantage of the Bar of the High Court. I respectfully submit that no case has been made out for taking King's Bench actions, and King's Bench actions alone, and sending them to be tried in the County Court. If the circuit system requires alteration and amendment, by all means let us have legislation to alter it. But the circuit system stands, and there is no reason why a poor person in the | North or in the West should be deprived of the opportunity of having the advantage of a High Court Judge going down and trying his case at his own door. I submit that no case has been made out for this special and sudden interference with the jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench. The more I think over this proposal and
664
the more I learn from all parts of the country the feeling regarding it, the more I am satisfied that this clause ought not to stand in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, this discussion, apart from the speech of Lord Gorell, shows once more how lawyers are against law reform. I remember that the same dreadful forecasts were indulged in with regard to the Criminal Appeal Bill when it was before your Lordships, but that Act had not been a week in operation when it was proved to be a great success, as would this Bill also. We have heard a speech lasting three-quarters of an hour from Lord Robson, but if I may have six or seven minutes I will endeavour to put my reasons before the House for asking you to allow this Bill to become law.
The clause in question, as has already been explained, means nothing beyond this—that if a plaintiff likes he can begin his case in the County Court, but that if the other side desire to do so they can remove the case to the High Court by an application provided for by a rule of Court. A letter would suffice; the defendant could remove the case to the High Court, and the arguments about interlocutory proceedings are all stuff and nonsense. I ask, Who is in favour of this clause? The Judicial Commissioners of 1872 were in favour of it. Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, Lord Blackburn, were all in favour of it. The Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell presided were in favour of it. The law societies are in favour of it. I have received many letters from chambers of commerce and other commercial bodies all in favour of it. And why? For this reason, that it means cheap justice. I do not complain of the justice administered in the High Court, but it is a very expensive luxury. You may have £150 or £200 to sue for, or even a larger sum; but it is an expensive luxury to have the case tried in the High Court. The costs are treble in the High Court. Cheapness is all that I want to secure, and I know very well that the commercial community and the solicitors are in favour of this clause. In fact, the only people against this clause are the Bar Council, but I think none of those eminent lawyers would pretend to have any personal knowledge of the County Courts. All they do is to quote the statements of

665
twenty seven barristers, who are not named, and whose opinions were collected by the Bar Council in reference to another matter—namely, divorce business.
It is said that business in the County Courts is congested. That is the sole argument that there is. I say that the County Courts are not congested. It is part of my duty as Lord Chancellor to look after the business of the County Courts and to inquire into complaints of congestion of business there. I have had complaints from time to time since I have been Chancellor, and my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury in his time no doubt received complaints. Population shifts or increases and one County Court gets more congested with business than another, or the County Court is not judiciously managed and the business gets mixed up. As I say, some complaints in this respect have been made to me, but they have been few. There is one before me at the present moment with which I shall deal in due time. If all this knowledge and information about congestion would come to anybody, would it not come to me? Of course, I would be the very first person to hear of it, because it is part of my duty under the Act of Parliament to rearrange and reorganise the County Courts when such rearrangement or reorganisation is required. The congestion spoken of is this, that too many cases are put in one day's list, that there are different classes of cases put in the same list, the long and the short together. The remedy is to put different cases in different lists and take a few more days to try them. The average work done by County Court Judges is 153 days in a year—that is all.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Actually sitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, actually sitting. You may have to add a few days in the year for travelling. Will any one suggest that there ought to be added more than eight or ten days for travelling? Why they all live in their counties and have the easiest time in the way of days of work that you could have. I have come across a County Court Judge who sat 170 days in a year and made a grievance of it. But no County Court Judges except two in this country have ever complained to me of excessive work.
666
Those two cases I investigated, and there was nothing in them. What is the proper remedy? This congestion is mere fancy. I say there is no County Court in the country—I suspend judgment as to one case now before me—in which it would not be perfectly easy, by adding a few days sittings a year, to make the whole thing work. I ask your Lordships, Are you prepared to lay down for County Court Judges that their critics can speak of congestion when they have an average of 153 days, and when nobody is able to quote a case of a single County Court Judge who sits for more than 170 days in the year? Surely we have not become such a degenerate and effeminate race that we cannot do a little more work than that!
What is the real reason of this opposition as to which we have heard such clouds of words repeated over and over again and dealing with technicalities which your Lordships cannot be expected to understand, and which to my mind are more appropriate to pleadings in a County Court than to speeches in the High Court of Parliament? The real reason is that the Bar have the sole audience in the High Court and no solicitor can plead. But in the County Courts the Bar are confronted with the competition of solicitors. I should greatly regret if the putting of work into the County Courts had the result of injuring my own profession; but I know it would not. There would be more work to do in the County Courts, and the High Court would be left more free to do really important business which is required of a Court of greater authority and with the highest training. That is the bottom of this opposition. It is an interested professional opposition, and I feel it my duty to say so. I ask your Lordships to treat this matter as you think fit, and I will respectfully bow to your decision.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not suspect me of any intention to inflict upon the House arguments of my own with regard to the legal aspect of this matter, but I do not like to give a silent vote if we are indeed to divide on the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl. This clause has been for some time in suspense before your Lordships' House, and I can say honestly that it has been to me a kind of nightmare that I should be called upon as

