Sitting of 29 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Manchester and Milford Railway Bill,
Marple Urban District Council Gas Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Bristol Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Ashborne Gas Company." [Ashbourne and District Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Swinton Urban District Council to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." [Swinton Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Ely Rural District Water Company, and to confer powers upon that Company in connection with the supply of water." [Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company to provide and work steam and other vessels between Newhaven, Brighton, and certain Continental ports and places; and for other purposes." [London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending 'Charles Shiels' Almshouses Charity Act, 1864,' Charles Shiels' Almshouses Charity Act, 1866,' and 'Charles Sheils' Charity Act, 1875.'" [Charles Shiels' Charity Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to rearrange, reduce, and fix the capital of the London Cemetery Company and to confirm past issues of paid-up shares and issues of shares at a discount and past distribution of capital and dividends, and to extend the
1302
company's power to acquire and hold land; and for other purposes." [London Cemetery Company Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Corporation of the county borough of Hastings with respect to the water supply to the borough, and to authorise the Corporation to construct additional waterworks and borrow money, and to make provision as to the audit of the accounts of the Corporation; and for other purposes." [Hastings Corporation (Water and Finance) Bill [Lords.]
Ashborne and District Gas Bill [Lords], Swinton Urban District Council Bill [Lords], Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords], London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords], Charles Sheil's Charity Bill [Lords] (changed from "Shiel's Charity Bill [Lords] "), London Cemetery Company Bill [Lords], Hastings Corporation (Water and Finance) Bill [Lords], read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing (a) the number of cottages and allotments provided under the Labourers Acts by each district council in Ireland; (b) the rents reserved in letting under those Acts; (c) the number of cottages or allotments unoccupied within each district council area; (d) the number of cottages or allotments, the rent whereof is in arrear and the total amount of such arrears within the said area; (e) the number of cottages applied for in each rural district under the last completed scheme under the Labourers Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to cottages already built under the said scheme, the number of of applications for cottages and extra half-acres sanctioned, the amount of the official, legal, engineering, clerical, and other expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and confirmation of every such scheme and the particulars thereof; (f) the number of cases where advances have been made under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, to agricultural labourers; and (g) Return made up to the 31st day of March 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 214, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Flavin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Dirigible.
  Mr. ROTHSCHILDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the naval officers who are being instructed in aeroplaning and those who are to take charge of the naval dirigible have had any practice in map drawing from balloons?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): None of the officers being instructed in aeroplanes have had any practice in map drawing from balloons, but two of the officers employed with airships have had this experience.

  German Navy.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he possesses any information to the effect that the German armoured cruiser building by Messrs. Blohm and Voss is to be fitted with heavy oil engines; and, if so, whether he can give to the House any particulars concerning those engines?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no official information on this subject.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the hon. Member aware that the details of this armoured cruiser have appeared in the Press?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the information in possession of the Admiralty concerning the progress, armament, and design of German warships is obtained through official or unofficial sources; and, if through official sources, what is the particular source from which that information comes, and through what official channels is it supplied?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not in a position to give the information desired by the Noble Lord.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the hon. Member aware that the right hon. Gentleman's information in this House is often very inaccurate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that, but on the contrary, I thought it was usually accurate.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any information that the German battleship "Kaiser" is to be armed with 14-inch guns, and that guns of this calibre are to be installed in the German super-"Dreadnoughts" now under construction; and whether he can state how this gun compares with the British 13.5-inch gun in respect of weight of shell, initial velocity, and muzzle energy?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no official information upon the matter.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Has the hon. Gentleman got any information, unofficial or otherwise?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said we have no official information.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: What is the cause of this paucity of information on these subjects, and why is there so little information on such an important matter as this?

  East Coast Barges.
  Captain PEELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the petition forwarded to him from the masters of barges plying on the East Coast and when an answer may be expected?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is still under consideration, but it is hoped that it will be possible to deal with it shortly.

  "Petrel" Barge (Fatal Accident).
  Captain PEELasked when the result of the inquiry into the loss of a man's life on the barge "Petrel," on 8th February, would be known; and if he will state the result for the information of those interested?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A full enquiry has been ordered, and I hope that its conclusions will be reported to the Admiralty at an early date.

  Sawyers (Royal Dockyards).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the maximum rate of pay of established sawyers in His Majesty's dockyards has not been increased since 1891; whether last year the maximum rate of pay for skilled labourers was raised to 30s. per week; and will he consider the advisability of raising the established sawyer's rate of pay from 27s.

  1305
  to 30s. per week, and so place him at least on the same footing as the skilled labourer?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative—with this proviso, that the 30s. maximum for skilled labourers is regarded as "special," and awarded only to a limited number of men employed upon the more skilled operations and actually using hand or machine tools as responsible workmen. The question of revising the rates of wages for sawyers is under consideration in connection with the workmen's annual petitions.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May we know when an answer will be given to the sawyers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot fix a date as I stated, but there will be no undue delay.

  Coopers (Royal Navy).
  Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the rates of pay of coopers in His Majesty's Navy; and whether, in view of the absence of progression in the rates of pay, even after long service, he will consider the desirability of allowing them to earn promotion to the rank of chief petty officer?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord to the hon. Member for Devon-port on the 20th February, the pay of cooper ratings is:—

  s.

  d.

  Cooper's crew

  …

  …

  2

  6

  a day.

  Second cooper

  …

  …

  2

  10

  a day.

  Cooper

  …

  …

  3

  2

  a day.

  The question of instituting a chief petty officer rating for the class was considered only recently, and it was decided that such a rating was not required.

  Egypt (Deportation Law).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could now state how many persons have been proceeded against in Egypt under the Deportation Law of 4th July, 1909; and whether he could give any details as to the cases?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): A full report on the whole subject will be given in Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report, which will be presented
  1306
  to Parliament in due course, and I should prefer to defer any statement till then.
  Mr. MORRELL: When will this Report be ready?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Without committing myself absolutely to a few weeks—about a month.

  Arbitration (Great Britain and United States).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador in the United States has been officially in communication with the President or Government of the United States since the right hon. Gentleman's announcement in the House on the subject of international arbitration, with a view to giving some practical effect to the proposals?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can only repeat the answer I gave on Monday: that I am not as yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether it is the fact, as published in this morning's paper, that the Government have refused to entertain any international arbitration treaty with the Danish Government until the treaty already proposed with the United States is settled?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That does not arise out of the question, and perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of it.

  Referendum.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the recently issued Report on the Referendum contains no information with regard to the initiative in Switzerland, although full information is given about it in the less important case of the United States; and whether he will repair this omission by granting a Return?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Motion in the House of 21st March last year did not call for a Return showing the countries in which the initiative is in force, but a report on this point shall be obtained from Switzerland.

  Commercial Travellers' Samples.
  Mr. RICEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have made agreements with this country respecting commercial travellers' samples in addition to the United States and the Netherlands?
  Mr. M'KINNON WOOD: The following other countries have concluded special agreements with this country respecting commercial travellers' samples: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden, and Switzerland. There are in addition provisions respecting such samples in our commercial Treaties with Bulgaria, Egypt, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Roumania, Servia, and Uruguay.

  East Africa Syndicate (Masai Country).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the East Africa Syndicate still hold the Masai country on the terms that a certain number of farms should be fairly established in the said country; and, if so, whether these conditions have been fulfilled, and how many years the lease still has to run before the rent can be revised?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Negotiations are in progress with the Syndicate for a revision of the terms of their lease, but I am not prepared to make a statement on the subject at the present time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to make a statement on this subject when the Colonial Office Vote is taken, and whether that will be within the next two or three months?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know when the Colonial Office Vote will be taken, but I will make a statement on this subject the moment I am in a position to do so.

  South African Union Parliament (Dutch Reformed Church).
  Mr. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, now passing through the House of Assembly of the South African Union Parliament, enacts that no coloured person of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Colony shall be entitled to claim membership of the church in any of the adjacent provinces; whether this prohibition to British subjects, on the sole ground of colour, to approach the communion table has any precedent in other parts of the Empire; and whether the Home Government has any power or any intention to interfere?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question on the 27th of March. I am not aware of a precedent for the Bill which however is intended to maintain existing conditions.
  Mr. BYLES: Is a black skin a colour bar to even Heaven itself?

  Coolie Labour.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether a portion, and, if so, what amount, of the cost connected with indenturing coolies to the planters of British Guiana was placed upon the general revenue of the Colony?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The present arrangements as regards the expenses of the system of indentured immigration into British Guiana are stated in Section 227 of the Report of the recent Committee on Emigration from India to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. The section in question will be found on page 55 of the Report which was presented to Parliament as Command Paper No. 5192.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is the cost per head of indentured coolies in the Colony of Trinidad; and what proportion of this cost is paid by the planters and from the revenues respectively?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The cost of importing indentured immigrants varies from year to year. From a statement laid before the Committee on emigration from India to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates it would appear that the average cost per statute adult between 1879 and 1908 was £24 17s. 4d. inclusive of all charges. The statement is printed on page 127 of Command Paper 5194. The apportionment of the cost of immigration into the Colony is explained in Section 263 of the Report of the Committee, where it is calculated that about 21 per cent. is paid by the employers and labourers, about 52 per cent. by all the cultivators, whether employing indentured labour or not, and about 27 per cent. from general revenue. The section will be found on page 65 of Command Paper No. 5192.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the planters who employ free labour have to pay 22 per cent. of the cost of bringing the indentured labourers to the planters who employ them?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think the calculation is quite accurate.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Mineral Royalties).
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked what amounts the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had received as royalties on coal and other minerals in the County of Durham for the years 1900 to 1909 and how such amounts had been expended, showing how much had been devoted to objects in the County of Durham and outside that county?
  Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON (representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners): The net mineral rents, royalties and way-leaves received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from their properties in the County of Durham for the ten years, 1900 to 1909 (both inclusive) amounted, after the setting aside of a sum of £1,345,000 in respect of the wasting character of this property, to £2,396,000. In accordance with the directions contained in the Acts relating to the Commissioners, those revenues have been carried with all other revenues of the Commissioners to their Common Fund to be applied by them, after providing for all charges thereon, in making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes throughout England and Wales where such assistance is most required. The payments and appropriations out of the Common Fund for objects in the County of Durham during the same ten years have amounted to £913,000.

  Development Act (Scotland).
  Mr. MUNRO - FERGUSONasked whether Scottish agricultural authorities could now apply through the Board of Agriculture for grants under the Development Act?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): All applications for grants from the Development Fund must be made to the Treasury in accordance with Regulations, a copy of which I shall be happy to supply to my right hon. Friend. If the application is made by a body of persons other than a Government Department it is sent by the Treasury to the Government Department concerned. The decision as to the Department concerned in any particular case rests with the Treasury.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: May Scottish agriculturalists assume that the Board of Agriculture accepts responsibility for its statutory obligations in regard to agriculture in Scotland?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My right hon. Friend may be sure that the Board of Agriculture will carry out all its statutory obligations.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. Baronet mean by his answer that agricultural bodies may now apply to the Agricultural Department?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I mean what I said—that the Board will carry out its statutory obligations.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What are its statutory obligations in this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Sugar Beet (Experiments).
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he could give the names of the agricultural colleges who would carry out the experiments for the Board as to the growing of sugar beet, and the area each would grow?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Five acres of sugar beet will be grown at each of the following institutions: South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester; Harper Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Salop; Midland Agricultural and Dairy College, Kingston, Derby; County Technical Laboratories, Chelmsford. Three acres will be grown at the Agricultural Institute, Ridgmont, and two acres at the Seale Hayne Agricultural College, Newton Abbot.

  Dutch and Cheshire Cheese.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if he could give any information as to whether the Dutch Government had yet made any regulations regarding the exportation of Dutch cheese described as Cheshire; and, if not, whether the negotiations were still proceeding?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have no information that any official action is being taken by the Dutch Government, but they have reason to believe that negotiations are proceeding between the Cheshire cheesemakers and the Dutch makers of cheese of the Cheshire type, which it is hoped may be attended with satisfactory results.
  Mr. STANIER: Is it not a fact that the Board of Agriculture are intervening and helping in this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already informed the hon. Member that we have no official knowledge of it.
  Mr. STANIER: Is it not the fact that last time I asked this question the hon. Baronet told me that negotiations were proceeding?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly not; I did not say so.
  Mr. HUNT: As this is a distinct fraud on British farmers, is it not the duty of the Board of Agriculture to take notice of it and to remedy it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is the duty of the people aggrieved to send notice to the Board of Agriculture.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board was making special inquiries into the cause of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey; and, if the cause had not been found out, if he would appoint an inquiry?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Every possible inquiry is being made by the officers of the Board with a view to ascertain the cause of the outbreak in question, but so far without any definite result.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Are the officials of the Board feeding suspected forage found on the infected premises to healthy animals, or how otherwise are they attempting to trace the cause of the outbreak?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. SYKESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he had recently received a resolution passed by the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture on the subject of foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, whether he was prepared to adopt all, or any, of the four precautionary measures enumerated in that resolution?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have carefully considered the suggestions made by the Cheshire Chamber, but I am advised that any advantage
  1312
  gained by their adoption would not be at all equal to the loss and disturbance of trade which would arise in consequence.

  Live Stock Trade (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when it was proposed to issue the report of the Departmental Committee over which he presided, and which was appointed a year ago, to consider the best means of promoting the trade in livestock between this and other countries?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Report of the Committee is now under consideration.

  Small Holdings Act (Case of Mr. Pope, Monkhopton).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been called to the case of Mr. Pope, of Monkhall, Monkhopton, South Shropshire, who had had notice to leave his farm (under 150 acres) by the county council; whether he was aware that the farm supported nine people, and that Mr. Pope and his three sons and his brother all worked on the farm, and that he had been on the farm for forty-seven years; and whether, in view of these facts, he would use his influence with the county council to withdraw the notice to quit?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The farm was purchased by the county council in the open market in order to satisfy the demand for small holdings in the locality, and the county council have no alternative but to give notice to the present tenant. He will be entitled to compensation under the Act of last year.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it to be the rule that county councils shall be able to turn working farmers out of their farms, giving them notice without any reason whatever?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Notice was not given without any reason whatever; it was to provide small holdings. The county councils pursue their own discretion in the matter.
  Mr. HUNT: Is no notice to be taken of the fact that the man and his family have lived there for forty-seven years?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member should bring the matter under the attention of his own county council?

  Time Cribbing (Lancashire).
  Mr. GILLasked how many prosecutions took place in 1910 for time cribbing in Lancashire; the number of convictions; the amount of penalties; in how many cases previous convictions had been recorded against the offenders; and the number of such convictions in each case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The number of firms proceeded against was twenty-three, and the number of separate informations laid was 358. Convictions were obtained on 339 of the informations, the penalties amounting to £414, besides costs. The remaining nineteen informations were withdrawn on payment of costs. Six of the offenders had been previously convicted once, and one offender twice, for a similar offence during the years 1906–1909: convictions for these offences were not tabulated separately before 1906.
  Mr. BYLES: Is it a fact that this fraudulent practice is much commoner in Lancashire than in Yorkshire and other counties? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had some complaints on the matter, and I am to receive a representative body from the employers on the subject.

  Police Medical Officer (Somers Town Appointment).
  Mr. MARTINasked whether Dr. Starkie was appointed medical officer to the police at Pratt Street station, in Somers Town, East St. Pancras, as part of an arrangement by which the previous incumbent, Dr. Thompson, sold his practice to Dr. Starkie, who up to a few days ago was not a resident of the district; and, if so, why were medical men resident in the district asked to send in applications for the position?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Dr. Starkie was not appointed Divisional Surgeon at Somers Town as part of any such arrangement. The invariable rule in making these appointments is to select from among the applicants the candidate who is considered to have the best qualifications for the post, and this rule was observed in the present case. A non-resident medical man is never appointed, but length of residence is obviously a minor factor. Dr. Starkie has, I understand, been residing near Somers Town Police Station since May last.

  Sydney Street Attack (Insurance Claims).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had appointed two Scottish Members to assess the claims arising out of the incidents in Sydney Street, London; and, if so, whether he would consider the advisability of giving them the assistance of an insurance claim settler of experience in dealing with demands put forward by persons of foreign nationality?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The coincidence had not occurred to me, but the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. One of the two Members was nominated by the City authorities. I have already made arrangements for supplying them with advice on financial questions, but if they find they require any further assistance such as my hon. Friend suggests I shall be glad to consider what should be done.

  Coronation.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Home Secretary if he will state, with reference to the draft Order altering the legal hours of work of dressmakers for two months prior to the Coronation, by reason of what inquiries, and concerning how many workers, he has satisfied himself that the women and young persons concerned prefer, as stated by him, to work until nine p.m. during two of the best months of the year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend misunderstands the answer which I gave on Monday. What I said was that it was believed to be generally more convenient both to employers and employés in these particular trades in time of pressure to work from eight to nine in the evening rather than from eight to nine in the morning. The draft Order was issued after consultation with some of the London inspectors. As I have already explained, the Order is only in draft at present, and if any objections are received they will be considered before any final Order is made.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received any objection from any of the women or young persons who will benefit by this?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not that I am aware of.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay this Order upon the Table?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not quite know; I will find out. I hope very shortly.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Home Secretary whether he will refuse to sanction the draft Order issued granting to factories and workshops, in the county of London, in which the making of wearing apparel is carried on, the right to keep women and young persons at work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., from 1st May to 1st July, seeing that it is likely to cause serious danger to the health of the women and young persons employed, and that the hours authorised by law for these persons are already long; and whether he made it a condition of making the draft Order that employers would pay such employés additional wages commensurate with the profits likely to be made out of this work?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised there are no grounds for supposing that danger to health will result from the Order which, if made, will be in force for two months only, and will not extend the legal hours of employment. I have no power to make it a condition of the Order that extra wages should be paid; but before issuing the draft I received an assurance from the Drapers' Chamber of Trade in behalf of the firms represented by the chamber that full wages would be paid for any time worked beyond the usual hours.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: At overtime rate?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. It is legal; but beyond the usual hours.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the sanctioning of this Order with his support of the Daylight Saving Bill?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I can from every point of view. If the Daylight Saving Bill were in force, eight to nine would, in fact, become from seven to eight.

  Census Enumerators.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will make a representation to the authorities responsible for the appointment of Census enumerators in favour of the employment of persons out of work?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I am informed that the enumerators were all appointed at least three weeks ago, and that many of them are persons who are not in regular employment.

  International Hygiene Exhibition, Dresden.
  Mr. MALLABY-DEELEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to send any exhibits from his Department to the International Hygiene Exhibition, Dresden; and, if so, whether the medical officers of the Board will assist the committee, which is now preparing a British exhibit, in respect to Poor Law administration and other branches of hygiene coming within the purview of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not propose to send any exhibits to the exhibition referred to.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Richmond, of Livermere, near Bury St. Edmunds, whose application for an old age pension has been refused on the ground that he does not satisfy the statutory condition as to residence; and whether, considering the fact that Richmond has served over twenty-one years in the Army and has spent the whole of his life in British Possessions, he will consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Pensions Act, so as to provide for the payment of old age pensions in this and similar cases?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has been drawn to this case. The question of amending the requirements of the Old Age Pensions Act with regard to residence is at present receiving consideration.
  Mr. FORSTER: Is failure to comply with the regulations as to residence the only reason why this pension has been withheld?
  Mr. BURNS: No; in this particular case the applicant was employed in the Channel Islands from 1881 to 1897, and is, therefore, disqualified. The Channel Islands have a separate Legislature, and the Old Age Pensions Act does not apply to them?
  Mr. FORSTER: Is failure to comply with the regulations as to residence, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, the only ground for refusal of the pension?
  Mr. BURNS: Oh, no; the one I have read is another. We will have to consider this, and similar points in connection with the amendment of the Act.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the Old Age Pensions Act and pending legislation upon the report of the Poor Law Commission, the Local Government Board will, like the English Board, discourage the extension of poor house buildings by local authorities?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Local Government Board for Scotland are keeping in view the consideration referred to by my hon. Friend, and are not sanctioning any alterations in poor house buildings except such as are necessary for the efficient administration of the Poor Law.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether the practical effect of the decision in the case of Charles Galway, Mallow, is to place it in the power of the pension officer permanently to deprive an applicant, unprovided with a birth certificate, of a pension, no matter what time may elapse or how completely the local pensions committee may be satisfied that his age exceeds seventy; if not, when or in what way can the pension committee hope to procure new evidence, seeing that there is no registry of the birth of the applicant; and, if there is no legal remedy at present, will the law be amended so as to cover such cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board do not restrict proof to baptismal certificates and the evidence of the Census returns. Entries in family Bibles, old school books, early letters from employers, and other documents, have over and over again been accepted as evidence. The Board consider all evidence which is submitted to them, but no general statement can be made specifying what evidence would be sufficient that a particular claimant has attained the age of seventy. The onus of proof rests upon the claimant, and if he fails to produce evidence to satisfy the pension authorities they have no power to award him a pension. I fear no statutory enactment could be devised which would enable people to fix their exact ages where no record is available.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is not the substantial result of that answer that the pension officer is an absolute autocrat, able to refuse pensions to old people who cannot produce baptismal certificates or evidence of the character to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and are there not thousands of such people in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think there is any reason to believe there are thousands of poor people in Ireland who have attained the age of seventy and who have been excluded from their pensions. However that may be, the onus rests upon the claimant, and the obligation rests upon the public authority to see proper evidence is forthcoming.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is there anything to prevent the Government remedying the matter by a new Clause in the Revenue Bill to-night?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should be very glad if the hon. Member would exercise his ingenuity by drafting such a clause and letting me have it for my consideration.

  Metropolitan District Railway.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on Wednesday, 22nd March, a train arriving at the Whitechapel station of the Metropolitan District Railway at 8.25 p.m. was crowded to such an extent that the door-men could not close the doors of the four carriages comprising the train until some of the passengers had been compelled to alight, and that at least 100 passengers were left on the platform after the train had left the station to wait for another train; and whether the Board of Trade is prepared to seek legislative power to prevent the continual over-crowding which takes place upon the Metropolitan District Railway?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am informed by the railway company that the over-crowding of the train referred to was due to its being delayed in consequence of a mechanical failure, which interfered with the service for a few minutes. The company state that under normal conditions the train is not over-crowded. I am not proposing legislation on the question at present.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some of the over-crowding which takes place upon the Metropolitan District Railway is caused by the inadequate train service provided by the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway; if he is aware that there is no train on this railway, from Upton Park Station to London, between 7.45 a.m. and 8.35 a.m., and no train to London calls at Upton Park between 8.51 a.m. and 10.31 a.m.;

  1319
  that there is no tram from Fenchurch Street calling at Upton Park between 4.46 p.m. and 6.33 p.m.; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am in communication with the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Company in this matter, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

  Trade Unions and Friendly Societies (Benefits).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state what amounts have been paid by each of the trade unions and friendly societies to their members in each of the last five years in respect of unemployed benefits, sickness, and accident benefits, respectively; and also give the names of the societies making the payments, and in each society the total number of members and the number of members receiving such benefits?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am sending to the hon. Member references to the official publications which contain information on the points he mentions.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Does the answer only refer to the trade unions registered under the Friendly Societies Act?
  Mr. BUXTON: No. To all trade unions.

  Mercantile Marine.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will state how soon he proposes to arrive at a decision with regard to securing proper payment for Sunday work, when that is required to be performed, by the outdoor and transmission staff in the mercantile marine offices?
  Mr. BUXTON: I hope that this matter will be decided before long.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can hold out any hope to the officers and men in the mercantile marine that before the next General Election the political disabilities at present imposed upon them by the nature of their calling may be removed by some such electoral provision as prevails in our Colonies?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am not at present in a position to give any undertaking.

  Transatlantic Cables Protection.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General if he can state what steps have been taken, in view of the approach of the spring fishing season, to protect the transatlantic cables with their shore ends at Waterville, Ballinskelligs, and Valentia, respectively, from the damage caused in previous seasons by steam trawlers; what system of inspection, if any, of the trawling gear has been adopted; and whether the cable companies have been satisfied that the proposed precautions are adequate?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The system of inspection of trawling gear, recommended by the Committee which considered this question in 1908, is now in regular operation at the ports concerned throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that the system is working smoothly, and that the trawlers generally are showing readiness to give effect to the representations, of the inspectors of the Fisheries Departments when they point out that the gear is likely to injure submarine cables. Though the cable companies would naturally prefer more stringent measures, I have no reason to believe that they are dissatisfied with the working of the system.

  Frinton-on-Sea and Walton-on-Naze Telephone.
  Mr. NEWTONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that at 7.45 p.m. every evening the Frinton-on-Sea telephone line to Walton-on-Naze is switched through to the Samuel Lewis Convalescent Home at Walton-on-Naze, and that thus subscribers to the telephone service at Frinton and Walton respectively are unable to communicate with one another; and what are the terms of the contract under which the whole benefit of the Frinton to Walton line is thus reserved exclusively to the Samuel Lewis Convalescent Home during a large part of each twenty-four hours?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that at night direct telephonic communication is practicable between the Samuel Lewis Convalescent Home at Walton-on-the Naze and the medical attendant of the home who resides at Frinton. The arrangement, however, does not deprive ordinary subscribers at the two places of the facility of telephonic communication at night over the Frinton to Walton line.
  Mr. NEWTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the communication is viâ London from Frinton to Walton, two places only separated by five miles, it being 150 miles viâ London?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; I believe, as a matter of fact, that the sub-postmaster has to be called up viâ London to make the direct communication for subscribers to communicate along the direct line. I am making inquiry to see whether it will not be possible to make communication between the two places at night.
  Mr. NEWTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did answer it. I said the subscribers are not prevented from communicating at night.
  Mr. NEWTON: I asked the right hon. Gentleman an important question, and I ask him now what are the special terms of the contract under which the Samuel Lewis Convalescent Home has the advantage of the exclusive use of this telephone?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already answered twice that they have not the exclusive advantage of the use of the line.

  Inspectors of Schools (Appointments).
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will am end the regulations relating to the appointment of inspectors of schools by removing the age limit of thirty-five years, throwing such posts open to competition to the whole teaching profession, and making actual teaching experience of not less than ten years in primary, secondary, or higher grade schools an essential qualification for appointment?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The age limit of thirty-five years applies only to appointments of junior inspectors, and has never been regarded as an insuperable obstacle to the appointment of any particular candidate for appointment to that grade over the age of thirty-five, if his exceptional qualifications were such as to make it specially desirable that the Board should secure his services. The Board's inspectorate is already open to suitably qualified candidates from all branches of the teaching profession. I do not think it is desirable to insist upon experience of actual teaching for so long a period as ten years as a qualification for appoint-
  1322
  ment to the inspectorate. Such a rule might frequently prevent the Board from securing the services of a brilliant candidate, who, although prepared to take service under the Board while he was comparatively young, probably would not be prepared to do so at the salaries at present at the disposal of the Board after he had been for ten years engaged in other professional work.

  House of Commons (Sittings).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether, with a view to obtaining practical suggestions towards completing the business of the House invariably by eleven o'clock at night, he will appoint a small commission to study the procedure in the Parliaments of France, Germany, the. United States, and the self-governing dominions; (2) whether he will take steps to secure the early preparation of a Paper, to be circulated amongst the Members of this House, showing how often, during the last five years, the business of the House has been conducted after midnight, as compared with what has taken place during the same period in the Parliaments of France, Germany, the United States and the self-governing dominions; and (3) whether he will order the preparation of a Paper, to be circulated among the Members of this House, giving a clear exposition of the methods of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies in Franco, and particularly of the system of permanent commissions, by which, while the fullest ventilation and discussion of all measures is obtained, the time of the Chamber is so economised as to render all-night sittings very exceptional?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The returns for which the hon. Member asks would involve a considerable amount of time and trouble, and, in view of the rarity of very late sittings here and of the different conditions under which foreign legislatures work, I do not think I would be justified in acting upon his suggestions.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there any guillotine procedure in any of the countries alluded to?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would like notice of that question.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the probability of long sittings during the next few weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of meeting in the morning at ten o'clock rather than that debates should be prolonged?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot hold out any hope.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right non. Gentleman whether, with a view to obviating the necessity for these ridiculous all-night sittings, he would consider the propriety of bringing the Standing Orders of this House into conformity with the Licensing Acts, so that after 12.30 no effective refreshments may be served?

  Places of Public Refreshment (Scotland).
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister what facilities he proposes to give this Session for legislation that will confer upon local authorities in Scotland power to close places of public refreshment on Sundays, and make the closing hours on week days the same as public-houses?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the Lord Advocate, proposes to provide for the further regulation of places of public refreshment in Scotland, and I hope we may be able to take it after the Shops Bill.

  King's Lynn Election Petition.
  Mr. MARTINasked whether, in view of the decision of the judges who tried the King's Lynn election petition that corrupt practices were excusable on the part of the Member petitioned against because he was also mayor of the borough, he will introduce legislation to amend the law in this respect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's version of the decision of the court which tried the petition in question, and I see no reason for introducing legislation on the subject.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the political views of the judges in this case?

  State Insurance Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister whether a State Insurance Bill will be introduced before the Budget; and whether the Bill is now completely prepared?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSalso asked the Prime Minister if, without giving any pledge as to dates, he can say whether the Bill for insurance against unemployment will be introduced before the Bill for insurance against sickness, accident, and infirmity?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The proposals of the Government in regard to these matters are still under consideration. They will not be introduced before, but I hope very soon after, Easter.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be one measure or two?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think I had better not say anything about that.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the date the Budget will be introduced, and, if not, will he state the date when the announcement will be made?
  The PRIME MINISTERS: I do not think that arises out of the questions. If the hon. Member will put it down I will answer it.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Attorney-General if, in his description of the State insurance scheme as of a compulsory character, he meant to include both the unemployment and invalidity insurance schemes?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not know to what description my hon. Friend refers. I have given none.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the Attorney-General aware that he described the scheme not as a State insurance scheme, but as a compulsory insurance scheme?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: When?
  Mr. BOOTH: In his speech at Reading.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I never gave any description. I merely referred to a deputation at which the sickness and invalidity scheme had been discussed.

  Parliament Bill.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked whether the proposed elected Second Chamber adumbrated in the Parliament Bill will have the absolute power of Veto?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature to make any statement on this subject at present.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be in a position to inform this House prior to the House of Lords having to consider a Bill which is virtually their death warrant——
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants to get an answer he should not introduce controversial preambles.

  St. James's Park (Proposed New Bridge).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Prime Minister if it has been brought to his knowledge that the First Commissioner of Works stated that he would welcome any discussion in the Rouse with reference to the proposed road and bridge through St. James's Park; and if he will state when opportunity will be given for such discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that no definite proposal has yet been formulated in regard to the road and bridge in question; certainly no such proposal has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government. There is not, therefore, at this moment, anything concrete to be discussed. But it may allay the very natural anxiety which has been aroused if I say at once that in no circumstances will His Majesty's Government give their assent to any scheme which will impair or interfere with the present natural beauties of St. James's Park.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Who are going to be the judges of what would impair the beauty of St. James's Park.
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government in the first instance.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what is the nature of the works recently carried out on the St. James's Park suspension bridge; and what the cost has been?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD (The Treasurer of the Household): The works recently carried out were repairs of the most necessary kind only, renewals of worn-out bolts, of flooring, girders, and painting, at a cost of about £600.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the hon. Member aware that the Prime Minister said the Government would not consent to do anything to destroy the beauty of the Park. He did not say whether the House would be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the matter.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer that question. If any such proposal is made, unless it is vetoed by the Government, certainly the House will have an opportunity of discussing it.

  Education Department (Mr. Holmes' Circular).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of reverting to a former practice of the Board under which the same publicity was given to the instructions to His Majesty's inspectors as to the various codes of regulations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Blue Book entitled "Revised Instructions," to which I understand him to refer, consisted chiefly of explanations of the Code. The educational part of the publication is now embodied in the "Suggestions to Teachers," which are revised periodically. I have looked into the matter, and I do not think it would be desirable to revert to the former system, which does not appear to me to be adapted to existing circumstances.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how disturbed the state of feeling is among the teachers of the country, and would he consider that it is suggestions to inspectors we want to know of more than suggestions to teachers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that there is any very disturbed feeling among the teachers. If my hon. Friend has any complaints to make I shall be glad if he brings them to my notice.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked whether, in the circular lately issued by Mr. Holmes on behalf of the Board to local education authorities, it was stated that of fifteen inspectors in Manchester and Sal-ford fourteen were of the ex-elementary teacher class, and that with regard to these the existence of these inspectors stereotypes routine, perpetuates cast-iron methods, and forms an effectual bar to development and progress; and, if so, whether, as the circular is now stated not to represent the policy of the Board he will cause an adequate expression of regret for the statement above quoted to be sent to the inspectors in question and to the local education authorities of Manchester and Salford, and in the same official way as the original circular was sent out?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The memorandum to which I understand the hon. Member to refer was not issued to local education authorities, as stated in the question. The hon. Member's quotation refers to an

  1327
  opinion expressed, as I find, nearly three years ago by an inspector who has since retired. I am not aware that the opinion of the inspector in question has in any way adversely affected the local inspectors to whom he referred. The expression of opinion was made in confidence, and never intended to be used to the prejudice of those to whom it referred. Moreover, I have recalled the copies of the memorandum which were sent to the Board's officers. For myself I have nothing to add to what I have already stated publicly in this House.
  Mr. BARLOW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the unfortunate words of the circular shall not, in any way, affect the prospects or promotion of the inspectors?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are the servants of the local authorities. I am afraid I cannot interfere between the local authorities and their own inspectors.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report published in the Press that Sir Robert Morant was responsible for this circular?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a great many reports and a good many of them inaccurate. I have given a full account of the proceedings in this House, and I have nothing to add to that account.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any mention hitherto as to whether Sir Robert Morant had any thing to do with sanctioning this circular?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I made a full statement on the subject two days ago.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Was Sir Robert Morant responsible for having sent it out?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave two days ago. It was a long and a full reply, and I also circulated it with the Votes.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Mr. GRANTasked if the Annual Report of the Victoria and Albert Museum will in the future contain a complete list of all the objects acquired during the year, with their prices?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already informed the hon. Member that it is in
  1328
  tended that the Annual Report shall contain a list of the principal objects acquired during the year with their prices. I cannot, however, for reasons which I have already indicated, undertake that it shall contain a complete list of all the objects acquired. Many objects are purchased in collections, and their individual prices cannot, therefore, be stated. Moreover, the number of objects purchased for comparatively small prices each year is very large, and a complete list would run to inordinate length. I am considering, however, the possibility of giving a summary of the objects of minor importance under the different categories to which they belong.
  Mr. GRANTasked if the last holder of the title of senior keeper at the Victoria and Albert Museum was officially informed two years ago that his office was to be discontinued; if so, why does the office still appear upon the estimates; to whom is the salary paid; why has it increased by £67 in this year's estimates; and what are the specific duties of the officer to whom the salary is paid?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statement made to the officer alluded to was virtually as described in the question. The post still appears on the Estimates because I have found it necessary to postpone for a longer time than I anticipated in November, 1908, the re-organisation of the staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum which its new conditions, when completely operative, render desirable. The salary is paid to the officer carrying out the specific duties of deputy director of the Museum—these being duties for which that post was established in 1900, and for which the salary is paid. No change has been made in the salary of the post, which was fixed in 1900 on the recommendations of the Walpole Committee. The increase in the Estimates for 1911–12 referred to in the concluding paragraph of the question is only apparent, not real; a mistake having inadvertently been made in the Estimates of the previous five years.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state who are the members of the advisory committee at the Victoria and Albert Museum; when were they appointed; how often has the council met within the financial year for which the salary of the secretary of the advisory council is voted; and who is the secretary of the council?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is at present no advisory council of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The temporary advisory committee appointed to advise the Board on the rearrangement of the collections completed its work on 29th July, 1908. The work of rearrangement, which necessarily requires considerable time, is not yet complete and the administrative arrangements of the Museum have not yet passed out of the transitional stage. The constitution of an advisory council will be taken into consideration as soon as that stage has been passed. The officer holding the post of secretary of the advisory council is an administrative officer of the Board, who carries out various administrative duties in the offices of the museum, which were the chief duties attached to the post on its establishment. Pending the constitution of an advisory council he is able also to give special assistance to the director and secretary during the period of abnormal pressure occasioned by the work of rearrangement.

  Technological Instruction (Grants).
  Mr. GRANTasked if simpler procedure can be adopted in respect of the payment of grants on account of technological instruction given by institutions of long standing, whose stability and organisation are therefore well known by the Board's officers, so that payments may be made more expeditiously than at present?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point is receiving careful consideration in connection with the revision of the Technical Regulations.

  Scottish Police (Treasury Contribution).
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the contribution in England from the Treasury towards police pay and clothing is 50 per cent. of the local authority's outlay, whereas in Scotland it is only about 35 per cent., he will ascertain, before the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill is considered by a Grand Committee, if the Treasury is willing to increase the Scottish Grant to 50 per cent.; and by what sum would this Grant lessen the £58,000 per annum which this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will cost the ratepayers of Scotland?
  Mr. URE: To increase the Scottish Grant to 50 per cent. would necessitate an addition of some £62,000 a year to the present amount, and as was pointed out in detail in my reply of the 16th of this
  1330
  month to my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, there is not in the matter of Police Grant any inequality of treatment as between England and Scotland, if the total sums assigned for local purposes to the two countries are taken into account. No claim could therefore be pressed upon the Treasury as suggested. Pending any general readjustment of Imperial and local taxation, I fear that the increased cost referred to would have to be borne by the local authorities.

  Libel, Slander, and Breach of Promise Cases.
  Mr. MARTINasked whether, in view of the number of cases of libel, slander, and breach of promise now coming before the High Court, in many of which small damages are awarded, he will introduce legislation conferring jurisdiction on the county court in these cases?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend.

  Peers' Public Services (Payment).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of peers, Members of the House of Lords, at present receiving public moneys for the past or present public services of themselves or their ancestors, and the total amount of such sums paid in the last year for which figures are available?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on 31st March, 1910.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Could we not have that answer brought up to date, and has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that this question includes payment for public services to the ancestors of peers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will speak to me about the matter I will see.
  Mr. MORRELL: For the benefit of those who were not in the House in March last year will he state to the House the effect of his answer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If hon. Members were not in the House it is possible for them to consult the proceedings.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: Is it a sin to receive rewards granted by the State to a man's ancestors?

  Licence Duty (Scotland).
  Captain WARINGasked whether, in considering new principles in assessing the Licence Duty in the United Kingdom, he will take into consideration the time that will elapse before the new system is put into force; and, in view of the fact that the custom, and use, and wont of the licensed trade in Scotland differs from that in England, as instanced by the tied-house system, which is practically nonexistent in Scotland, he will consider the possibility of assessing in Scotland on the basis of alcoholic trade done, and so meet the views expressed by the licensed trade in Scotland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the points to which he directs attention will be carefully considered before any new system of assessing the Licence Duty is proposed.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to give Scotland a measure of Home Rule in this respect?

  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether it is intended to send the revised Form IV. to every owner of land in Ireland; and how many copies of this form have been printed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second is 20,000.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: To what proportion of the landowners of Ireland was Form IV. issued?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. Member should ask me questions relating to calculations by notice on the Paper.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how such mathematical questions ought to be put on the Paper?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what class he proposes to send Form IV. to?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The owners of land. If the Noble Lord wishes for detailed information he should put a question on the Paper?
  Mr. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether copies are sent to occupiers of land as well as to owners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Only where the occupier happens to be the owner as well, or where a sale or transfer of interest has taken place and it is desirable to get information from all the possible sources.

  Findochty Harbour Commissioners (Grant from Development Fund).
  Captain WARINGasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state when the application for a grant from the development fund by the Findochty Harbour Commissioners, which was lodged with the Treasury in November of last year and has since passed through the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, is likely to be considered; and when the Harbour Commissioners may expect to receive a final reply?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that this application together with others relating to the south side of the Moray Firth is under the consideration of the Scottish Office. It has not yet been forwarded to the Development Commissioners.

  Sugar Tax.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the prospective surplus, he will now grant to the labouring classes the relief that would result from a reduction in the tax on sugar?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot make any statement in anticipation of my right hon. Friend's Budget speech for the new Financial year.