667
a layman to decide between the high legal authorities who are ranged on either side in this controversy. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was good enough to remind me the other day that I had had the honour of serving, I think in 1879, upon a Select Committee of this House on which many illustrious members of the legal profession also served. I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord, but I have to admit that my memory is a blank upon the subject, and I am perhaps not altogether surprised at that because I find that the Select Committee in question only sat for one day, and I have been quite unable to find any trace of the proceedings which took place. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is quite right, however, in saying that the result of our investigations was to report a Bill which I believe was more stringent than that now upon the Table. But, my Lords, thirty-two long years have passed since the proceedings of that Select Committee, and I may say, in passing, that it does occur to me that if the matter was quite obvious and plain sailing it is rather remarkable that during those thirty-two years nothing should apparently have happened in the direction which was then suggested.
What can we laymen take note of in regard to this matter? In the first place, I think it is generally conceded that the Bill is a good and useful Bill. I think my noble and learned friend (Lord Halsbury) said that at any rate the greater part of it has his hearty support. It is a Bill which obviously represents a great expenditure of time and trouble, and most of us would, I conceive, desire that it should take its place upon the Statute Book. Then we also note that there is a considerable amount of concurrence as to the objects with which the first clause which we are now considering has been framed. It has been defended as an attempt to cheapen litigation in the interests of those poorer litigants who, as has been said, are bled by heavy costs and whose grievance we should all desire to mitigate. But we find diametrically opposite opinions as to whether the clause will or will not produce the desired effect. It is held, I understand, by my noble and learned friend and by others to whose authority we cannot be impervious, that the Bill, far from producing the results anticipated by its authors, will produce results of an entirely different character.
668
In these circumstances I admit that it would have been a great relief to many of us if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been content to take his Bill without the first clause. But I gather from what happened with regard to this Bill two years ago and from the noble and learned Lord's language this evening that nothing is further from his intention than to abandon the clause. May I also say, in passing, that there is a reason—I do not know whether it is entitled to any weight—which might lead some of us to desire to suspend our judgment with regard to this clause. It is the case that a Royal Commission presided over by Lord Gorell is at this moment inquiring into the whole question of divorce and matrimonial causes. Unless I am wrong, that Commission arose from a Resolution in this House, moved, I think, by the noble and learned Lord himself (Lord Gorell), in favour of conferring upon County Courts jurisdiction in regard to divorce. It is, therefore, it seems to me at least conceivable that the result of the Report of that Commission may be to throw upon the County Courts new and additional work, and if that be so, might it not be desirable and prudent to allow this question of extending the jurisdiction of the Courts and the question of their staffing to stand over until the Report of the Royal Commission is before us? I confess that I say that really because I am anxious to find a pretext for not being called upon to vote "Yes" or "No" on the Amendment of my noble and learned friend. If, however, the Lord Chancellor does adhere to his clause and if my noble and learned friend behind me insists upon his Amendment, I feel that, in view of the great division of authority upon the subject and the doubts whether this clause really will effect the purpose which its authors have in view, I should not be justified in giving my vote for a proposal which would impose new duties upon already overburdened tribunals. For that reason if my noble and learned friend goes to a Division I shall, though I admit not without misgiving and doubt, feel it my duty to vote with him.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Allendale, L.