  Higher Education.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether, in view of the fact that the local education authorities are now framing their estimates on higher education expenditure he will state the probable dates at which they are likely to receive the amounts payable to them under Clause 11 of the Revenue Bill in respect of the financial years 1910–11 and 1911–12?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amounts payable under Clause 11 of the Revenue Bill will be issued to the Local Taxation Accounts as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

  Death Duties.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked whether persons succeeding to properties in foreign countries have not only to pay the Death Duties of those foreign countries but also,

  1333
  in addition, the Death Duties of this country for the property in question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The moveable personal property of a person who dies domiciled in this country is chargeable with Death Duties in this country, wheresoever the property is situated. If it is situated in a foreign country it may be chargeable also with Death Duties in that country, but in such a case a deduction of the amount of the foreign duty is made against the value chargeable with duty in this country.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Does that apply to landed property in foreign countries also?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I shall want notice of that question.

  Royal Visit to India.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether full particulars of the proposed expenditure of £1,000,000 on the Royal Visit to India have been submitted to the Government of India?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Detailed Estimates of the expenditure on the Royal Visit are to be submitted by the Government of India to the Secretary of State. They have not yet reached him; and he is unable to say whether the Government of India has yet received them from the officers employed in their preparation.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that this expenditure of £1,000,000 has not yet been sanctioned by the Home Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Expenditure approximately amounting to £1,000,000 (£940,000) was budgetted for by the Government of India in the annual Budget statement, but the Estimates for which that provision was made has not yet been sanctioned.
  Mr. MORRELL: Have the Home Government sanctioned that expenditure without seeing any particulars for which the expenditure is required?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Home Government have sanctioned the provision for the expenditure of £940,000 by the Government of India, but that does not mean that that amount will be expended.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the Home Government sanctioned an expenditure of £940,000 without seeing any particulars of what it is required for?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Home Government has not yet sanctioned the expenditure at all. We have sanctioned the provision in this year's financial arrangement of £940,000.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is there any reason why the expenditure on the Coronation function in India should be larger than in this country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The expenditure in each country, I presume, will be sufficient to defray the cost of the ceremony which takes place.
  Mr. MORRELLasked how much of the Estimate of £1,000,000 for the proposed Royal visit to India relates to the proposed Durbar at Delhi; whether the total cost of this Durbar will exceed that of the Durbar of 1903; and, if so, in what respects?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Leicester on the 14th instant, I am unable, pending the receipt of detailed information which is awaited from India, to give an estimate of the cost of the Durbar at Delhi, which will be the chief incident of the Royal visit. The review will be on a large scale, involving increased accommodation for the troops while they are at Delhi, and prices and wages have risen in India in the last eight years. For these and other reasons there is no doubt that the Durbar of 1911 will cost more than that of 1903.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Durbar of 1903 only cost £250,000?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Those were the figures I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask whether the estimated expenditure upon the Durbar was due to any suggestions from the India Office at home?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The rough estimate of expenditure which was sent from India to the India Office in connection with the Budget arrangements for this year came from India.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: Has the King ever been to India before to attend a Durbar?

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what further steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete the negotiations for the purchase of Sir Morgan O'Connell's estate at Mastergeehy and Ballycarbery, county Kerry?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 21st instant to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what is the present position of the negotiations for the purchase of the M'Gillicuddy Eager estate in Glencar, county Kerry; and whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be, are bearing in mind the claims of the evicted tenants to be restored to their holdings as one of the conditions of purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 8th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners can give an approximate estimate of what sum Irish tenant-purchasers are losing yearly in the shape of increased interest on the purchase money owing to the deadlock in the case of non-vested estates; for what average number of years beyond the 68½ contemplated m the Act of 1903 these annual payments will be prolonged; and whether he can give any estimate how much per annum the tenants at present debarred from purchase are losing by being deprived of the reductions which purchase at the average rate would secure to them in their existing rents?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners do not consider that any reliable estimate of the nature referred to can be made. The rate of interest in lieu of rent payable by tenants in direct sales is a matter of agreement between the parties. This interest is payable from the dates of the purchase agreements until the purchase-money is advanced, and is less than the rents which the tenants were paying Estates pending for sale before the Commissioners are dealt with, and the purchase money advanced, as far as practicable, in order of priority under the regulations made under the Land Purchase Acts. The rate at which estates, the subject of pending purchase agreements, are
  1336
  dealt with, and the purchase money advanced, depends not only on the amount of money which may be available during each year, but also on the number of vendors who may elect to accept payment wholly in stock, partly in stock, and partly in cash, or to wait for payment in rash. The Commissioners cannot possibly forecast how many vendors may so elect each year, or the amount of money which may be available for land purchase in such year.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask, as the Estate Commissioners will not give any estimate themselves, whether they will undertake to contradict the estimate that has been made by a very competent and well-known authority, that the tenant purchasers are losing at the present moment between £300,000 and £400,000 a year in the shape of increased interest, and that the tenants who are debarred from purchasing by the abrogation of the Act of 1903 are losing at least a million a year in their yearly payments?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no reason to believe the accuracy of that forecast at all. I do not believe it to be the case.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to referring that question to the financial experts whom the Government are taking into consultation as to the financial relations between the two countries?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that question arises.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what further steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to negotiate for the purchase of the Caherdaniel estate of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, of Darrynane?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The papers in this case have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, and the estate will be inspected and valued as soon as practicable.

  Congested Districts Board (Winn Estate, Glenbeigh).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board has not yet completed the turbary roads on the Winn estate, Glenbeigh; and whether, in view of the fact that many of the tenants who had given up possession of their old bogs on the roadside are now compelled to pay for turf, as there are no facilities to enable them to cut turf on the bogs allotted to them, he will request the Board to complete the necessary roads?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have completed all the turbary roads they intend to make on the Winn estate. Over three miles of bog roads have been made, and a first or home supply of turbary has been allotted to all tenants who required it, with a roadway sufficiently good to give access to each turbary plot on this supply. No macadamised roads are made to the second turbary supply, but passages are lock spitted to these plots, and it is not anticipated that the secondary supply will be required by the tenants for a number of years.

  Floods in County Westmeath.
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary if, his attention has been called to the damage done by the floods in the Shannon district of Ireland, which has caused both loss of property and of life in the vicinity of Athlone, county Westmeath; and whether, in view of the fact that those floods are annually recurrent in large portions of the country through which the main rivers flow, the Government will contribute if a national drainage board is formed to deal with the matter, consisting of representatives of each district affected and others to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Board of Works inform me that a certain amount of flooding takes place on the Shannon each winter, but that the floods this winter have not been above the average, although statements to the contrary have appeared in the Press. The Board have no information as to any loss of life being caused by the floods. The proposals contained in the last paragraph of the question would require legislation, which obviously could not be undertaken at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: In continuation of the brief conversation yesterday at Question Time about the business for to-morrow night, could the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what is the proposal of the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the undertaking given not to do anything but financial business before 31st March, we do not propose to proceed with any Bills to-morrow evening; but, after the proceedings on the Revenue Bill are concluded at 8 o'clock, to take the Report on the Army and Navy Votes.
1338
On Friday, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Shops Bill.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: May I ask whether the Reports of the Votes would be taken in the order indicated by the Prime Minister's answer—that is, the Army Vote first?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; unless the hon. Gentleman objects.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  CORRUPT PRACTICES (RESTRICTION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS) BILL.
  "To amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1895, so as to restrict Parliamentary candidates in their contributions to certain public and semi-public objects," presented by Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS; supported by Mr. Allen Baker, Sir Henry Havelock Allen, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Horne, Mr. Leigh Hughes, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Whitehouse; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 4th April.
  ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION BILL.
  "To provide for the abolition of Vivisection," presented by Mr. LANSBURY; supported by Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. James Thomas, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Albert Smith; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  WAGES BILL.
  "To provide for payment of workmen's wages at intervals of not more than fourteen days, and for delivery to workmen of particulars showing how such wages are calculated," presented by Mr. ELLIS DAVIES; supported by Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Chiozza Money, and Mr. Roch; to be read a second time upon Monday, 24th April.
REVENUE BILL.
Order for Consideration, as Amended, read.
PART III.
  INCOME TAX.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Assessment and Recovery of Part of Super-tax from Wife in Certain Cases.)
    (1) Where a husband is required under Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-two of the principal Act, to make a return of his total income from all sources for the purpose

    1339
    of Super-tax and part of that total income is the income of his wife, the Special Commissioners may, if for any reason they consider that they are unable to obtain a satisfactory return of the wife's income from the husband, require the wife to make a return of her income, and in that case the wife shall be under the like obligation to make a return under the said section as if she were not married, and the husband shall be relieved from any obligation to make such a return as respects the income of the wife.
    (2) Where Super-tax is charged in a case where the wife has been required to make a return under the foregoing provision, such part of the total sum payable in respect of the Super-tax as bears the same proportion to that total sum as the wife's income bears to the total income shall be assessed on and recoverable from the wife in lieu of the husband.
    (3) This section shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and nine and for any subsequent year as if it had been contained in the principal Act, and the provisions of that Act with regard to the assessment and collection of Super-tax, and the penalties for failure to make a return, shall apply accordingly.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 10."
    I regret to learn, through the usual channels, that the Motion which I have put down infringes the spirit of an agreement entered into the other night. The last thing I want to do is to infringe the spirit of any agreement, even although I do not happen to have been a party to it, but a great many of us on this side of the House feel that the claims of municipal corporations and of other local authorities have been most summarily dealt with by the Government during the passage of this Revenue Bill, under circumstances connected with all-night sittings, to which it would perhaps be better that I should not refer any further. I hope, however, if I withdraw, as I hope to be able to do, this Motion for recommitment, the Government will be able to give us some assurance that so far as it lies with them they will enable us to take the substantial discussion upon the Motion on the Paper in several names to omit Clause 10. If that can be assured to us I shall be glad to
    1340
    withdraw the Motion to recommit standing in my name.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I hope that the appeal made by my hon. Friend will receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of the Government. I join with him in not desiring to refer to the course of the discussion we had the other night. But I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, although he was not present at the time, must realise that the discussion was carried on under very unsatisfactory conditions. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that very many of my hon. Friends, in common with myself, have received communications from our Constituents with regard to this very important Clause. The proposed allocation of the Increment Duty had raised considerable hopes in the country, and, as far as we know at present, those hopes have been dashed to the ground. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will give further time for the consideration of this important matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I confess I was somewhat surprised when I saw this Motion on the Paper for to-day. Under the Closure resolution, as I moved it a few nights ago, it was provided that on any day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause should be received unless moved by the Government. Therefore, if the Motion had been carried in the form I proposed it, this Motion of the hon. Gentleman would have been out of order, and must have been so ruled by the Chair. But in the course of the discussion I made the proposal which, after full Debate was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we should give four hours to-morrow for the further discussion of this Bill. The result is that the Report stage is not brought to a conclusion tonight, and, therefore, the Motion to recommit is not technically out of order. If I had anticipated anything of this kind, I could easily have amended the paragraph so as to make such a Motion out of order. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is quite as anxious as we are to keep within the limits of our Parliamentary bargain, and I think therefore he will see that this is a Motion which he should not press. I hope he will withdraw it. I can assure him that the Government are most anxious to have a further discussion on Clause 10.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went; and, having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:—

    1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1911.

    2. Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1911.

    3. Ayrshire (Loch Bradan) Water Distribution Order Confirmation Act, 1911.

    4. Irvine Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1911.

    5. Military Lands Provisional Order (1910) Confirmation Act, 1911.

    4.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I was saying when I was interrupted, we are most anxious that there should be a further discussion on what has hitherto been known as Clause 10, but which is now known as Clause 15 of the Bill. Of course, it rests entirely with the House to say whether or not that discussion can be reached before eight o'clock to-morrow night. I hope it may be. But I would like to say at once two things. In the first place, the Government have always presented this Clause as a transitory and provisional arrangement, and that is shown by the nature of the words now in the Clause itself. I know it is the view of some of my hon. Friends behind me and in other parts of the House that it would be better if, instead of using vague and general terms, there were some definite limitation in point of date, and I have to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will put down an Amendment to-night upon that subject. I cannot say definitely what date it will be, but he will put down an Amendment suggesting a limit, and if it is the will of the House that the intermediate Clauses should be disposed of in time to discuss this Amendment, it will be discussed. At all events, the Government will submit it when the time comes for the conclusion of our proceedings. I hope, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon his Motion, but do not let it be supposed that we want to burke discussion. There is no Clause of the Bill which personally I would like to see more fully discussed as to the advantages which it gives to the public.
    Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask one question in regard to what was
    1342
    originally Clause 11, but which is now Clause 16. There the words "until Parliament otherwise determines" were accepted by the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to accept in Clause 16 now a definite limit, just as he has in the case of Clause 10, or rather 15?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MALCOLM: After what has fallen from the Prime Minister, of course no other course is open to me except to withdraw my Motion. I was not present the other evening when the discussion took place or I should not have proposed it. I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill considered in Committee.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 2 (3) of the Principal Act.)
    "Sub-section (3) of Section two of the principal Act (which relates to the definition of increment value) shall apply to the case of any transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land or of any interest in the land which took place twenty years or more before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and which was a transfer to the person who is the owner of the land or any interest in the land at the time when an application is made under that provision, as it applies to the case of a transfer on sale which took place within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine.
    "In the cases where the original site value has been finally settled before the passing of this Act, an application may be made, notwithstanding anything in Subsection (3) of Section two of the principal Act, under that Sub-section, for the purpose of giving effect to this provision within three months after the date of the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall in such a case alter the original site value as finally settled in such manner (if any) as may be necessary to give effect to the Amendment made by this provision, and in cases where any amount has been paid on account of duty, the Commissioners shall make such repayment as may be necessary to adjust the amount paid to any alteration of value made in pursuance of this provision."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I rather hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would have given us some explanation even if he did not fully explain the Clause.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I only rise to offer an explanation now because I think it will save time if some explanation is given. The House will remember that under the Finance Act of 1909–10, when the original site value comes to be determined, it is determined by reference to 30th April, 1909. But there is a provision in the Act that if within three months of the date when the original site value is determined an application is made and the facts proved it is possible to get a substituted site value to put in the place of the original site value, and that substituted site value is a site value ascertained by a reference to an earlier date, so long as it is a date when the transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land took place not further back than twenty years. That is commonly called the twenty years' Clause, and what the Government now propose under this new Clause is to offer an extension of that twenty years in cases which may be further than twenty years back, where the transfer takes place to the owner or to any person interested in the land who is making an application for a substituted site value. The position, therefore, will be this, that whereas under the existing law if a man acquired a freehold more than twenty years ago he would not be able to get a site value put upon the register by reference to that transaction, but he must be content with the original site value of 1909, we propose to give him an opportunity of calling in aid a transfer which is more than twenty years back as long as, of course, it is a transfer in which he or some other person interested in the land is concerned. That is done because when this difficulty was brought to the attention of the Government it was conceded that some arrangement should be made. The proposal which we make is, we think, a fair one, carried out in the spirit of what we then understood to be the promise we made, and if the Clause is read in connection with the existing clauses of the Finance Act the effect will be that a man who feels aggrieved because the original site value is a site value at a time when his property was depressed in value will be able to take advantage of any recovery in the site value, not only up to the site value of twenty years back, but up to that further period when he or
    1344
    anybody interested in the land acquired by transfer the interest, or some interest, in the land which is being dealt with. That is the extent of this proposal, and I hope it will commend itself to the House at large as one which will be regarded as a substantial concession. It is not an offer made, however, with any hope of gratitude, but with a view of carrying out an undertaking given.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I quite recognise this Clause, which has been put down by the Government, is something in the nature of a concession, and does go some way to meet one of the points connected with the concession of twenty years back. But I may point out it is very far from fulfilling what we understood as the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if I may be allowed, I will just refer to what was said on this subject in speeches. The point was raised at a Conference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on 14th September with the experts, surveyors, and valuers, and so forth, and in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the whole case. I do not want to quote the whole speech at length because I did so on a previous occasion, but this is the effect of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. Supposing a man bought property for say £2,000 and there was a slump in the value of property in the neighbourhood and down it goes to a £1,000 and it now is a £1,000; supposing also it goes up in five years to £1,500, there would be an increment of £500 on it. Then we say you can go back twenty years and if within twenty years he paid more for it there is no increment. That is the effect of the words in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14th September, 1910. Then there was a further speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation of building societies, co-operators, and trade unionists. I have the quotation in a paper called "Land Values." A certain Mr. Wood had raised the point and he said:—
    "For instance if a man, twenty-five years ago, gave £2,000 for a property which had shrunk in value until to-day it was only worth a £1,000, and which in ten years had appreciated again to £1,500 or £2,000, he would have to pay Increment Duty."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said he would make a note of the point. Later on, when he came to reply, he said:—
    "With reference to the point urged by Mr. Wood with regard to the twenty years' purchase, he would be happy to accept any Amendment and he would consider whether a provision could not be drafted to alter it. It was clearly unfair that in the case which had

    1345
    been mentioned, a man should have to pay Increment Duty on what really was no increment. He, of course, could not say what form such an Amendment would take, hut they would find that the letter would not fall short of the spirit of the pledge."
    That is pretty explicit. I have also the pledge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in this House in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). He said on 20th February:—
    "As far as I can see that is a different thing from the answer I gave to the deputation. I will look into it, and I promise that whatever I said to the deputation (that is the deputation of surveyors), I will as far as possible carry it out in the Act of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, February 20th, 1911, col. 1639.]
    That pledge was repeated by the Secretary to the Treasury. He said:—
    "My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dealt with that particular case under the twenty years' Clause, and he gave an undertaking to this House. I repeat that pledge on his behalf, and I think if it is carried out in the spirit in which it was offered, it probably meets the whole of the case which was so well put by the hon. Member in the House this afternoon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1911, col. 2137.]
    The point at which I am sure the Government will realise was raised on this twenty years' Clause is not alone whether it should go back beyond twenty years if the property is still in the hands of the same owner who purchased it more than twenty years ago. That was not the only point, yet it is the only point met by the Clause. The point was whether, if there had been an actual loss to the person owning the property, there could, under any circumstances, be Increment Duty payable. That is particularly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in answer to the deputation, and that is what he repeated, and what was repeated again by the Secretary to the Treasury. The point is that the Clause, to meet the promise, as I hold, of the Government, should expressly say that no Increment Duty should be payable under any circumstances if, as a matter of fact, the total value at the time is less than the total value when the property was bought, if it was bought within twenty years. I do not see how there can be any other explanation of the statement of the Government on that point. I was very surprised not to see a Clause down on behalf of the Government dealing with it before to-day. I think the Clause appears on the Paper only to-day, though for some time there have been Clauses dealing with this matter on the Paper in the names of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) and myself. There is one which comes on very shortly, and I had hoped the Government would accept it,
    1346
    and I hope even now they will accept it, because it only carries but strictly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have promised. The Government may say that circumstances might arise where you can substitute the original site value according to the price of the property twenty years ago where Increment Duty is payable, if there has been a loss on the total value to the owner. But that is not so, and if the right hon. Gentleman will consider a possible case for a moment he will realise that the point of the grievance is not met by his own Clause. Take a property the site of which was valued at £500 and on which a house or building or a factory worth £1,500 was built, the total value being £2,000. That is twenty years ago. Then say that on 30th April, 1909, the total value of the property had gone down to £1,000; it might very conceivably do so, from the fact that the factory was no longer in demand, or possibly it might be a building like a skating rink, which has lost its value for the particular purpose for which it was built. Then say that in 1909 the site value remains the same as it was twenty years ago—£500—but the valuers hold that the building has depreciated to £500, therefore the total value of the building and site together is £1,000. Then contemplate that in 1914 there is a recovery of the value of the total to £1,500. The valuers will say that the building five years ago was only worth £500. Buildings cannot appreciate in value, and therefore there must be an increment on the Bite of £500. What advantage in that case has a man in substituting the previous site value twenty years ago for the original site value as settled on 30th April, 1909? He gets nothing out of the concession at all, because, although ho has made a total loss of £500 on the whole thing, yet there is an alleged increment on the site of £500. He would have to pay on that, and the grievance which we have urged is not met by the Clause which is put down by the Secretary to the Treasury. He has met a grievance, that is, if a man has bought property more than twenty years ago, and the same owner is still in possession he is allowed to go back more than twenty years, practically for the lifetime of the present owner. That is a concession, but I emphatically say it is not the concession which, as I read these pledges, and as I think everyone must read them, we expected from the Government, nor the concession which we have a distinct right to ask for.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I understand the point taken by the Noble Lord opposite is that though the value of the property may have gone down since the purchase the site value has not gone down. It seems to me that the real difficulty is whether or not the Increment Duty is payable on the increase which takes place in site value alone. I should rather like to know whether I am right in assuming that the Increment Duty is payable only on the increase which may take place in the site value. I rather think that was the answer given by the Chancellor some time ago, but I am not quite so sure that it is the practice of the Government officials at present. Take, for instance, a case where the house was bought five years ago for £1,000. The original site value was £200. That house to-day realises in the market £1,300. Am I to take it for granted that the Increment Duty is to be assessed on one-fifth of the £300, and is the whole increase of the value of the property to be attributed to an increase in the site value I think that is a fair way of putting it. May I put the converse case, which may answer the Noble Lord's point, that buildings do not vary in price. I am giving a case where the original site value was £400, a house was built upon it and ultimately the property was sold for £1,550. The house recently changed hands at less than £1,200. That is a loss of £350 to the owner. Am I to understand that, under the present Act, the site value of that property will be £50? If it stands on one side it must stand on the other. If the increase in the total value of the property is the increase of the site value, a reduction on the total value of the property must also be a reduction in the site value. If the increase is deemed to affect site value alone, why should not a reduction of the value be equally attributed to the site value? The site value really does not change in a short time, but if anything it deteriorates. Take land which has been covered with small houses occupied by the lower classes in towns, which are rented at £20 to £30. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the site value does not increase but, if anything, it rather tends to depreciate. On the other hand, the value of large houses in small towns does not depend so much upon site value as upon the personal factor, on the question of whether or not at the time the property is submitted for sale there is in the market a purchaser for it. If you put up a house that is worth £2,000 in a small town the number of possible purchasers is very limited, and, if
    1348
    there does not happen to be in the market at that time a purchaser who can afford to give £2,000 for the house, the price is reduced. On the other hand, if you strip that land of the buildings contemplated in ascertaining the site value, the value of the site for any other purpose will remain the same. The real difficulty is the difficulty which I pointed out in the beginning, and that is where the Increment Tax is going to be levied on the actual increase in the site value alone or where, as I believe, one of the Treasury officials, eighteen months ago, said the Increment Value is to be assessed on the increase which has taken place in the total value of the property.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think any speech could have been more opportune than that of the hon. Gentleman, because he has asked a question which goes to the root of the matter. I should like to reecho what was said by the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) that we are glad to accept this new Clause as a concession, but I should like to echo his statement that it is not the concession which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are glad to have it, but it is a totally different concession which does not touch the point of the concession made by the Chancellor. I do not say that without being able to prove my words. To enable me to do that, I must go over the ground. I wish to make good three points. First of all, I have to make it clear what the pledge was. That has been done already by the Noble Lord. Next, I have to make it perfectly clear, not by imaginary cases, but by actual concrete cases of claims which are being made by the Treasury, that this promise is not being fulfilled. Next, I have to show that the Clause which is proposed by the Government does not meet the point, and then, finally, I have to ask that the pledge shall be fulfilled, and that clauses should be introduced giving the concession which was promised. That is my position. What I have to do first is merely to emphasise and make perfectly clear to the House what the pledge was, and in order to do that I have here the original shorthand notes taken at the Conference referred to by my Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley). Anything plainer than the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion could not possibly be used. This statement was made at the first of the three Conferences, which was held on Wednes-

    1349
    day, 14th September, 1910, at 10, Downing Street. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
    "Supposing a man buys a property at one price; it afterwards goes down to a lower price, and afterwards goes up and there is an increment."
    Sir J. SIMON: Being the difference between the two prices.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded:—
    "A man buys property at say £2,000."
    That property may be houses and land, or only land.
    "There is a slump of property in the neighbourhood, and down it goes to £1,000, and its value now is £1,000."
    That is a statement for practical men to read and understand, and it was on this statement that the election very largely turned. This statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was used all over the country at election times, and it was taken literally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said nothing about site value. What he said was:—
    "Down it goes to £1,000, and its value now is £1,000. Supposing it goes up in, say, five years to £1,500, there would be an increment of £500."
    Had it not been for this——
    Sir J. SIMON: There would be no increment of £500, unless you are to subtract a site value from a site value. The £1,000 is assumed to be original site value, and the £1,500 is assumed to be the site value on the occasion. If you subtract the one from the other there is an increment of £500.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry that the learned Solicitor-General should have interrupted me, for I think it is an attempt to fog the issue. The whole defence of these taxes from beginning to end is to fog the issue. Their only defence is their obscurity. Here is a plain and definite pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Site value is not named.
    Sir J. SIMON: Increment is named.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A man buys property for £2,000; down it goes to £1,000 at the date of the original valuation. It afterwards goes up to £1,500. That would be an increment of £500 had it not been for the provision with respect to property bought within twenty years before the passing of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said you can go back twenty years, and if within that period he paid more for the property there is no increment. These are his words. Who ever bought a site value? There never was such a thing
    1350
    bought or sold, and there never can be. It cannot exist except in the imagination of the land taxers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards emphasised the words which I have quoted by saying that the fulfilment of that pledge in the letter would not fall short of the spirit of the pledge. He reiterated the undertaking, and pledged himself to carry out the promise to the full. I think I have made it perfectly clear to the House that the pledge was a definite and plain one. Where twenty years prior to the passing of the Act a man had bought a certain amount of property, unless he sold it at a price higher than he paid for it, there was to be no increment. That is a clear and definite pledge given in plain words to plain people.
    I have now to make good my second point that the pledge is not being kept. There are numerous cases of claims being made on people for Increment Value Duty, though they are selling at considerably less than the price they paid within twenty years of the passing of the Act. I have here a number of concrete cases. A working carpenter writes to the Land Union:—
    "I am sorry to trouble you again, but I thought I had come to a settlement in regard to the provisional valuation of my cottages. As I told you in previous correspondence, the district valuer called upon me and promised to rectify it. He now falls back on the provisional valuation, and says that I placed the rent of the cottages at £16 18s. in Form IV. I told him I could produce the deeds which prove that I gave £520 for the two cottages, and that I am clearing six per cent. I think it is a shameful way to treat a working man like myself."
    The provisional valuation had been put down at £420. This is what the valuer wrote to him:—
    "With further reference to your letter of the 14th inst., objecting to my provisional valuation of these houses, I have to point out that you are not entitled to substitute the price paid from the total value."
    The valuer says that you are not entitled to do exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would do. The very words used by the Solicitor-General in regard to this Amendment were that the substituted site value was ascertained from the price on the previous value. What was promised was the substituted value. That was clearly promised, and the valuer now says:—
    "You have sold the house for more than my valuation. The increment would not necessarily be such an excess, although it would probably be something near it if you sold in the immediate future."
    There is a definite statement by the valuer. The pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not being carried out now. A man purchases property

    1351
    at a certain price within twenty years of the passing of the Act, and he sells it at a less price, and he is now being charged Increment Duty. That is what is being done, and the mere extension of that privilege to twenty years, the lifetime of the owner, does not really meet the difficulty at all. It merely extends the present insufficient exemption. The Solicitor-General said that site value ascertained from the price on the previous transfer is to be substituted for the present site value. He did not tell the House, and we have never been told, how that substituted site value is to be ascertained; there is no suggestion how it is to be ascertained. It is a perfect myth. How are you to ascertain the site value of a bit of land sold twenty years ago? I do not wonder that the Solicitor-General looks thoughtful. I think it would puzzle his ability to discover some method intelligible to ordinary men by which site value twenty years ago is to be ascertained. I will answer the question asked by the hon. Member opposite as to how site value is ascertained. It is not ascertained at all. I can answer for hon. Members on this side of the House that the claim is being made on the entire increment. I ask the House to note that the Solicitor-General takes refuge in the argument that site value is something different, and that it does not depend on total value. What are the facts? The answer to the question is this. The Government claim that the whole of any increase in price is to be attributed to the site. I have here a concrete case which proves that fact. It is the case of a property at Plymouth. The original total value was £750, of which £560 was attributed to the building upon it, and £190 was attributed to the site. That particular house was afterwards sold for £1,000. A notice was thereupon served upon the owner by the local valuer substituting for £750, which was the total value, the consideration money of £1,000, making an identical reduction of £560 for the building, and claiming that the site value, was £440. Anything plainer than that it is impossible to find.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is a case where the building has not changed in value.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then will the Attorney-General explain how he will get at the site value in the case of a similar house, which, let us suppose, is in the same street and next to the one referred to. That similar house is valued at £750,
    1352
    and the deduction of £560 is made for the building, the site value being therefore £190. Let us suppose that that house, by the occasinal chance of the market, is sold for £800. In that case also the building remains apparently of identical value. What happens in that case is that the site value is not £440, but £240, and yet you have two pieces of land of identical shape and size, and similar in every respect, obviously of equal value, the one having a site value of £440 and the other a site value of £240.
    It is obvious when you sell a composite subject, such as a site and buildings, the person who buys that composite property has regard to the suitability of the site for his purpose, and also to the suitability of the building, and I cannot imagine it possible that in any particular case the whole of the consideration, the whole of the rise or fall, in the value of any property of that kind, or of the change in price can be attributed altogether to the house or the building. I am glad to see the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Walters) as he has a practical business knowledge of these questions. I ask him to say whether he considers that this method, of which I have given a concrete example, that is now being adopted, of attributing the whole increase in value of property to the site is a practicable method, or is in his professional opinion a possible method of carrying out business, and whether you will not have by the chance of the market identical properties with absolutely different values fixed upon them, upon which value future rates and taxes are to be based? Nobody can deny that the building affects the value of the composite property. The result of this principle of attributing the whole of the increase to the site is directly to penalise the expenditure of capital upon building, because the larger the proportion that the value of the house bears to the value of the land upon which it is erected the heavier will be the fine which will fall upon the owner. The allowance of 10 per cent., for instance, which is popularly supposed to attach to the whole of the original total value, only touches the original site value.
    Supposing there is a site with the value of only £100, and you erect on it a building worth £10,000, there you have a site value of £100 and a total value of £10,100. That property is afterwards sold for what would not represent a very big rise in the value of buildings, say £12,000. You have there got an increment of £1,900. According to this principle the whole of this is to

    1353
    accrue to the site value of £100, and your allowance on that is 10 per cent., not of the original £10,100 total value, but of the £100, which is the value of the site, that is £10 only. That is the only allowance you get in any shape or form. Let us take the other end, where you have bare land, upon which there is no building, which is to have the increment that you profess to tax most heavily. There the total value and the site value are identical. Therefore in that case all that you tax or can tax is the real increase in the value of the land, and the 10 per cent. is really given there upon the total value. But the moment you build a house on the land the whole of any increase in price which you may get for the house is tacked on to the increment that is supposed to belong to the land. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Rufus Isaacs) opposite may shake his head but that is the claim that is being made. Taking this piece of land that I have referred to, £190 was fixed as the site value. I am certain that no Gentleman on that Bench would got up and say that if there had been no house built on the land it would have been sold for £440. If that is not so is not that £440 a fine on a man for building a house on it? If he had built no house, if he had kept the land bare, and held it out of the market, it is obvious to the least intelligent that that land would have no site value increase. It would be just as worth £190 to-day as yesterday, and would be worth only £190 to-morrow. The increase is a fictitious increase, solely because a house is built on it. That is what you call encouraging building. We have now these claims. You told us you were not going to make them. They are now being made, and made on poor men.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The whole of the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric depends on a perfectly incorrect assumption of how we put the value on the land.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have given definite figures of a claim made on the owner of a house.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is assuming that in no circumstance do the valuers take into account any increase that may take place in the value of the building. That is not correct. That is not the method by which the valuation is carried on.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have been asking for months to find out what that method
    1354
    is, and I have been in the region of conjecture for so many months that I revel in bringing in concrete facts here, and when the right hon. Gentleman answers me, as I hope he will, on the principles and methods which they have adopted, and which we are most anxious should be illustrated and explained, I trust he will show how on that principle they have arrived at a valuation, and how have they made a claim that a site value of £190 has within six months risen to £440, and why have they made the identical deduction of £560 for the building that they made in the first instance when the property was valued at £750. They deducted £560 for the building, and then when the property is sold for £1,000 they again deduct £560. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] We know what the principles of the hon. Members are, but what we want to know is how this Act is going to be administered.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to us on what principle the identical deduction is made when the site value rises from £190 to £440, except on the principle which I have assumed, and I claim that I am entitled to assume? Here we have the identical deduction, and we have the apparent increase from £190 to £440, and on what other principle it is done except that which I have assumed, namely, that the whole of the value is credited to the site and none to the building, I am absolutely at a loss to understand. We have heard a great deal about building. I have an exactly similar case here of a builder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an additional pledge that no profit due to the brains, skill, or intelligence of a builder should be taxed. Here is a case where a builder bought a piece of land at Elstree for £40. It is a concrete case, and all the names can be given. It lay idle for two years. Then he built a small house thereon at a cost of £337 10s. This includes no profit of any kind to himself, nor does it include conveyancing expenses. He was out of pocket to the total of £377 10s. The provisional valuation fixed the original total value at £360: a deduction was made, leaving the original site value £40. The builder sold the house on the 31st May for £375, and the transaction of selling that house for £375 involved a loss to him, taking out of pocket expenses of £2, including the cost of conveyancing. There is a claim now upon him for Increment Value Duty upon an increment of £17 although he made an actual loss.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Give us the figures of the increment of the site value.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have them here. The value of the land, calculated in accordance with Section 2 of the Finance Act, is £375. The difference between the gross value and the value of the fee simple of the land divested is £318. The assessable site value is £370. The original site value, as I have stated, was £40. They deduct the £40 from the £57. That brings it down to £17, which is claimed as the taxable increment upon this building transaction.
    Sir J. SIMON: This is a case where the site was bought for £40, and, consequently, when you compare the price at which the site was bought with the value of the site on the occasion you do not compare unlike things, you compare like things.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The comparison is between the £40 and the £57. That is exactly the point. How is that £57 arrived at? It is arrived at by taking what the house has sold for and crediting the whole of the assumed rise in value to the site. That is the way it is done. It is exactly the same point as the other. The whole profit is really fictitious, because nothing is allowed for legal expenses beyond the 10 per cent. on the £40, and the whole of the profit is debited to site, and therefore that is treated as a taxable site value of £17. This is merely another case of emphasising the point which I made on a former occasion.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: What period elapsed between the purchase of the site and the sale?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: In 1904 he purchased the land for £40, and the house has just been sold.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Was there any depreciation in the house?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No. It was not long built. The site lay idle for two years, and the building began in 1906. There is not much depreciation possible in that time. It is a negligible quantity, and a very small matter. I will only quote one further instance to show the absurdities to which these valuations give rise, and that is a case in Scotland. The owner of that property died, and the property was valued for Death Duties at £1,000, and the duties were paid on that amount. It has now been valued, for the
    1356
    original total value for the purpose of increment, at £450. The Death Duties were paid by the executors in April, 1908, on £1,000. Yet on 13th April, 1909, within twelve months, that property, identical in appearance, is valued for Increment Duty at £450; so that if the owner of it sells at £1,000, the very sum on which Death Duties have been paid, then the Increment Value Duty payable is £173. [An HON. MEMBER: "Subject to appeal."] I am glad of the hon. Member's interruption. It is a pleasing position for a subject of the Crown to be put in. I should have thought that the best appeal against charges of that description is to see to securing fair taxation as one of our primary duties. It is an indication of the condition to which our minds have been brought that it is considered to be a defence against the cases I have mentioned under this method of taxation that the owner can appeal. The only defence, apparently, of owners of property for some years to come is that they are to spend the whole of their time in the Law Courts in fighting cases under this Act. I take a different ground. I say it is the duty of this House to do everything it can to keep the subjects of the Crown out of the Law Courts. I hope I am not transgressing on the opinions of members of the legal profession when I say that we are here to make the law so fair in the first instance that nobody would desire to appeal against it; and, secondly, so clear that there will be no necessity for appeal. I think I have clearly shown to the House that a definite pledge has been given, and I am glad to know that in the course of an hour or so there will be an opportunity for you, Sir, to put an Amendment from the Chair which stands in the name of my hon. Friend dealing definitely and clearly with the fulfilment of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That pledge has been reiterated by the Under-Secretary to the Treasury. The present Debate will have had the effect of shortening the Debate on the Amendment, and I hope that when the Attorney-General comes to deal with it he will further shorten Debate by fulfilling the definite pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I think we are liable to arrive at some confusion in dealing with questions of this kind if we do not clearly discriminate between the principles laid down in the Act and mistakes which may or may not have been made by particular district valuers who apply those principles. I never hesitated during the

    1357
    discussion of these taxes before this House to state that, in my humble judgment, it was a difficult task to arrive at a fair value of the landed property of the country. I believe it is possible in process of time to get a fair basis of value, but I foresaw then, and I am quite certain now, that in any process of getting the value and in getting those portions of the Act into smooth and effective working there will undoubtedly be many cases presenting difficulty and in some cases actual hardship. It has been said a great many times during the discussion of these Land Taxes in this House that district valuers are systematically under-valuing landed properties. I do not believe that to be the case. I have a good deal to do with a large number of district valuers in settling values in different parts of the country, and I have found cases of under-valuing and in other cases over-valuing; but this shows that these values should be arrived at by careful selection and careful consideration. I have found that people who own the property valued always put too high a price upon it, and that is especially the case with the owners of small properties. A man has, perhaps, bought a house at a top price, and he has spent some £30 or £40 for his own convenience on matters which may not add to the value of the property; yet he expects at any given moment to get all that he has paid for it and spent upon it when ho comes to sell it. In investigating particular cases you generally find that a man at the beginning has paid too much for the house, and that he has spent money upon it in a manner which has not added to its value. And yet when he comes to sell he hopes to get back both what he gave for the house and what he spent upon it. In my own experience, in dealing with district valuers, I find them extremely anxious to arrive at a fair value. I have found them not only willing, but very anxious, to have data presented to them on which they can arrive at a fair value.
    I now come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) on the concrete cases which he gave. In reference to those cases, I think that any district valuer who has adopted the method which the hon. and gallant Member has described to the House has interpreted the Act incorrectly, and has presented what is an unfair claim. If I understand the Act at all it is that the increment is only payable on the increase of site value. The particular method of starting with a total value and taking, as
    1358
    a deduction, the value of the building, and then applying that same deduction to the increased amount for which the entire property is sold, may or not be a correct method. It is only a correct method if the value of the building remains unaltered. If the value of the building is changed then it is an incorrect method. It has been said, in the course of these discussions, that buildings never increase in value. But buildings do increase in value, and there are conditions which cause the increase of value. Supposing you had a certain number of houses in a given district let each at £40 a year, and supposing there is an ample supply of that kind of house, although £40 a year is a low price, it is the only price that at can be obtained for such houses. But supposing, again, the population increases, then it is a pure question of supply and demand, and the bricks and mortar of that class of house may increase from £40 to £50 or £60 a year. So when the district valuer comes to deal with these cases I contend that it is his business, before he deducts from it the value of the house, to see whether that value has increased or decreased in the meantime. It may have decreased by dilapidation or by a lessened demand; and, therefore, on that particular claim, submitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if no change has taken place in the value of the building, then the method was bad. If any change has taken place then the method was grotesquely unjust. I hope the Treasury and the chief valuer will give most explicit and definite instruction to the district valuers that they are not to adopt that rough-and-ready method of arithmetic; it is not a fair process. They are not to assume, in all cases where there is a sale at an increased price, that it is necessarily an increment, because they are only entitled to charge on the increment in land value. To that extent I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    But he will not think me disrespectful when I say that the figures which he quoted, though, of course, not intentionally, misled the House, because it is suggested that the unfair increment is made payable by reason of the Act passed by this House. That certainly is not the case. I contend that the Act does not in any way authorise the charge, and if it were a client of mine who was called upon to pay it, I would advise him to resist it to the last. Although I have been all through a supporter of the general principle