Haversham, L.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Armitstead, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Ilkeston, L.

Winchester, M.

Barnard, L.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Burghclere, L.

Pentland, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Charnwood, L.

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Craven, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Rotherham, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Shaw, L.

Desborough, L.

Southwark, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Swaythling, L.

Glantawe, L.

Welby, L.

Gorell, L.

Willingdon, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Knutsford, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bath, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Knaresborough, L.

Alverstone, L.

Lamington, L.

Cathcart, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Mersey, L. [Teller.]

Cromer, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Muskerry, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Robson, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Heneage, L.

Sanderson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 14—
Amendment of provisions of the principal Act as to appeals.
14.—(1) In addition to the right given by section one hundred and twenty of the principal Act, to appeal to the High Court against the decision of a county court on a point of law, any party to an action or matter in which the sum claimed or the amount involved exceeds fifty pounds shall have the right to appeal to the High Court against the decision of a county court on a ground involving a question of fact alone or of mixed law and fact.
(2) Section one hundred and twenty-one of the principal Act shall not apply to any action or matter in which an appeal is brought by virtue of this section, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall apply to such an appeal:—

(a) Upon the entry of an appeal under this section on a ground involving a question of fact alone or of mixed law and fact, the judge shall, on the application and at the expense of any party to the appeal, furnish a copy of the notes taken by him at the trial or hearing, or allow a copy to be taken of the same by or on behalf of such party, and shall sign such copy, and the copy so signed shall be used and received at the hearing of the appeal:

(b) If there are no notes, or the notes appear to the High Court to be defective in any material point, the court shall have power to hear and determine the appeal upon any other evidence or statement of what occurred before the judge which the court may deem sufficient.