    1359
    contained in the Land Taxes, I must say that I do think experience has already shown that there are a great many administrative details in which a change is urgently required. Is it to be wondered at, in dealing with such a huge interest as the land interest, in connection with which methods are so diverse and so complicated, and as to which lawyers have been spending their ingenuity in creating difficulties for centuries? I do not know what would have become of our landed system if surveyors had not been doing their best to simplify it. I submit that when you introduce new legislation of the kind that has been introduced it is absolutely impossible for anybody, unless he was absolutely inspired—I do not suppose that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would claim verbal inspiration for the Land Clauses; he might have general inspiration, but certainly not detailed verbal inspiration for the Clauses—I say it is not at all to be wondered at that, even after a few months' experience, it has been shown that in many respects changes are needed.
    I believe those changes ought to be made and can be made; if we use a little intelligence, in dealing with Amendments that are necessary, the Land Taxes can be made to work quite smoothly and quite fairly. I take exception to the use of concrete cases of that kind to controvert the general principle. I am a little bit distressed by these four different methods that the Act provides for ascertaining the increment. Those four different methods are very clever and very ingenious, but I think it would be very much better if, instead of them, we had one simple method of valuation to be employed as occasion arises. I do not think we can fairly and properly arrive at increment by going through an elaborate process of addition and deduction. I think the proper way to do, having valued for original site value, when occasion again arises for increment, to value it on that occasion by comparison with the previous valuation, and in that way you have a chance of arriving at a correct result. No such difficulty as that suggested in these particular claims would have arisen if a new valuation on the occasion of increment is adopted instead of the elaborate process I have mentioned. I firmly believe that, with the necessary administrative changes, that the Land Taxes can be made to work efficiently, smoothly, and justly.
    Sir JOHN ROLLESTON: I do not wish to examine the intricacies and complexities of this Act, with which the public are becoming familiar, neither do I want to go into these concrete cases which have been so very well put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and which go to show that this Amendment is insufficient and incomplete. I merely wish to emphasise that where there is no increment but loss, and where, without regard to time or other circumstances, it can be shown to the Commissioner that there is no increment on the occasion of transfer, that nothing should be charged by the State which could not possibly be entitled to it under those circumstances. With reference to the valuation I heard the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department last night refer to increment by instalments, and say that competent valuers were brought in who would say what land would be built on in five or ten or fifteen years. I beg to offer my opinion, founded on experience, that no valuer in this country, not even the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Tudor Walters), is able to say what land will be built on in fifteen years, or even in five years. To take increment from a man who has no increment on the same scale as the man who has cannot be defended by logic, reason, or justice. I never heard that defended by any hon. Member on the opposite side in this House, and I have never heard it defended or excused outside the House. Indeed, the man in the street is beginning to understand this matter, and to apply to it a word which it would not be Parliamentary for me to use. I do not think that hon. Members who represent large towns and urban or semi-urban constituencies will like it to be counted to them in those constituencies that they refused to support the repeal of this brazen and acknowledged injustice when it was in their power to prevent it being imposed on a large number of their injured and suffering Constituents. I can assure the Government that if, with their eyes open, they refuse to erase, completely erase, this blot upon their Act, that they will create perennial irritation and soreness, which must operate against the fruition of most of the objects for which the Act was originally framed and introduced, and if they do not do so, they will also cause to be made the most invincible arguments in favour of its early repeal.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I was very glad that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tudor Walters) uttered his protest against the shovelling over the Table by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford of those concrete cases upon which he laid so much emphasis in the course of his charge today. The hon. Member has done that three or four times already this Session, and on those occasions he was dealing more particularly with a case from Mountain Ash in my Constituency on, as the hon. Member admitted just now, very much the same point as he speaks of at the present time, and that is that the valuers were taking into consideration, when making their assessment, the houses on the site, and that they were doing it in such a way that when, as he assumes there will be, another automatic consideration of the house site, then these so-called working men, for whom the hon. Member is so much concerned, will be made to pay Increment Duty on the houses as distinct from the site value. I shall deal with the particular point on its merits, and explain to the hon. Gentleman that the particular case in Mountain Ash, in spite of difficulties and ambiguities in the mind of the hon. Member, is a case which illustrates quite clearly that there are some valuers in the country who understand their business, and that they are doing it very well indeed. Before I come to that definite point I want to illustrate to the House the valine of these concrete cases which the hon. and gallant Member is bringing forward in order that the Government shall not be misled any further to whittle away the substantial part of this valuation and of these taxes by constant amendments, granted as concessions for the hard cases, so-called, which have been produced with such emphasis on the word "concrete" and on the word "fact" by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford.
    This case of Mountain Ash has occupied a very considerable time of the Land Value discussions of Parliament on the point we have been discussing this afternoon about the methods of ascertaining site value as between buildings and site. The hon. Member for Chelmsford began the business in the Debates on the Address on 14th February when he quoted a letter and gave an example of a valuation, if we are to believe him, held at Mountain Ash. He followed that up on 24th February, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his place. He got the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, to admit that he thought there was
    1362
    something in the case. Then, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some remarks, the hon. Member for Chelmsford brought up a new set of letters on the Second Reading of the Revenue Bill on 7th March and quoted, as he has quoted to-day, details that have been supplied about architects' fees, cost of the lease, and so forth, and so forth. He wound up by quoting a letter that he had received from some gentleman, attributing certain statements to me in contradiction of the hon. Member's statements made to a deputation that was pleased to come up here. That is the story as I have roughly outlined it of this case which has occupied the time of the House so much. I am sure the House will be very chary about accepting many of the cases that have been brought forward for the first time to-day by the hon. Member after this one case which I have been able to bring to the test of fact and of local knowledge. The hon. Member for Chelmsford brought the case forward on 14th February with these significant words:—
    "I have a case here which will illustrate my point and it is in a letter which I received this morning from total strangers to me in Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1911, col. 924.]
    That is the pretext that the hon. Member thinks sufficient, that he receives this letter from total strangers, and he knew so little about it that ho called me on that occasion "the Member for Mountain Ash," so that apparently he did not know whether it is a city or whether it is a village of trees like the Dyak villages of Borneo. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for the hon. Member to come down, quote the case, and make a long speech upon it and use it as material for his accusation against the Government and against the valuers. As I have said, on the 24th February he dealt with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and returned to the subject on 7th March, when he accused the Chancellor of, having misled the House. The hon. and gallant Member on that occasion said:—
    "After that I received, unsolicited, from the Secretary of the Club at Mountain Ash, the following letter."
    Having given the letter, he proceeded:—
    "This shows that the interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely wrong and that my own statement was absolutely correct. Here you have the fact that one hundred workmen built 130 houses which actually cost £270. They are valued at £213 and if they sell any of them again at what they cost to build there will be Increment Duty charged upon them, not because they have increased in value but because they have been undervalued and subsequently sold at their proper value."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1911, col. 1094.]

    1363
    It would not be in order to deal with the letter, referring to my statement, but by the leave of the House may I say that I never made the statements in the letter, because the deputation came here about Reversion Duty and not Increment Duty at all, as the Secretary to the Treasury knows. The hon. Member takes that case and makes it a basis for very serious arguments, and proceeds to make a lot of very definite assertions, and very emphatic, as he has been to-day, about concrete cases and facts. He said he hoped I would deem it my duty to deny the statement that was contained in the letter. I have done that. He stated "The hon. Member for Mountain Ash received a deputation from the Members of this Club." I did not receive a deputation. I never heard the name of that club until the hon. Member began to use the time of the House with random letters received from total strangers. He said that the secretary of the club sent me a report of what they were told, and that he informed me——
    Mr. SPEAKER: What has this got to do with the Clause we are now discussing? It seems to me to be a very long way from anything now before the House.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I was illustrating how unreliable these concrete facts are. All that I want to say is that the hon. Member did not receive those facts from the secretary of the club, and the secretary of the club has never written him a single line.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is an old story, and what the secretary of the club wrote and what the deputation said has nothing to do with what is before us
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: The statement was that these houses had cost £270 to build, and that they were valued at £213. The hon. Member gave that case to show, as he has been saying to-day, that the valuers have not been doing their duty, and do not understand the whole question of site value. In reply to that I have made my denial of the correctness of the whole thing, and the very fact that the valuers valued those houses at £213 is to me an indication that the valuers have been doing their work very well and very intelligently. I know the local facts, and the hon. Member did not know and did not trouble to investigate them. The local facts are that these houses are built on the side of a
    1364
    steep hill, and that the local landlord who leased the land for the houses would not make any roads, in accordance with the practice, unfortunately, of many landlords down in our mining valleys. So that the workmen themselves had to go I to the expense of making roads and sewers and street works, which were included in the amount the hon Gentleman quoted from the letter, and which belong to the site and not to the houses as such. Therefore, the local valuers, in valuing the houses at £213, were doing their duty, and, I think, arriving at a very fair value in accordance with the value of property of the kind in the neighbourhood. I will conclude by protesting against the hon. Member's bringing facts of this kind which neither the Government nor anybody else can verify as to their details, and, assuming that he, in the House of Commons, knows better than the local valuers the relation of the cottages to the land and to the prices paid by architects, builders, and others. All I hope is that the Government will not make any more of these detailed concessions, by which the tax is whittled down, or take the hon. Member's concrete cases so seriously as he would have the House take them.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I wish to examine the concrete case put forward by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman), in the light of the Colonial method of valuing land. I fail to see the grievance of which he complains. The method which has been followed for the last seventeen years has been for the land valuer to arrive at a figure representing, first of all, the total or capital value of the property; that is, the figure it would realise in the open market. In the concrete case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite that value is £375. The next figure to be arrived at is the value of the improvements. The value of the improvements might be the total cost. If the building had just been erected, and, being quite new, had suffered no depreciation, the value of the building would be what it cost to erect. If, on the other hand, it had been built for several years, depreciation would certainly have taken place. Buildings never appreciate in value unless there has been a rise in the price of labour, or in the price of materials. Those are the only two elements that can ever appreciate the value of a perishable building. A building is a dying institution from the time you erect it. You must constantly keep it in repair. Examining this building in the light of the fact that it

    1365
    had been erected for five years, you have to inquire what you could re-erect it for at the moment of valuation, assuming that the cost of labour and the cost of materials are exactly what they were at the time of its original erection.
    In the instance given by the hon. Member, the house had been built five years. If the valuer wanted to arrive at his second figure—that is, the cost of improvements—he would have to ascertain what it would cost to erect that building now. Obviously if there had been no change in the cost of labour and the cost of material it would cost the same to erect it now as it cost five years ago. That is £337. Therefore we have our second figure. From the £337, on the assumption that the cost of materials and of labour is the same, we have to deduct the depreciation in the house for five years' use in order to arrive at its existing value. Obviously if you can get a new house for £337 it cannot be worth £337 now. You have to deduct something for the five years' use of the house. A Colonial valuer, with his seventeen years' experience, would have deducted, say, a small 5 per cent. That gives a depreciation of £16. Therefore, the improvement on the land—that is what has been put on the land by industry and labour—would be £337 less £16, so that you have your first two figures—the total value of the land and the value of the improvements — and the site value is the difference between the two. In the concrete case given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, deducting the present value of the house from its original value minus depreciation, you get a site value of £54, allowing only 5 per cent. for five years' depreciation. In the instance given by the hon. Gentleman, the site value is £57, against an original value of £40, so that there is a difference of only £3. The unearned increment is £17; on the Colonial method it would have been put at £14.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should have said that an adjoining site obviously of equal value is now on sale at £40. Therefore, I do not see how the site can have appreciated.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I have taken the figures given by the hon. Member. Obviously the vendor got £375. What did he get it for? For the house and land and nothing else. The house originally cost £337. Can a new house be erected for £337 or not? If the cost of materials and the cost of labour are the same as they were five years ago,
    1366
    obviously you could get a new house for £337. Are you going to exchange an old house for a new house? Are they both of the same value, or are they not? Obviously a house that has been used for five years is now a second-hand article. Are you going to exchange a second-hand article for a new article, or are you not? There must be a difference in the value. The old house is of less value than a new one. How much less? £21 is all that the valuer has shown for depreciation. He says that the house having been erected five years, and having undergone all the wear and tear of that period is worth £21 less than it was when new. Surely that is a small amount of depreciation. Thus you arrive at an unearned increment of £17. It is a most reasonable case, and all the crocodile tears shed by the hon. Gentleman evaporate in the light of an examination of the facts.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): We have, I think, travelled a little far in the discussion, but I do not complain of that if in the end it shortens the discussion on subsequent Amendments which are somewhat relevant to the Clause now before the House. I shall endeavour to deal with such of the facts that have been brought forward as are relevant to the present proposal. The Noble Lord opposite (Viscount Helmsley) has an Amendment on the paper which introduces other matters, particularly in reference to the substitution of the total value, which may be more properly dealt with when that Amendment comes up for discussion. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) made what appeared to me to be a kind of second reading speech, which travelled over much of the old ground, and would have been a very good argument to have addressed against passing into law Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the principal Act. What we are at present discussing is a concession proposed in order to carry out the view, wishes, and words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that the Noble Lord does not think that it carries out those words, but I say that that is the object. We are not in any way changing Sub-section (3). We are simply extending its operations to meet certain objections raised by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is my complaint.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If that is the complaint, I should have thought it was not quite relevant to the present discussion. It would have been a very good point to

    1367
    have brought forward if we had been introducing this particular Sub-section now instead of extending it as we are doing to meet the views of the hon. Member. He says that we do not go to the full extent. It is open to him to move such Amendments as he thinks proper. The only point I shall deal with at the moment is whether or not we are carrying out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised. There has been a good deal of criticism with reference to that, I noticed particularly that both the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to what they called definite pledges made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which they said were not being carried out. I am in a position to state quite clearly that in the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is in the opinion of the man who made the statements and knows best what was in his mind—these words do carry out what he said he intended to carry out. The Clause not only quite plainly, as it seems to me, but also in terms, carries out the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view of what he promised. I know very well that there has been criticism directed against the words used by my right hon. Friend; but if his statement is referred to it will be seen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to increment, and that he had in his mind the increment which is defined in Section 2 of the principal Act, and it is to carry out what he then said we have introduced this further extension. What the Noble Lord is seeking to do under the criticisms which he has directed against this Clause and in the Amendment which he has put down later on is to substitute the total value for the original site value, and not to substitute the site value for the original site value.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: No. If the Attorney-General will look at my Clause he will sec that it asks to substitute for the total value as on 30th April, 1909, the total value at the time that it was purchased, not the site value.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not want to get into a discussion of that particular proposal at present. The important point is, what is the value which he proposes to deduct, and on what date does he propose to value the buildings for the purpose of arriving at his substituted value? If, as the Noble Lord says, what he intends to do is to deduct the value of the building at the time of the original site
    1368
    value, that is one thing. If, on the other hand, what he wants to do for the purpose of arriving at his substituted value is to take the value of the building on 30th April, 1909, that would be a totally different matter. As far as I understand, what he is attempting to do is to raise the original site value by the deduction of the value of the super-structure at a wrong date. I think we shall hear more from him later, but my impression is that this Amendment carries out what he and his friends wish. The result of the Debate to-day, following what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said, seems to me entirely in that direction. That justifies us that this is the right view, and that we are taking a course in which hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be able to say that the provision is not carrying out the principle of the Increment Value Duty provided for in the principal Act. I only want to make one or two other observations, particularly bearing in mind what will succeed this discussion on this Clause in reference to valuation. I want to make this quite clear. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the instances he has given, and in observations that he has made, assumes it as absolutely clear—if I follow him both in this and many other Debates—that the valuers always take it into account for the purpose of arriving at the site value that the building cannot have risen, and that there will only be a rise in site value. That is the effect of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. He said that the value is not changed.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Unless there has been some structural alteration, I assume that the building has not changed.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That in substance is what I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say. There is no doubt that that is entirely wrong. It is not in accordance with the Act. It is not in accordance with the principles that are set out in the Act. Neither is it, in fact, what the valuers are now doing. There have been discussions upon this, and we have had regard to the system of valuation which is now wholly in vogue. In order that there may be no doubt about it instructions have been given so that the valuers may know that they have to value the buildings in order that they may arrive at the value of the site for the purposes of Increment Duty. There may be isolated instances selected by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford and others, but he must see

    1369
    that in order to form any opinion, or at least in order to deduce any general principle, you must have more knowledge of the facts than have been given to us by him. Doubtless he has given the facts as they have been given to him. But the misfortune is that the facts as stated only give us half of what you need to really arrive at what the true valuation is. So I only want to say, in reference to this particular instance, that if the facts are as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, and there is nothing in any way to alter those facts, that the result must be that it is the site value which has risen, and there has been no change in the value of the building.
    I do not know because I do not know the particular facts, but I think I have made the position clear to the House, whatever doubt there might have been in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite and of some hon. Friends on this side; whatever the criticism that may have been directed to the system which has been practised and to particular instances that may have come before them. I can allay any anxiety upon this by telling them that the clearest, most definite instructions have been given to the valuers in this respect. Therefore we may know, whenever the occasion arises for claiming the Increment Value Duty, that there will be a valuation of the building at the time in order to arrive at what is to be deducted from the consideration which has been given as the price of the transaction. I hope, therefore, so far as the valuation goes, we shall not hear any further instances such as we have heard, and that it will not be necessary to give any further instances, because it will be found in point of fact that the valuers are carrying out exactly the principle which is, as I understand, contended for by both sides.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I have listened with blank amazement to the address given to the House by the Attorney-General. The question before us on this occasion is not at all a complicated or difficult one to understand. It is one of the plainest questions that any collection of men have ever been called upon to deal with. The main question is, what was the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September last, and has that pledge been carried out by the Clause now on the Paper? The question of what the pledge was depends upon what language was used, and what meaning it would convey to any ordinarily intelligent person. The learned Attorney-General told us that that
    1370
    is not really the question at all. The real question, he said, is what was in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Then he went on to tell us what was in the Chancellor's mind. I say a more impossible construction to put upon the meaning of a pledge it is inconceivable to imagine. When a pledge is given, no one asks what is in your mind. What is asked is, what language did you use and what meaning that would convey to an intelligent person. Therefore, when the Attorney-General told us what was in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I venture to think he introduced a principle into the interpretation on pledges which has never been introduced by any intelligent body of men before, and never put forward by a Law Officer of the Crown. When you have a written document placed before you the Attorney-General seems to suggest that you are to ask, what is in the mind of the man who wrote that document. Of course, you do not do that! You ask, what the document says, what meaning it conveys to an intelligent person. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did give this clear and definite pledge, which bears but one meaning to every intelligent person. It is idle to tell me what he meant. I say, what did he say? That is the true and only principle upon which we can interpret this pledge.
    Before I come to the pledge, let me put forward what I venture to think is the justification by which the Government claim to justify this Increment Value Duty. I think it is this: that if the owner of land makes a profit on selling his land or dealing in it, a profit, not from his own intelligence, exertions, or expenditure, but due in some way to the action of the community, then the community or the State shall share in that profit. I think that is a fair statement. A deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September last. That deputation consisted of business men—surveyors, land agents, and others accustomed to deal With land. This was shortly before the General Election, and the time of this deputation is exceedingly important. There was a pledge given, and the language of it is so plain that really it does not need a Law Officer or anyone else learned in the law to say what it means. The Chancellor gave a specific illustration. He said:—
    "If a man buys a property"
    not a site value——
    "for £2,000 and it goes down to £1,000 in 1909, and then goes up in fire years to £1,500, there will be no Increment Duty charged."

    1371
    And for a very plain and intelligible reason. The man has made no profit; he has made a loss.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Are those the Chancellor's words?
    Mr. BUTCHER: As near as possible. I put down the words:—
    "If a man buys a property at £2,000 and it goes down to £1,000, its value now——"
    not the site value, mark you, but the property—
    "is £1,000 and then goes up in five years to £1,500 there would be an increment of £500."
    A payment of increment of £500 on the value of the property, not in the site value, in the five years after the passing of the Act over and above what it was in 1909.
    There can be no mistake so far. There would be that payment of increment. Then the Chancellor went on:—
    "There would be an increment of £500 had it not been for this. We then say 'No'; in that case you can go back twenty years, and if within twenty years he had paid more for it there is no increment."
    Therefore he would be charged no increment. Could anything be more plain and clear to the simplest intelligence? The Chancellor went on to say, as if to emphasise his words:—
    "The letter will not fall short of the spirit of the pledge."
    There is a pledge, and that pledge was repeated no longer ago than February last when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the terms of his pledge, said:—
    "I promise that whatever I say to the deputation I will, as far as possible, carry out in the Act of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1911, col. 1640.]
    He does not say, "whatever I had in my mind." He says, "Whatever I said to the deputation." If that be the case, I venture to think that no man who looks at the matter fairly will deny that the only question was that simple, fair, and definite pledge given in language of astonishing unambiguity. Is that carried out by the Clause on the Paper? Will the learned Attorney-General pretend that it is? He does not contend that it is. What he contends is that something in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is carried out by the Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I pointed out was that the Clause, in conjunction with the instructions given to the valuers, carries out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. BUTCHER: That does not make it any better to my mind. It is not a question of what the Chancellor's intention was. The question is what he said. Any man in this House who reads the words that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used will put only one meaning upon them. That was that if a man bought property twenty years ago, and it went down in value and then went up again, and he sold it for less five years hence than what he paid for it originally, then he was not to pay any Increment Duty.
    Let me ask the learned Attorney-General this: Does he contend that the Clause as put down on the Paper would meet a case of that sort? That is the real question. I do not care in the least whether or not it carries out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I do want to know is this: Does it carry out the facts as I put them, and which are the only interpretation which it is possible to put on the Chancellor's speech? If that is the simple case, then I do ask the Attorney-General or his subordinates to make good the promise. You cannot give a promise before the General Election to persons who come to you asking for assurances upon specific points, and then, after the General Election, throw those pledges over. I do urge that the Government in this matter must give effect to the words as used, and not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they desire to give effect to the words as used I do put it to the House on both sides fairly that what is on the Paper will have to receive very large amendment in order to carry out their only intelligible, clear, and precise meaning.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. W. E. HORNE: I should be glad to know whether the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes of what occurred at this deputation are accurate. Speaking for myself I can quite understand that the Surveyors who talked this matter over with the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be only too glad to have it confined to a question of total value. I can quite understand the case of the £2,000 being mentioned as an instance of total value, that is the value of the site, and the buildings upon it. No surveyor would willingly go into the highly technical mathematical performance of breaking up the values and taking the site value divested of what is upon it if he could avoid it. The matter is not really a very big one. It is much smaller than would appear if a property

    1373
    within twenty years sold for £2,000 afterwards goes down in value to £1,000, the depreciation is not only on the building, but must to some degree be on the site value also. It is a very difficult operation to say what the decrease would be in both values, and it would be a very much simpler thing for the valuer if they could take the total value instead of separating the site value from the building. The question whether there may have been a temporary rise in the twenty years seems to me a minor part of the argument. The question is, if a man has given a large sum of money for a property, and within twenty years sells it for a lower sum, it should be accepted as a fact that the value of the site, has decreased to some extent, and not, at any rate, increased. You will find this the case 999 times out of 1,000 in practice. So that if the Government will give effect to that which was in the minds of everybody who read the report of the deputation they would be doing no harm, and they would be making very much easier what is a very difficult operation, namely, to decide the difference between the values of a site and of the structure.
    With regard to the argument put forward that the value of a building is never greater than when it is put up, and that it is always decreasing in value after that. If that were a fact it would be a very bad thing indeed for the speculative builder, because he would never get any profit from any buildings he put up, and any increased value there was when sold would go on to the site value. As a matter of fact buildings in many places increase in value after they have been put up. There are certain styles of buildings and houses which builders put up which command very much higher prices in the course of time. Again, buildings may be put up at a time when the cost of materials and labour are low, and therefore these buildings become worth more later on; there are buildings in this country which are worth many times over that which they cost when put up. I know old houses built by Inigo Jones which if they could be obtained at prices four or five times as much as they cost would be snapped up by a great many people who wished to obtain them.
    This question of the division of site value from total value is one which it is impossible for valuers correctly to determine. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Tudor Walters) admitted himself how greatly valuers welcome any help from outside people to enable them
    1374
    to arrive at true value. The fact of the matter is it is impossible for valuers to estimate it with any great degree of accuracy. I had a case of some twenty sites on which provisional valuations were made. I have had to do with that property for the last seven or eight years, and every sale in that property has been approved by me. I went through the values, and I found the provisional valuations were wrong by about 50 or 60 per cent. in many cases. There was no wish on the part of the valuer who made these mistakes to put on a low valuation. It was pure ignorance on his part, because when I totalled up his figures for the twenty valuations and compared them with my figures for the valuation the totals were only less than 3 per cent. different. He did his best, the only difference being that he did not know the property as well as I did, and so I was able to correct his figures. And when these valuers come to value property in the heart of London there is nothing to guide them as to the proper value to put upon site when divorced from building.
    I have the honour to know, I think, nearly every member of the referees under the Act, and I do not think they will be angry with me when I say, if you took every one of these referees into a separate room and gave each the same property to value and ask them to calculate the site value without previous consultation among themselves, it would be a very rare case where these referees would arrive at the same site values. There are a number of considerations to be given effect to—the knowledge every valuer has as to the property—and as each valuer's knowledge of the property differs, so will the estimate of the site value differ. Therefore I feel quite sure if the Government would accept this Amendment and agree that this allowance ought to be made on the total value of the property, which I know was in the mind of the people who had anything to do with that deputation, it would be of great value to the community, and I do not believe the interests of the Treasury would suffer in any appreciable way.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am anxious to give a vote upon this question. I have listened very carefully to the Debate, but I am not satisfied at the present moment what is the actual position. I therefore propose to put a simple question to the Government in order that I may get an answer which will determine my vote and

    1375
    the votes of some hon. Members beside me as well. If I understand the argument advanced on the other side, it is this. A certain property is bought for £2,000. In April, 1909, it was valued at £1,000. Then it is sold at £1,500. What I want to know is, is Increment Duty charged upon that £500? If it is, I am perfectly satisfied that it is an injustice. If not, I am prepared to vote for the Government. Of course, I keep clearly in my mind there has been a certain amount of depreciation, but if in the main in the instance I have given Increment Value Duty has to be paid upon the £500, it is an injustice, and I shall certainly not support it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend has put a definite question, and I propose to give him a definite answer. He has made an inquiry about a matter which does not come into this Clause at all. It will be raised, and we are quite prepared to meet it, when it is raised later. If the hon. Member votes against this Clause he will be voting against the concession promised and now being given, but which has nothing whatever to do with the point he raised. The concession made by this Clause is an extension of the time we go back as to the original site value.
    Mr. CASSEL: I entirely acquiesce with what the Under-Secretary has said. This Clause has nothing to do with the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and, therefore, it also follows that this Clause has nothing to do with the carrying out of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Under-Secretary has admitted.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The words of the hon. and gallant Member opposite admit that we carry out in his own view, a portion of the pledge. We carry out the extension back beyond the twenty years.
    Mr. CASSEL: I was fully aware that this Clause was a concession, but it is a concession upon an entirely different point from that which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the Government will realise, on reflection, that they are misinterpreting the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when they do realise this, I hope they will put down a Clause to carry out the pledge which has been given. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had simply meant to refer to the increase or the decrease in site value or to a slump, no new Clause was
    1376
    necessary at all, because that is already provided for by the Act. If that was the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer no new Clause was necessary, and there is no new Clause dealing with it. The pledge was given upon an entirely different point. The question this Clause deals with is an extension of the time over which the twenty years' Clause operates. So far as the question dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, this Clause does not affect it one iota. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the deputation on this question he never said a word about extending the time.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, he did.
    Mr. CASSEL: Then it was certainly in a different part of the speech to that which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) read out. That quotation assumed the twenty years' time throughout, and the whole of it was based upon the time not being altered, because it was based on the twenty years' period. So far as this Clause is concerned, I think the Under-Secretary to the Home Office will agree with me that it does not touch the question raised in the sentences read out. For that reason I think the hon. Member's question, although it was very apposite on the point as to whether there ought to be another Clause or not, is really not apposite on the point of the Vote we ought to give on this Clause. We accept this Clause willingly, but we say it does not carry out the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pledge, and we ask for another Clause.
    Mr. BOYTON: I will read to the House what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his reply:—
    "This was a great business country, and no Ministry had a right to devise any machinery which interfered with the proper working of the commercial and industrial system of the land. The expert gentleman who had attended before hint that morning, had made suggestions to facilitate the smooth working of the Act, all of which were in conformity with its spirit, and would improve its workmanship. With reference to the point urged by Mr. Wood with regard to the twenty years' purchase, he would be happy to accept any Amendment, and he would consider whether a provision could not be drafted to alter it. It was clearly unfair that in a case such as bad been mentioned, a man should have to pay increment on what was really no increment."
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, in the first paragraph of the Clause, after the word "land" ["or of any interest in the land"], to insert the words "or of any lease of the land for a term of years exceeding fourteen years."

    1377
    This is a very modest Amendment. I was successful yesterday in inducing the Attorney-General to accede to an Amendment which I put forward. This is a proposal intended to meet a case which was really omitted in drafting the Section. I know it is extremely difficult to draft sections to meet all cases. This Amendment enables you to go back to the twenty years. In the case of the assignment of a lease, you are enabled under this Clause to go back for twenty years, but in the case of a grant of a lease you are not able to go back twenty years. The object of this Amendment is to place the grant of the lease and the assignment of the lease on the same footing. Let me assume that I have purchased a lease, or the assignment of a lease, for £10,000. I can go back to twenty years and claim the benefit of this Clause. Assuming that the lease has been granted to me for the first time for £10,000, then I cannot get the benefit of this Clause. I submit there could be no possible reasonable distinction between those two cases. This is a complicated Clause, but perhaps I can make my point clearer by an illustration. Mr. A. buys a lease which has already been previously granted at a certain rent with certain covenants for £10,000, and he gets the benefit of this Clause. Mr. B. gets a grant of a similar lease, for which he pays £10,000, but he cannot get the benefit of this Clause. I put it to the Attorney-General and to the Solicitor-General that there is no reasonable distinction between the two cases, and they ought to be treated alike. If the Government do not accept this Amendment, I ask the Attorney-General to explain what distinction there is between the two cases, which to me appear to be so obviously on the same footing.
    Mr. CARLILE: I beg leave to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know the hon. and learned Member is a very good draftsman, and I am sure he would not have proposed an Amendment which produces a very anomalous position, if it had been possible to deal with the point in any other way.
    Mr. CASSEL: I quite agree that there may be some consequential Amendments necessary, and I have some down on the Paper. All I ask is, whether, as a matter of substance, the Government recognise that there is no distincton between the two cases I have put. If so, I am willing
    1378
    to accept any form of words the Attorney-General can suggest.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty is one of substance, because when this matter was discussed on the principal Act the words which were adopted related to the grant of a lease. Originally I find, by reference, the concession which was made applied only to the owner at the time of any transfer or sale of the fee simple of the land, and then the words were introduced, "or of any interest in the land." The question of the lease was not accepted then. The effect of introducing this Amendment upon the concession we have made would be to create a most anomalous state of things even according to the view put forward by the Mover of this Amendment. The consequential Amendments which have been referred to by the hon. Member do not alter the sense of what has already been made clear by the first Amendment we have been discussing. It is impossible for us to carry this concession any further than we have said we will do. We are going now as far as we think we ought to go, and the effect of this Amendment would be to go much further, and really alter the whole matter upon which no controversy has arisen, and upon which no promise has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never said that he would agree to the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member opposite.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not suggest that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Clause we have introduced is a concession, and I submit we ought not to go any further.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Increment Duty not to be Charged on Agricultural Land unless if is held up.)
    In Section 7 of the principal Act there shall be added at the end of line three the following words, "and so long as such land is being used for agricultural purposes no Increment Value Duty shall be charged because of its market value as building land or prospective building land exceeding its value for agricultural purposes unless it is proved that such land is reasonably required for building and is being held up."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: In moving this new Clause I do not propose to weary the House upon a subject which has already been much debated in many of its aspects, but I do ask the Government to seriously consider whether they cannot accept this Clause, because if their desire, so often expressed on the platform and in this House, to exempt agricultural land is really sincere, then they can accept this proposal, which will not extend the boundary of exemption beyond that which they have so often declared themselves willing to go. We think agricultural land is taxed under this Bill as it now stands. I know that is denied by hon. Members opposite, but I do not propose to argue that point now. The Government claim that they have drawn a line between agricultural land and land which is not agricultural land. They claim on the one side that agricultural land is free from taxation, and on the other side they claim that land is to be subject to taxation. There must be, and one realises it, some hard cases on the border line, but it is the duty of the Government to define the line as sharply as possible so as to have as few hard cases as possible. I submit, if these words were added, we should get a really better expression of the statement of the desire of the Government, as made over and over again in this House and on the platform. The tax, as originally proposed, has perhaps been somewhat obscured by the many discussions which have taken place upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Budget, said:—
    "There is another aspect of this mutter which I should like to say a word upon before I come to the actual proposals of the Government. I have dwelt upon the fundamental difference in the demeanour of landowners towards their urban tenants and that which under the inspiration of more high-minded and public-spirited principles guide their conduct towards their agricultural tenants. There is no doubt that the spirit of greed is unconsciously much more dominant and unrestrained in the former case. One disastrous result of this is that land which is essential to the free and healthy development of towns is being kept out of the market in order to enhance its value, and that towns are cramped and their people become over-crowded in dwellings which are costly without being comfortable. You have only 10 buy an ordnance survey map and put together the sheets which include some town of your acquaintance and the land within its immediate vicinity, and you will see at once what I mean. You will find, as a rule, your town or village huddled in one corner of the map, dwellings jammed together as near as the law of the land will permit, with an occasional courtyard, into which the sunshine rarely creeps, but with nothing that would justify the title of 'garden.' For it is the interest of the landlord to pile together on the land every scrap of bricks and mortar that the law will allow. And yet outside square miles of land are unoccupied, or at least unbuilt upon; land in the town seems to let by the grain, as if it were radium. Not merely towns but villages (and by villages and towns I mean the people who dwell in them), suffer extremely from the difficulty
    1380
    which is experienced in obtaining land, and by the niggardliness with which sites are measured out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1909, cols. 536–7.]
    The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as stated in that extract, was to prevent rapacious landlords from holding up land and preventing the due development of the town. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), speaking either the same day or within a day or two as the representative of the Labour party, showed conclusively why he and his Friends were going to support the Land Taxes. On 3rd May, 1909, he said:—
    "Moreover the curse of landlordism—and it is a curse—is not only in what it takes, but in what it wastes. Therefore, I am particularly glad there is a tax. The second proposed tax in regard to land will, I believe, bring into use land which is now held out of use, and thereby do something to diminish unemployment and lighten the load of poverty which the people have to bear."
    A little later he says:—
    "Why should land not be put to its full use. As I understand this proposal, it is entirely a tax on land either not used at all or not used to its full capacity. It is obvious in a comparatively small country like ours, with our limited area and growing population, it is of the utmost importance that land should be put to its full use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1909, cols. 806–7.]
    I quite agree it was a fine speech, putting before the House exactly his view and the view of the Labour party. The argument running through both those speeches was that this tax was to assist or to compel land to be put to its best use and to prevent it being held up, so that the housing problem should not be complicated by the want of land for private building. I am not going to argue whether either of those speeches are right or wrong. I have only quoted them to remind the House of the basis upon which these taxes were introduced. I hope to be able to persuade the House that I am not trying to alter a single one of the main principles upon which the taxes have become part of the law of the land. While leaving all these beneficial effects, if, indeed, any beneficial effects follow from this taxation, I wish to exempt land which is not required for building, which is not held up, and which therefore does not come within the category of the argument of those two speeches. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) gave some particulars of a case of his own. There is land which is not being held up which is not required for building, and which is used for agriculture, but which comes within the range of this taxation.
    I do not deny that some land is held up, and I do not suppose the Government

    1381
    will deny that a great deal of land will become subject to these taxes which is not, in fact, held up. If the object is to prevent land being held up, then the Government can accept this Amendment, because it only affects agricultural land which, although it may have a prospective value as building land, is being actually put in the meantime to the best economic use as agricultural land. If the land is being held up, and is required for building, then it does not come within the Amendment. If it is not put to its best economic use as agricultural land, then it does not come within the Amendment. All I ask the House to do is to exempt land which is put to the best economic use and which is not being held up so as to cause any of the evils which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has picturesquely described outside this House, and in more sober terms described them in the speech to which I have referred. This is quite a short Amendment, unencumbered by any controversial questions, and I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Amendment. I must confess I believe if the hon. Gentleman strengthened this new Clause by putting in the words "bonâ fide" before "agricultural purposes," it would be more convincing. It should not pass the wit of man to draft a Clause which would be sufficient safeguard against land being brought within the exemption by agricultural development being carried out in a purely fictitious way, such as the drawing of a plough across land and then calling it agricultural land. Nothing of that sort is contemplated in this Amendment. The whole object of this proposal is to try and safeguard a great portion of agricultural land which it has been admitted will be affected by this taxation, though it certainly is not immediately wanted for building purposes. There is land in my own Constituency which cannot be said to be immediately wanted for building purposes. If it were sold to-morrow, it would not be built upon for a considerable number of years, but this tax will have to be paid on it, and will very largely handicap the agricultural development which is now going on. I should have thought it would have been possible for the Government to adopt some rough-and-ready method and to declare that land below the value of say £200 would not be charged. No one can say land is held up if it has not gone beyond that price or any other limit which hon. Members might like to suggest.
    1382
    The argument used on the other side of the House was that this tax was necessary in order to secure better building. Nobody denies that the Housing Problem is acute and that it is a problem we all want to deal with, but it is in the small country districts, right away from the towns where the price of land is high, that we find the very worst features of housing. I sat on the Committee which recently went into the whole of the Housing Problem, and we found that the difficulty was not in the districts where high prices obtain, but in the Eastern Counties. It was not owing to the high prices of land that cottages were so scarce. The real difficulty, as every one knows, is the impossibility to build cottages and at the same time provide anything like an adequate investment for the money spent upon them. I know hundreds of villages where there would be no difficulty in obtaining land, and the reason cottages are not built is the increased cost of building, the difficulty of obtaining adequate rents, and the impossibility, therefore, of providing an adequate investment. It is suggested that under this tax agricultural development will be absolutely checked. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) knows what the conditions of milk production are in the neighbourhood of our great cities and in many districts at the present moment. How are we going to secure any adequate improvement of our cowsheds or get any large amount spent on agricultural development if these conditions prevail. You are making it more difficult for those who own land, and causing them to think whether it is worth their while to spend money on their property. Farm buildings will suffer, and there will be a distinct tendency for rents to rise. I am sorry if I have detained the House too long. This, however, is a most important Amendment, and I hope the Government will hold out some suggestion that they will be able to modify the conditions which prevail by something in the direction suggested by the Amendment. Unless they do, undoubtedly agricultural development in the neighbourhood of our towns, anywhere on the main roads or near railway stations will be checked, and the objects which hon. Gentlemen opposite hope to achieve by means of this tax will only be hampered.
    Mr. BARNES: I have every sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not pretend to be an authority on agricultural matters, but I think I can give a vote with the utmost confidence against this Amend-