(3) In section one hundred and twenty-two of the principal Act (which relates to the powers of the High Court on hearing an appeal), after the words "any inference of fact" there shall be inserted the words "and where the appeal is an appeal on a ground involving a question of fact, to receive further evidence upon questions of fact, such evidence to be either by oral examination in court or by affidavit or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner or a registrar of a County Court as the High Court shall direct."
(4) Notwithstanding anything in section forty-five of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and subsection (5) of section one of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894, contained in all cases (except cases in bankruptcy or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906) where there is an appeal to the High Court from a County Court, the appeal shall be heard and determined by a Judge of the High Court in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, and his decision shall be final unless he reverses or alters the decision of the County Court Judge whose decision is appealed from, or unless the Judge of the High Court hearing the appeal or the Court of Appeal gives leave to appeal.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I move to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 14. This subsection, I believe, is universally condemned.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34 to line 3 on page 11, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree that this subsection is universally condemned, but it is not one that I should think it right to insist upon against the opinion of the noble and learned Earl. I therefore accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to:
Clause 20:
Appointment of Registrars.
20.—(1) At any place where there is a district registry of the High Court the district registrar shall, notwithstanding anything in section twenty-five of the principal Act, be the registrar of the County Court, unless the Lord Chancellor by reason of the amount of business to be transacted otherwise directs.
(2) On any vacancy occurring in the office of district registrar after the passing of this Act, the right of filling the vacancy shall be vested in the Lord Chancellor, and any person qualified to be appointed a Master of the Supreme Court shall be qualified to be appointed a district registrar.
(3) A person appointed to be district registrar may be removed from his office by the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor may make it a condition of appointment that the whole of his time shall be given to the public service.
(4) Section sixty of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, from "and Her Majesty" to the end of the section, and section twenty-two of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881, down to "of not less than five years' standing," are hereby repealed.
(5) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act, but nothing in this Act shall affect the tenure of office of any district registrar or registrar of a County Court who holds office at that time.
LORD GORELL*LORD GORELL had three Amendments to this clause. He first moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "notwithstanding anything in Section 25 of the principal Act" and to insert "if a solicitor." The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 20 gives rise to considerable difficulty. I have been studying it for some time and am not sure in some respects what its effect will be. The Amendments which I propose are substantially to leave the position as it is at present until it has been further considered, with this one exception of the Lord Chancellor's power of appointment. The clause deals with the appointment of Registrars. There are three lots of Registrars in the country. There is the County Court Registrar, who must be a solicitor of five years' standing and is appointed by the County Court Judge with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. The second set of Registrars are the High Court Registrars, and they
672
may be appointed from three or four different classes of people, but I believe as a matter of fact the High Court District Registrars are practically appointed from the County Court Registrars. But there is a further provision that if the nature and the amount of business show that it is expedient to appoint, a person not so qualified, the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, appoint a solicitor of live years' standing. The Lord Chancellor, in effect, has practically to appoint the County Court Registrar and does so in nearly all cases. Then there are the third class of Registrars—the District Registrars of the Probate Court. The Probate Court has forty Registries throughout the country, and according to the Statute of 1857 the District Registrars are to be appointed from advocates, barristers, proctors, solicitors, and, under another Act, from clerks of the principal Probate Registry who have been clerks for five years. The result is that there are three different sets of Registrars; and in some cases difficulties, I think, will arise if this provision is adopted. I will point out one. A Probate Registrar in the country may now be appointed a High Court District Registrar, and that has been done at Manchester and Liverpool with advantage so as to combine the offices, and he may be and is in one of those cases a solicitor and in the other he was a clerk from the Probate Registry. This clause as it stands would to a certain extent prevent the power to amalgamate the offices of the District Probate Registry with the High Court District Registry. That power to consolidate seems to me to be affected by the provisions of this clause. The second effect is this. County Court Registrars are all solicitors at present, and the High Court District Registrars are solicitors, or may be appointed, as I have said, from the Probate Registry. This clause opens the power of appointment to persons who may be Masters of the Supreme Court, and that includes the Bar. I should be glad to see the appointment entirely open to both branches of the profession, though it may meet with opposition, but I cannot see how this clause would work out having regard to the points I have mentioned. There might be a chance of giving rise to difficulties, and therefore I think the better course would be to consider the position of these three different sets rather more fully and carefully in some subsequent Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, leave out ("notwithstanding anything in section 25 of the principal Act") and insert ("if a solicitor")—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really have nothing to add to what my noble friend has said. I think he is right in regard to these Amendments. On the whole it would be better if we could get what we desire in this Bill, but I do not think it is at all vital, and I have no wish to create unnecessary friction in a matter of this kind. I therefore accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: I now move to delete from subsection (2) the words, "and any person qualified to be appointed a Master of the Supreme Court shall be qualified to be appointed a District Registrar." I also move to leave out subsection (4). These two Amendments form part of the same Amendment.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 19, leave out from ("Lord Chancellor") to the end of the subsection.
Page 12, line 19, lines 26 to 30, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33:
Rules.
33.—(1) The persons in whom the power of making rules under section one hundred and sixty-four of the principal Act is vested shall, in addition to the five judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor under that section, include four persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor, of whom one shall be a representative of the Treasury, one a barrister, one a registrar of a county court, and one a solicitor.
(2) Rules made under the said section, as amended by this Act (which rules are in this Act referred to as County Court rules), shall be laid before Parliament, and section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall apply accordingly.
(3) The power of making rules under the said section shall extend to making rules—

(a) for carrying this Act into effect:

(b) as to the procedure and practice in actions as to which jurisdiction is conferred on County Courts by the County Courts Act, 1903, or by this Act, when the debt demand or damage claimed or counterclaimed, exceeds fifty pounds, and also, if it shall be thought expedient, in actions as to which jurisdiction
674
is conferred by the principal Act where the debt, demand, or damage claimed or counterclaimed exceeds twenty pounds, and in particular for the purpose of providing that each party shall state the nature of his claim or defence in writing in sufficient time before the trial in the form of particulars, or otherwise; and the provisions of the principal Act as to the procedure and practice in actions in the County Court shall have effect, subject to such modifications therein as may be made by such rules:

(c) for referring to a special referee or arbitrator, or to an officer of the Court, any questions arising in causes or matters in County Courts which, if such causes or matters had been brought in the High Court, might be so referred.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I move the insertion of a new subsection at the end of Clause 33, but I have no desire to press it. I move it formally, because I hope I may induce my noble and learned friend on the Cross Bench (Lord Gorell) to make a statement which will be of interest with respect to the subject-matter of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, after ("referred") insert the following new subsection—
(4) Special rules shall be made with respect to the bearing of suits for the enforcement of agreements of separation between husbands and wives, and such rules shall provide that the practice, procedure, and costs in and of such cases shall be assimilated, as near as may be, to the practice, procedure, and costs in and of the hearing by courts of summary jurisdiction of applications for the enforcement of orders made under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895.—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
LORD GORELL: This Amendment deals with the question of the enforcement of agreements of separation between husbands and wives, and that subject forms part of the matters which are being considered by the Divorce Commission. It is a matter which is being very carefully considered, and I hope that suggestions will be made which will meet with the approval of the noble Lord. It would certainly at present be premature to embark on an Amendment of this kind.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 147.)

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I could not ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time at this hour were it not that an identical Bill has been in the last two or three years twice passed by your Lordships' House with the assent of His Majesty's Government, and has only failed to receive the consideration of the House of Commons through want of time. The Bill is word for word the same Bill that passed your Lordships' House last year. Its object is to facilitate the formation of new bishoprics by substituting another procedure for the existing system, by which separate Bills are necessary with the creation of every fresh Bishopric or even an alteration of boundaries. The procedure proposed to be substituted is that of an Order in Council. It would be made on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would first obtain the assent of the Archbishop of the Province and the Bishop of the Diocese and satisfy themselves that sufficient income was provided for the new Bishopric, no part of such income being allowed to be provided from their common fund. The Order in Council would then have to be approved by the Government of the day and to lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days, and if objection was taken to it by either House it would not become law, but if no such objection was taken it would obtain the force of law. There are three new bishoprics, I believe, already provided for so far as funds are concerned which might be created within a comparatively short time if this Bill became law—the Bishopric of Sheffield, to relieve the enormous diocese of Yorkshire, and the five Bishoprics for Norfolk, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire to relieve the present dioceses of St. Albans, Norwich, and Ely. I hope I need not detain your Lordships with any further observations on the Bill this evening, but, of course, I shall be very happy to consider at a future stage anything that your Lordships may desire to say with regard to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment, but I should be sorry if silence were misconstrued into apathy on this subject. The noble Viscount has explained that this matter has been more than once before your Lordships' House, and every month that has since elapsed has made the need of passing such a Bill more urgent. The reasons in favour of it are overwhelming, and I hope no difficulty whatever will attend this Bill on its way to become part of the Statute law of the realm, for I am certain that the gain which would result from it in every way would be immense. I cannot conceive that any one would be wronged or harmed in the smallest degree if it became law.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, there are three reasons why I should not detain your Lordships at any length in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill. The first is the state of the Benches, the second is the hour of the evening, and the third and most important reason of all is the fact that the Bill has already in principle received the approval of your Lordships' House in a previous session. It is quite possible that when we come to consider the Bill in detail Amendments may be desired. I shall be very glad to consider those Amendments when we reach the Committee stage; and subject to the passing of any Amendments that may be necessary I venture to hope that this Bill will have a speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when this Bill came before us last year I gave it my support and stated the reasons for which I did so. I do not feel called upon on the present occasion to repeat what I then said. But the noble Earl will remember that when the Bill was last before us many of us took great exception to some of the provisions which it contained and indicated very plainly that we would have to press Amendments in Committee. I think the same observation holds good now. There are a number of points which it seems to me may well be considered by your Lordships in detail, but criticism upon those points is obviously better reserved until a later stage is reached.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, this Bill has arrived at this stage without amendment in either House of Parliament, and I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give it a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.