    1383
    ment on the ground that it will tend to defeat the object of the Bill. May I direct attention to the first words of the Amendment, in order to show how it is calculated to do so. They read:—
    "So long as such land is being used for agricultural purposes no Increment Value shall be charged."
    What is more easy than for a speculative builder or landlord who intends to develop land immediately on the outskirts of a large town to buy land for the purpose and to grow a few cabbages upon it for a month or two. If he did so, such land, being used for agricultural purposes, would, in the event of this Amendment being adopted, not be chargeable for Increment Duty. That would obviously be an evasion of the intentions of the Act. Whether hon. Gentlemen intend that or not, I think it must be clear that the Amendment can only be interpreted in that way.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Read the last line.
    Mr. BARNES: Yes; it reads:—
    "Unless it is proved that such land is reasonably required for building and is being held up."
    But who is going to determine whether it is held up? The hon. Gentleman has spoken of land on the outskirts of towns. He mentioned Scottish towns especially. It is just in the case of Scottish towns where I think harm would be done by this Amendment. I see the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) in his place. He knows the position on the outskirts of Scottish towns. The difficulty is not so obvious in England, where you have the cottage system of living, and where, therefore, town populations spread miles away into the country. Those who know anything of the system that obtains in Scotland must know that agricultural land goes right up to the high block buildings of five or six storeys on the outskirts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and every one of our large Scottish cities and burghs. What would be more easy than for this land to be used temporarily for agricultural purposes, and therefore to evade the Increment Duty?
    Mr. YOUNGER: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the land can be used for any other purpose than agriculture?
    Mr. BARNES: Certainly. Why not? In Glasgow, let me remind the hon. Member, the population is huddled up in rooms absolutely inadequate for decent living. In Dundee, my own native place, very
    1384
    nearly one half of the population are living in one-room tenements. Is there no room for extension there? In order that you may extend these towns and stretch the population over a more reasonable area of land you must somehow or other get land immediately outside the towns brought down in price. The hon. Gentleman emphasises the words "if it is used for agricultural purposes," and he suggests that if it is so used it is being put to its full economic use.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Unless it is wanted for something else.
    Mr. BARNES: But it is wanted. If you look at the density of the population in any one of our Scottish towns there, I think, you have conclusive proof that the land is wanted, and I decline to accept the fact that it is being used to grow cabbages as proof that it is being used to its full extent. The land is wanted for another and a better purpose than growing cabbages, and that is proved by the fact that people are huddled together in the large towns.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member persistently ignores the last words of my Amendment. A cabbage-patch would not be exempt, if it is reasonably required for building, or is being held up.
    Mr. BARNES: I have not in any way lost sight of those words, but I want to know who is to determine whether it is being held up. You do not put anybody in the Amendment to determine it. It must be decided under the operation of the ordinary law of supply and demand. By this Act it seems you are going to increase the available supply of land in the market. By that means you will probably reduce its price, and by reducing that price you will get some land in the immediate vicinity of the towns used not for growing cabbages, but for buildings providing better housing for the people. It is for that reason I hope hon. Gentlemen will not vote for this Amendment.
    Mr. YOUNGER: I listened with great interest to the observations of the last speaker. I entirely agree with him in his description of the situation on the outskirts of large Scottish towns. I also agree with him that we had very bad housing conditions in Glasgow and other towns, and that it is most desirable that these should be improved, and that existing evils should be got rid of. But may I point

    1385
    out that the land outside these towns at the present moment is available for anyone who chooses to build upon it.
    Mr. BARNES: Yes, at a price.
    Mr. YOUNGER: The price of the land really has very little to do with the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] There has been more nonsense talked about this matter in this House during the last two years than on any other. Anybody who knows about economic conditions knows perfectly well that the cost of land is an extremely small percentage of the rental of a cottage or tenement house; on an £8 or £9 annual rental the land rental would probably not be more than 13s. or 14s. What really affects the question is the cost of capital, and that has been pointed out thousands of times to Gentlemen on the opposite side. They, however, are so obsessed with extraordinary ideas on this question that it is impossible for them to assimilate any kind of common sense. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) make these observations at least half-a-dozen times, but it is of no use talking to him. He will never absorb common sense on this subject. Does he forget that there are thousands of houses in Glasgow at the present moment unlet? Does he deny it? I ask him for this reason. If all that property is unlet, how can he expect any one to buy land in order to build houses on the outskirts of Glasgow? We know perfectly well some of the unlet houses are in bad condition, and the people are overcrowded in parts. But so long as you have a system by which you cannot get capital cheap you will never induce people to build in the manner he suggests.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: As I have said many times, this is a subject which has been discussed on all sides with a very great deal of loose thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division and others seem to think that if you can get land cheap enough houses will start up immediately; but what is wanted is not land, it is money that is required.
    Mr. BARNES: Both.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Let me just remind the hon. Member of this fact—that the late Lord Swaythling offered 25 acres of land for nothing to the London County Council to build upon. But the council found that when they had defrayed the capital expenditure for building, when they
    1386
    had provided for the rates, when they had built the houses according to their own regulations there would still be a heavy charge, bearing in mind the rent it would be possible for poor people to pay, falling on the county council rates. In fact, councils for this reason do not develop the land which they have already got, and I would point out to my hon. Friend that Glasgow is one of the biggest sinners in regard to the holding up of land. A Committee sat on this subject over two years ago, and found that Glasgow was losing £15,000 a year on land which it might have sold. Again there was a Select Committee on this very subject some years ago, and evidence affecting Glasgow was given which opened my eyes, at any rate, on the subject. Men came up and told that Committee that it was the cost of land which was the real difficulty. But when they were pressed it was clear they had not gone into calculations as to the proportion of the cost of land to the rental of the building. We worked them out, and found that so far as the land rental was concerned the cost came down to something like 10s. to 15s. per annum for each tenement.
    7.0 P.M.
    In the country, where you can get land for almost nothing, the landlords cannot afford to build cottages. One hon. Member of this House referred to the case of Paddington, and said there were plenty of houses there. But the fact remains that the class of men who live in that district cannot afford to pay more than 4s. for a room, and you cannot build a house on land, even if you get it for nothing, which will pay you on those terms. You cannot get a fair return for your money outlay even if you get the land for nothing. You cannot do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "I have done it."] I think then my hon. Friend had better start and do it a lot more; but it cannot possibly pay. Four shillings a week, as my hon. Friend must know, is £10 a year, which must include rates and everything. If you deduct rates, and so forth, it leaves you no return for your money. The Front Bench, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all my Friends here seem to think that this halfpenny tax is going to cheapen land. Let us see if it will do so. The Lord Advocate himself, in his Report of that Committee, said this:—
    "If by holding up land is meant that land is put at a prohibitive price, or withdrawn from the market altogether, no evidence has been brought before your Committee to substantiate that statement."
    Let us see how that affects it. Supposing you have a street in which houses are to let with ground rents for £10, my hon. Friend

    1387
    says by this halfpenny tax we are going to reduce them to £5. But what is the result of it? You say you cheapen the land if you have got a house here which is £10 and you have the next house which is cut down to £5. The position of the whole of the houses in that street which are let at £10 at the next assessment must come down to £5. All the assessment committees have to value in that way; but we are told about the places where the rates are so heavy. But why is it they are so heavy? Because the place is half empty. People do not take houses because of the rates, but the rates are high because half the houses are empty. Therefore you will never settle the housing question by this means. I will tell you where there is land held up, and that is in several small towns round about and near London. Within thirty miles of London I could name one town where land is held up. How are you going to cure that? It is a very rich man who owns this land, and you say by putting a halfpenny tax on you can force him to sell. Supposing the amount of land is ten acres at £500. Do you think that these 5,000 halfpennies would force that man to sell? Do you suppose that a few pounds, £10 or £15, collected in the way of Undeveloped Land Duty, is the way in which you can compel him to sell? It would be better to give the local authorities power to insist upon buying. As a matter of fact I do not know that this Amendment is one that need be troubled about, because, as my hon. Friend says, Who is to judge whether land is being held up?
    Let us get back to that. Who is to judge whether it is building land or not in the first instance? And I standing here would tell my right hon. Friend within a few years this Undeveloped Land Tax will be found to be unworkable. I will tell you why. Suppose you have got an estate near a town, how are you going to value that, or assess it for Undeveloped Land Tax? Which acre is to be built on first? How are you going to discriminate? You do not understand the difficulties. Some Members may laugh, but as a matter of fact you may go over the country and sec acres and acres of land unbuilt on. How are you to discriminate and say that this shall be undeveloped land and this shall not be undeveloped land, this is building land, and this is not. I venture to say you will find so many difficulties in the way that the tax will not be worth collecting. As a matter
    1388
    of fact, what has been done with regard to it? You have freed all corporation land, you have freed all golf clubs, and cricket clubs, and, indeed, you have freed every estate which within the last ten years now extended to twenty, was likely to become building land in cases where the owners have spent £100 per acre upon it. That excludes all possible building land, and you have only left the land which may be at some time available for building. How you are going to distribute that I do not know. I do object to this question being put forward as if it had anything to do with the housing question. The housing question is the poverty of the poor, and what the poor man wants is more money. You are never going to put the extra shillings in his pocket which he requires by means of this ½d. tax. You are not going to do it; as a matter of fact you cannot. You cannot get these men decent rooms for the money that they can afford to pay, even if you give them the land for nothing. You cannot expend money profitably on buildings for the small amount which their limited wages will enable them to pay you. That is the trouble of the housing question. It has nothing whatever, or very little, to do with the letting of land. If the men had very little more wages, and therefore more money, there would be no difficulty whatever.
    Mr. FITZROY: It seems to me that there was some confusion of thought in the mind of the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) as to the object of this Amendment, which is not to exempt land on the ground that it is being used for agricultural purposes, but not to tax land because it is being held because there is no demand for it by the community. That is the object of the Amendment, and, it seems to me, that it is most reasonable. What right has this House or this Government or any Government to tax a man because he holds up land? That is the reason you are taxing him when he is holding it because there is no demand for development, and when he is not doing the thing you are taxing him for doing. For one landowner in this country who is holding up land for which there is a demand for building purposes there are hundreds who, under this Act, will be taxed for holding up land which they are not really holding up at all. The example has been set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I very much regret, is not in his place on the occasion of these most important detailed discussions. An unfor-

    1389
    tunate example has been set by him of finding fault with a certain class of landowner for something which he is doing, it is said, to prevent the housing question being developed. He has made his charges, as a rule, against these landowners outside this House, and, when the charges have been gone into, they are generally found to have no substance at all. Some of his followers take a different line, and have gone so far as to make these charges in this House.
    We know in this House the value of this kind of charge, and I should be very loath myself to take any notice of them for fear of attaching undue importance to them, but, unfortunately, in this country the publicity of the Press sometimes gives importance to speeches in this House which they do not entirely deserve. That being the case, I think it is my duty in regard to charges of this sort which are made with regard to the constituency which I happen to represent, and also particularly with reference to respected landlords in that constituency, that I should take the earliest opportunity that is afforded to me of replying to those charges. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway) in his speech which he made yesterday on a very similar Amendment to the one we are now discussing, made a very interesting statement in regard to housing and cottages in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I am not going into that question now. I entirely agree with him that the housing question, as regards cottages in the rural districts is an evil which needs dealing with and curing, but the charge which he made was not with the intention of pointing that out to the House, but of bringing an accusation against a particular landlord in my division, the Duke of Grafton, and by his speech insinuating that it was due to his action in holding up land that these bad houses were in the villages and this overcrowding took place. With my intimate knowledge, extending over my whole life, of that constituency, and with my intimate knowledge of the Duke of Grafton, I take the opportunity of flatly contradicting the statements of the hon. Member, and I know full well that the particular gentleman, the Duke of Grafton, to whom he referred, is one of the most generous landlords in the whole of England, and is one who has devoted the whole of his life to the management of his estates and in looking after the welfare of those who are employed on the land.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am very reluctant to interrupt, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he disputes my facts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member is so reluctant to interrupt will he remain silent?
    Mr. FITZROY: I merely make these remarks because it seems to be my duty, and I make them on this Amendment because it seems to refer to this subject.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The very interesting speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Henderson), I might remind him, had nothing to do with the Clause now under discussion. The whole of his remarks were addressed to the Undeveloped Land Duty and its incidence and effect, whereas the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite has reference to Increment Duty. Therefore I will not attempt to deal with the argument of my hon. Friend, except to this extent. He had it down that the purpose of the tax was to cheapen land. For myself, and I believe for my Friends on this side of the House, we do not assent to that view at all. Our view is that very large sums of money are received by owners of land which do not contribute anything towards Income Tax. Money invested in speculative building land can lie fructifying for scores of years without yielding a single penny to the Income Tax beyond the actual value of the land, but when that property is sold a large lump sum is realised, upon which the owner pays no Income Tax until it has been invested, and then only upon annual dividends.
    Suppose money is invested in land for a period of twenty-four years. At the end of that time the land is sold at a large increment. For twenty-four years the money so invested has paid no Income Tax at all beyond that which is represented by the actual letting value of the land. At the end of twenty-four years it is sold for a large sum of money. It then pays no Income Tax, but if it paid Income Tax upon dividends payable on the sum so realised for those twenty-four years it would contribute under our proposal not a single halfpenny more towards the national income than if it had been subject to Income Tax during all that time. I see nothing inequitable therefore in our proposal, but, on the contrary, I think it only fair that persons who thus realise large sums of money, towards which they have not themselves contributed anything, should pay upon that a reasonable sum towards the social requirements of towns

    1391
    and great industrial centres which contribute so lavishly to their wealth. What is the actual proposal before us, described in far too modest language by the Proposer of the Clause? He would have us believe that it was a Clause of little importance which really did not affect the principle at stake in the slightest, and that the Government therefore could easily accept so slight an Amendment. What are the actual words of the Clause?
    "So long as such land is being used for agricultural purposes no Increment Value shall be charged because of its market value."
    The actual words of the Clause confess, first of all, that there is a market value attaching to this land in excess of its agricultural value. Having got thus far, let me carry the hon. Gentleman a little further. As long as the land is to be used for agricultural purposes it has not to pay any tax in respect of its acknowledged extra value. The hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox) saw at once the weak points in the hon. Gentleman's armour, because he said, "I wish my hon. Friend had added to these words the qualifying words bonâ fide." He saw that under this seemingly modest proposal it would be perfectly possible for the whole of this land nominally to be used for agricultural purposes, and while so nominally used to be exempt from Increment Duty. That would destroy not merely the whole principle of the duties, but it would prevent any revenue at all reaching us from that particular source. I will carry the hon. Gentleman a step further.
    "Increment Duty shall not be charged because of its market value on building land or prospective building land unless it is proved that such land is reasonably required for building and is being held up."
    That at once throws the onus probandi upon a court of some sort to show what is in the mind of the owner of the land—a court which would have to prove, amongst other things, that the land should not be sold for building purposes even if you reduced the price which the owner held it for the moment to be worth. Land, for instance, might be quite unsaleable if you were charging £1,000 an acre for it. It would sell at once if £500 were asked for it. Observe the important effect of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he seriously thinks that any tribunal which
    1392
    he can name can say that land is not wanted, or, if you like, is wanted for building purposes. Supposing they say that land is not wanted for immediate building purposes, there still remains a definite building value attaching to agricultural land in addition to its agricultural value. A person might deal in that land, which is not ripe for immediate building. He might make a large profit out of the transaction. It would contribute nothing to the Increment Duty, and yet I have shown that that increment would have been taken in respect of transactions for which no skill or judgment might be required, and the whole of the value will accrue to the individual, not on account of his efforts, but on account of the industrial proceedings of persons with whom he is in no way connected. That process might be so continued that when at last the land was brought into an actual building scheme the whole of the intermediate profit might have been absorbed by a succession of purchasers, not one single one of whom would have contributed in any degree to the tax, though at every stage of the transaction large profits might be realised. I have shown the reasons why the Government cannot accept this proposal, and why, if they did accept it, it would vitiate the whole principle of the tax.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman commenced his remarks by saying that he did not propose to address himself to the speech of the hon. Member behind him, and, indeed, most of the speeches which have been made by those who have opposed this Clause, because he said they have nothing to do with the question at issue. The quotations made by my hon. Friend, which were referred to in speeches of hon. Members opposite in opposition to it, were made for this reason, that support had been given to these proposals in the scheme of the Government on the ground that land ought to be specially dealt with, as it will not be available unless it is for building purposes. Nearly every speech made supporting the proposal of the Government, with the exception of that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, has been in this direction, and we have been told, not only in this Debate, but in the Debate which preceded it, that these taxes are necessary, because land is required for a special purpose. The hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with that in a speech which was singularly effective and full of practical knowledge, and I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman preferred to leave it unanswered. But its

    1393
    statements remain, and anyone who has had any practical experience of building, either in towns or in the country, will arrive at the conclusions to which the hon. Gentleman opposite arrived. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) referred to the special difficulties in Glasgow, I do not know Glasgow as well as he does, but I doubt very much whether the difficulties there differ in reality from those to be found in every other town. Is it not an extraordinary thing that if there be this great demand for houses for the people, and if they can be built at anything like a reasonable remuneration to those who embark their capital in building them, in all the Debates we have heard in this House, today and on all previous occasions, there is not a speaker who will say, "I have made this experiment, and I am here to show that this enterprise can be successfully embarked upon." We know that all those bodies, some of a charitable and some of an ordinary commercial character, which have come into existence in order to deal with this question of providing houses for the working classes have been brought up, not by the want of land—let hon. Gentlemen who believe that to be the case give me an instance—but by the heavy cost of building suitable houses and the inability to let them at remunerative rates.
    The right hon. Gentleman has never dealt really with the situation as laid down by my hon. Friend that in imposing these taxes the object of the Government has been, according to their own definite statement, to exclude agricultural land. We know that throughout the whole of the previous Debates this statement was freely made by the Government. We said on this side of the House throughout that we do not want any unfair privilege given to agricultural land of any kind, and we do not want to do anything which will enable the owner of land improperly to hold it up. I have taken a keen interest in this housing problem for a great many years, and I do not hesitate to say if I thought the imposition of this class of taxation would facilitate the building of houses for the working classes, either in town or in country, even though it might involve some injustice upon some other class, so anxious am I to see this, I think the most crying of all our grievances, satisfactorily removed, that I would not offer any opposition to the tax. But I believe it is going to have the contrary effect. The right hon. Gentleman has not said a word about the particular position of the owner of agricultural land. He has not said why
    1394
    these extra words, which really only make clear what is apparently the object and intention of the Government should not be added to the Bill. He has not dealt with one of the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise. No one has referred to cases which exist at present where owners of land are persuaded to provide land for building in solitary instances at some little distance from a town area, one of the most important developments in building, as I am advised. If these words stand without the addition of my hon. Friend's words, or something similar, these developments which have been going on, and which are going on at the present moment at a short distance from many of our urban areas, will be checked by the very fact that under the operation of this Act, if they go on as they have gone on hitherto, the owners of the land will run the risk of bringing them within the building area, and they will be liable to this form of taxation. At all events, that is the belief. Then the right hon. Gentleman took the case of a person investing his money in land which does not bring a return, and which at the end of twenty-four years is sold at a considerable increase in price. He asked where the hardship was, for if the money had been invested all that time it would have produced interest, and he would have been charged upon it. He is surely assuming that the land was worth, at the time he bought it, what he gets for it at the end of twenty-four years. But that is not so, and therefore I say that the equity of this new proposal falls to the ground.
    This class of taxation will be much more likely to retard the development of land and to render the building of houses for the working classes more difficult than it is at present. I object to it for another reason. Throughout all our Debates the Government have asserted time after time that they wish to exclude agricultural land which is being used for agricultural purposes from the operation of the tax. If that be their object—and they say it is still their object—I ask why on earth do they object to the Clause proposed by my hon. Friend, provided that if they say the words go too far he will accept some limitation? The right hon. Gentleman asked who are to be the judges in these cases? Who are to decide? That goes to the root of the subject. The same difficulty arises under Section 7, and under the whole of the Land Clauses, and not only the Land Clauses, but in regard to all the Clauses, under which you are imposing fresh taxation, such as the Clauses which deal with

    1395
    licensed property. It is too late in the day for the Government to turn round and use against us the identical argument which we have used against them throughout the whole of the Debates on this Bill. They ask who are to be the judges in those eases when land or property assumes a particular character, and yet when we ask not to make the difficulty greater by imposing a new condition, but that they should take their own definition and say that taxation shall not be imposed where that definition is complied with, and when we are trying to make our Amendments conform to their Act for the purpose of making clear what is obscure, it is a little bit strong that we should be asked who are to be the judges. That applies to every section in the Act. It is one which we asked when the original Act was passing through the House, and I must say that an objection of this kind now comes with bad grace from the Government.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should not have intervened in the discussion this afternoon but for the observations which fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fitzroy). Reference was made to the statement in my speech yesterday afternoon. That was a statement of facts which should have been within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman who represents the constituency. Against that statement of facts we have had a testimonial to the Duke of Grafton. It seems to me that a testimonial to the Duke of Grafton was not required. I have given a statement of facts, and the way to reply is to show whether they are facts or not. The statement I made was that in the village of Blisworth a friend of mine stated: "We could do with thirty cottages in this village if we could get land to put them on."—that is the very point touched in this Amendment—"We cannot get land because the Duke of Grafton will only let land here on building lease of thirty-three years." Does the hon. Gentleman dispute that statement? That is a definite statement of facts in regard to a condition of things which, in my opinion, is a disgrace to the constituency and a disgrace
    to the man responsible for it. Whoever is responsible for that state of things, for huddling people together in the condition in which they are huddled together in Blisworth has on his shoulders a responsibility which I should not care to carry. The conditions of the housing in South Northamptonshire are so abominable in some villages that I would hesitate in this assembly to describe them in strictly accurate terms. I will give another instance from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In the village of Byfield a widow, with eight children, said to me, "I was born in this village and lived in it nearly all my life. I had to go away during my married life, and when I came back there was not a house in the village where I and my children could live." She and her eight little ones were living in a disused schoolroom. I ask hon. Members to consider these conditions, and to ask themselves how they would like to be placed in similar conditions with their children. The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispute that by a laugh.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman had better not make a suggestion of that sort. I was not laughing at the state of things, I was laughing at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are in any way more responsible for it than he and his Friends.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I stand by the plain statement of facts, and no one knows them better than the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). The housing conditions to which I have referred are not exceptional. They are to be found in many other constituencies. Anyhow, I have given a plain statement of facts, and they cannot be swept away by a testimonial to any man, however great.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 180.

    Division No. 92.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beauchamp, Edward

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Benn, I. H. (Grenwich)

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

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

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Ashley, W. W.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Bird, A.

    Baird, J. L.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Robinson, Sydney

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, John Waller

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Boyton, J.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ronaidshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Royds, Edmund

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Peterson

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Campion, W. R.

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B

    Cator, John

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kirkwood, J. H. M.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Spear, John Ward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Swift, Rigby

    Corbett, A. Cameron

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

    Sykes, Alan John

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

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

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Valentia, Viscount

    Finlay, Sir Robert

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Fisher, W. Hayes

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fleming, Valentine

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield)

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Gretton, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Guinness, Hon. W. E.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

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

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hancock, John George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Younger, George

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Claude Lowther.

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Adamson, William

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Delany, William

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harwood, George

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Barton, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Havelock, Allan, Sir Henry

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Boland, John Plus

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hayward, Evan

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

    Brace, William

    Ferens, T. R.

    Hinds, John

    Brigg, Sir John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hodge, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Field, William

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Hughes, S. L.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Gill, A. H.

    Johnson, W.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Keating, M.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Gulland, John W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Crooks, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hackett, J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    1398

    1399

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Lansbury, George

    Neilson, Francis

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingha m

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Logan, John William

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Lundon, T.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    O'Dowd, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    MacGhee, Richard

    O'Grady, James

    Snowden, Philip

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Summers, James Woolley

    M'Kean, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutton, John E.

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Manfield, Harry

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Radford, George Heynes

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Molloy, Michael

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Reddy, Michael

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Munro, R.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnes and Mr. Booth.

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Mr. MORRELL: The argument, as I understand, that has been used by hon. Members on the other side in support of this Amendment is that it will take the taxes off land with a view to getting over the housing difficulties. It has been stated in reference to the considerable housing difficulties in rural districts that there is no land problem. That is an astonishing statement to make. Anyone who knows rural districts knows that not only is there a land problem, but in some parts of rural England the way in which land is held up is the sole cause of the housing problem. I am quite prepared to admit that in some places the landlords, though paying the agricultural labourers an extremely low wage, at the same time give them a cottage for something less than its market value. That does, no doubt, account for some of the difficulty in building new cottages. Even with that difficulty and the system of truck which goes on, anyone who has experience of rural districts, as I claim to have, will see that there is plenty of opportunity for building cottages at remunerative rates if land can be obtained. I have got some myself. I have built four cottages, which are let at remunerative rents——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly confine himself to the Clause under discussion.
    Mr. MORRELL: I will do so; but I think during the discussion the problem of housing has been raised by several speakers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It has been sufficiently discussed. It was really irrelevant. It was brought in, and I thought it was desirable to a certain extent that it should be discussed. But I must now ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause before the House.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we not to be allowed to reply to the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson)?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill is the Government's Bill and not the hon. Member's Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am very reluctant to appear to question your ruling in any way, but as I was specially referred to by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) have I no opportunity of replying to the statements which he has made?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity during the course of this Session. As the hon. Member is aware, the time for the discussion of this very important Government Bill is very limited, and I do not think it is fail to occupy time by discussing a matter which is only quite indirectly relevant.
    Mr. MORRELL: I do not wish to waste any time in discussing this Amendment, but it does seem to me that an important point has been raised as to whether the holding up of land, especially in rural districts, is in any way accountable for the housing difficulties which we find, and the object of this Amendment, as I under-

    1401
    stand, is to endeavour to take the Land Taxes off agricultural land with a view to getting over the housing difficulties. Therefore it seems to me that it is pertinent to show that there is a difficulty as regards housing in the rural districts.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been going a great deal too far. If he looks at the Clause on the Paper he will see that the proposal is a strictly limited one, and I must ask him to confine himself to that.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am very sorry that I am not entitled to raise this other point. As regards the Clause on the Paper, it seems to me an Amendment which the Government cannot possibly accept and which is absurd on the face of it. It is one that makes uncertain the whole object of the Land Taxes and the whole principle of the Land Taxes as contained in the Budget. The speeches which we have heard in support of it prove conclusively that it is moved by Gentlemen who are opposed to the principle of the Land Taxes which I am here to support, and for that reason I shall have great pleasure in voting for the Government.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: For myself and those who think with me, we entirely agree with the principle which lies behind the Amendment so excellently introduced by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), by those two quotations, one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other from Mr. Barnes, the Member for Blackfriars. I think the case put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite is really a very strong one and practically sound in the ends which they have in view: They definitely want to secure that only land shall be taxed which is wanted for building and that the purely agricultural land shall not be taxed. With that proposition I am in entire agreement, and so are all those on this side of the House. All we want is to secure that all the land which is wanted for building shall be taxed in order to induce the landlords to put it to the best possible use. But we say, and I think we say with the best possible case in the world, that the method chosen by the hon. Member for Colchester is not the best method to secure that end.
    The very natural question that occurs on this proposal is: How are you to show that land is reasonably required for building and is being held up? There is only one possible way for showing that land is required for building and is being held up, and that is by the price and by the price
    1402
    alone. If that land would sell at an agricultural price for agricultural purposes only then it is not required for building purposes and may be wiped out so far as this tax is concerned. But directly the price rises above an agricultural level, then we say and we say perfectly rightly, that there is a demand for that land which is not an agricultural demand, and that it should be satisfied in the most rapid possible way.
    Hon. Members opposite seem to think that all agricultural land must ripen before the building trade can get at it. They have got a sort of almost devotion to this ripening process. The idea of giving land which they let at agricultural rents at £2 an acre for building is not to be thought of. But that is what we want. We want to see that agricultural land at present let at £2 an acre should be let to the building trade at £2 0s. 0½d. an acre, directly there is any demand for it above the agricultural demand, and that the people who want it should get the land and put it to a better use than it is put at present. That is the whole secret.
    8.0 P.M.
    The price of land is surely the very best test as to whether the land is wanted by somebody else or not. At present you allow your agricultural land to go on bringing you in £2 a year per acre when you know perfectly well that you could get £5 per acre from the building trade to-morrow. But you think it is not being unreasonably held up, because you have a sort of idea that the correct ground rent to get is £10 or £20 an acre, or even more. Why should £10 or £20 an acre be the correct ground rents to charge, and £5 and £3 an acre be an unacceptable ground rent? It is simply a matter of custom and nothing else. Only acclimatise your minds to the idea that the building trade has just as much right to land as agricultural industry, and that if they are willing to pay another 6d. or 1s. an acre more they have got a better right to that land, because they are paying more for it, and they will turn that land to a better use, because they are prepared to pay more for it and will employ more labour on the land by building a house on it than the agricultural industry would do. When you have quite grasped that fact you will understand that the people who are willing to pay more than the agricultural people are not a curse but a benefit, and that by using the land they will, not only be employing more labour, but will be doing something to grapple with the horrible housing conditions of the people in

    1403
    our agricultural districts and reduce the unemployment from which this country suffers at the present time. The people should have access to the land on easier terms than at present. Small holders, allotment holders, and all these people want land. You say they have got it, but they have to pay fancy rents. If only agriculturists and large farmers——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is wandering a long way from the Clause before the House.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will not dwell upon that. The point I want to impress on hon. Members opposite is this matter of how you can best find out whether land is reasonably required for building and is being held up. It seems to me so obvious that I cannot avoid speaking strongly about it. If you want to secure the best use of the land you must allow people an opportunity to get it, then it will be well used, the housing problem will be solved, and more people will be employed upon it. The way to judge of whether land is reasonably required or not is merely a matter of price. We entirely approve of the principle of this Amendment, because we on this side wish to secure the best possible use of the land, and the only way you can measure the demand for land is to measure the excellence of the use to which it is to be put, and that is a question purely and simply of price. The hon. Gentleman, however, has put down an Amendment which proposes an absolutely unpractical method of deciding whether the land is wanted for use or not, while we on this side of the House have an absolutely practical method. We say it is a matter of price, and price alone, when it is reasonably required.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I disagree with the previous speaker, and I distrust the Greeks even when they bring me gifts. The Amendment has a very clear and definite intention, and that is not only to help the landowner to a fairly good price for the land, but also to help his friends, the speculators in land, to get good prices, without being brought within the range of the Increment Duty. The reason why I speak upon this Amendment at all is because it has an exceeding interest for our work people, and especially our miners. Let me give a case in point. There is today a district developing in the Yorkshire coalfield which will probably be the most
    1404
    valuable piece of Yorkshire land that the country can take. The landowners themselves, whom I do not charge with possessing a double dose of original sin, because they are simply actuated by the same human motive as ourselves, confine this land at present to the growing of cabbages, but they know perfectly well, or at least their advisers do, that this land possesses a value infinitely higher than the cabbage value. The landlord's advisers tell him. "In a few years from now, in two or three or half-a-dozen years from now, putting it at the extreme limit, this land will possess a value one hundred times greater than that which it has to-day. But if you do not care to stand out for your money, sell it to your esteemed friend, Mr. So-and-So, and Mr. So-and-So will continue growing cabbages, so that neither your Lordship nor Mr. So-and-So will be charged a single halfpenny of Increment Duty. When that time is reached, the miners will be desiring houses, and the value of the land for building purposes will have gone up enormously." Each speculator in the land will hold on, because he has nothing to pay to the State in the way of Increment Duty. You do not penalise him in any way. Supposing £100 per acre is paid, there is no Increment Duty charged, because the land is employed in raising cabbages, and nothing is chargeable in respect of land which has no higher value than that for growing cabbages. The landlord sells it for £200 to the next man, and so long as he continues to grow cabbages, though he sees an immense fortune in prospect, he is not charged the Increment Duty. The third purchaser gets it for £400, the original price thus being quadrupled. Yet nothing is charged by way of Increment Duty to the eventual purchaser so long as he continues to grow cabbages upon the land. Will any person tell me, when the third speculator has paid the enhanced price, because in his judgment he will be able to make a profit when people want the land for houses and cottages, that this enhanced price will not come from the rents charged to the cottagers. The thing is nonsense.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS rose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. We shall never bring to an end this discussion if hon. Members insist on interrupting. The hon. Member made his speech, and let him rest content with that.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I said "any person"; I was not referring to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I mean any person of common-sense.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That, also, is an observation which will not tend to bring this discussion to an end.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I am very sorry the expression escaped me, but it had no personal application. What I mean is that people generally, exercising their judgment, must come to the conclusion, in circumstances such as these, where a series of persons have paid increasing prices for the land, that those increased prices must come out of the rents of the houses and cottages built upon that land. Any person who buys land at an increased price hopes to recoup himself for his investment, and thus you will again have the old complaint about inadequate housing accommodation. You will have the high rents which compel people to herd together, and you will have in future a repetition of exactly the complaints that we have heard in this House this afternoon. That is the reason why we oppose such an Amendment as this. We do not believe it is nearly so innocent as the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) believes it to be. There is a look of childish simplicity about the proposal, but I think we had better look underneath a little. Everybody knows perfectly well that where land has been reasonably required for three or four years for building, it would have an enormous selling value, yet, while that land is being held, neither the owner of the fee simple nor the second or third speculators will be charged a single halfpenny of Increment Duty, and when the land is used for building the increased price will have to be paid by the cottagers and by the people living on the land. You will have in future the same grievances as we have to-day. You will have to pay enormous rents for inadequate accommodation, and for these reasons we on these benches oppose such a proposal as that now before the House.
    Mr. NEWTON: Seeing that the House by a narrow majority prolonged the Debate, I desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester's Amendment. The addition of these words to Section 7 of the principal Act will make the law in fact what so many people in the country have been led to believe it would be. I approach this question from a different point of view to any that has yet been put before
    1406
    the House in the course of this Debate. I remember that during the General Election in January, 1910, I had occasion to call on my Constituents, and I found a very general belief among them that if the Land Taxes, as they were then proposed, were actually enacted, the result, would be that land at present perhaps lying dormant near villages, would be brought under the plough, would be put to agricultural purposes, and that more employment would be available for agricultural labourers in those villages. Such a promising condition of affairs presented many attractions to agricultural labourers. They saw that if that were to be the result of these Land Taxes and this Increment Value Duty, there would be more employment for them, and the supply of home-grown agricultural produce, now very small, much too small in their opinion, would be increased. I remember pointing out that the effect of these taxes would be nothing of the sort. I pointed out that they offered no inducement to the owners of agricultural land then lying dormant, to bring that land into cultivation, but to put it shortly, I was not believed. I submit that the Government have now an opportunity of accepting this Amendment, and of redeeming the pledge which was given in my Constituency, and I doubt not in many other constituencies by Radical candidates at that time. They have an opportunity now of doing something, not a great thing, I admit, but of doing something in the interests of agricultural labour. The Government are continually asserting that they have no intention of taxing agricultural land. That is really too much for us simple folk in the country. We see a thriving farm giving employment to a large number of agricultural labourers; and we have great difficulty in being persuaded that such a farm is not agricultural land. I can assure the Government that they will have great difficulty in persuading the agricultural labourer on that land that he is not, as a matter of fact, working on agricultural land. The result of this Increment Duty Tax on such farms as I have described will be that the owner of such land, which is held liable for such duty, in order to avoid paying the tax, would have to take it away from agricultural use and put it to some other use, which, of course, would involve throwing a number of agricultural labourers out of work. If my hon. Friend's suggestion is adopted the Government land taxes, instead of tending to throw men out of work would have the contrary effect. The

    1407
    tendency would be, by offering exemption to dormant land if and when brought into agricultural use, greatly to promote employment amongst the agricultural labourers, and do a real service to the agricultural districts of this country.
    Mr. BOOTH Mr. BOOTH made some observations which were inaudible.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 218.

    Division No. 93.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

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

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Royds, Edmund

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Sathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bird, Alfred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Spear, John Ward

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stanler, Beville

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boyton, James

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bull, Sir William James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Swift, Rigby

    Butcher, John George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sykes, Alan John

    Campion, W. R.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cator, John

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clive, Percy Archer

    MacCaw, wm. J. MacGeagh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, James Avon

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Younger, George

    Dixon, C. H.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Viscount Helmsley.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Furness, Stephen

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Anderson, A. M.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Goldstone, Frank

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Barton, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Beale, W. P.

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

    Hackett, John

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

    Delany, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Dillon, John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boland, John Plus

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Harwood, George

    Brace, William

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hayward, Evan

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Higham, John Sharp

    Cawley Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Field, William

    Hinds, John

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Hodge, John

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hudson, Walter

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Munro, Robert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Sheehy, David

    John, Edward Thomas

    Neilson, Francis

    Shortt, Edward

    Johnson, William

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Snowden, P.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    O'Grady, James

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Malley, William

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Logan, John William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Webb, H.

    MacGhee, Richard

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

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Maclean, Donald

    Radford, George Heynes

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    M'Kean, John

    Reddy, Michael

    Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

    Manfield, Harry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Redmond, William (Clare)

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

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Robinson, Sydney

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

    Molloy, M.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 Edw. 7, c. 8.)
    In Section Seventeen (2) of the principal Act there shall be added at the end the words, "and then only if it is proved that such land is reasonably required for building and is being held up."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the discussion on the last Clause was of a general character, and practically covered this one I will move the Clause formally.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 218.

    Division No. 94.]

    AYES.

    [8.27 p.m.

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

    Cator, John

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hills, J. W.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Craig, Norman (Kent)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Barnston, H.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Bird, A.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Larmor, Sir J

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Boyton, J.

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Cassel, Felix

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Tullibardine, Marquess ot

    Nield, Herbert

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stanier, Beville

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Starkey, John R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Younger, George

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Swift, Rigby

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Sykes, Alan John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Viscount Helmsley.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Royds, Edmund

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goldstone, Frank

    Money, L. G Chiozza

    Adamson, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Anderson, A. M

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Muldoon, John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Hackett, J.

    Munro, R.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Neilson, Francis

    Barnes, G N

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Barton, William

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Beale, W. P.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Beauchamp, Edward

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Harwood, George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Black, Arthur W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Grady, James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Brace, William

    Hinds, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brigg, Sir John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Radford, G. H.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Johnson, W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reddy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Corbett, A. Cameron

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

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crooks, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sydney

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

    Lansbury, George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dawes, J. A.

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Dillon, John

    Logan, John William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, T.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    MacGhee, Richard

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Shortt, Edward

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Essex, Richard Walter

    M'Callum, John M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Manfield, Harry

    Snowden, P.

    Field, William

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Furness, Stephen

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gill, A. H.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Glanvllie, H. J.

    Moltoy, H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

    1412

    1413

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Webb, H.

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

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): The ground covered by the next Clause is to some extent the same as that covered by the Government Clause, which has been adopted. The Clause is, however, in order, because there are substantial differences. But I think it would be to the general convenience of the House that the discussion should be short and businesslike, rather than prolonged.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Ascertainment of total and site value where land has been purchased within twenty years or during lifetime, of owner.)
    When it is proved to the Commissioners, on an application made for the purpose within the time fixed by this Section, that, upon any transfer on sale of the fee simple of any land, or of any interest in the land, or the grant of any lease of the land which took place within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, or within the lifetime of the person who is the owner of such land at the time of the application, whichever shall be the longer period, the value of the consideration for the transfer, in the case of a transfer on sale of the fee simple, or the value of the fee simple of the land, calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the transfer of the interest, or the grant of the lease, in the case of a transfer on sale of an interest in the land, or the grant of any lease of the land, exceeded the total value of the land as on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as to valuation, then the value of the consideration for the transfer on sale of the fee-simple, or the value of the fee simple, calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the transfer of the interest, as the case may be, shall be substituted for such total value as on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and the site value as on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, shall be ascertained by deduction from the value so substituted for the total value.
    This provision shall apply to a mortgage of the fee simple of the land, or any in-
    1414
    terest in land, in the same manner as it applies to a transfer, with the substitution of the principal amount secured by the mortgage for the consideration and the substitution of mortgagee for owner. An application for the purpose of this Section must be made in cases where the original site value has been finally settled under Part I. of the principal Act before the coming into force of this Act within three months after the coming into force of this Act, and where such original site value has not been finally settled before the coming into force of this Act within three months after the original site value has been so finally settled, and where the total value of the land on an occasion under Section 2 of the principal Act does not exceed the total value as ascertained under this Section, no Increment Value Duty shall be payable, and any Increment Value Duty which, except for the provisions of this Section, would have been payable under the principal Act shall be deemed to have been paid.
    This Section shall take effect in substitution for Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the principal Act.—[Viscount Helmsley.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: No doubt there are points of similarity between this Clause and the new Government Clause. I want to submit that my Clause, with the Amendments necessary to bring it into conformity with the Clause already passed, would carry out in spirit and in letter the pledge which we understood we had received from the Government upon this point. A good deal has been said about that pledge, and I should like to read an extract which will show that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant was what is contained in my Clause, and not what is contained in the Government Clause. I will take what Mr. Wood said when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to representatives of building societies, co-operators, and trade unionists; and if I read the whole extract the Solicitor-General will see, not only what the

    1415
    Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but also what he had in his mind:—
    "In one ease the Chancellor had in part met the hardships by a twenty years' limit. He was referring to the case of a man who bought property, say twenty-five years ago, and the property might have shrunk very considerably in value at the present time; but ten or fifteen years hence if be sold, and in the meantime the value had improved, he would have to pay Increment Value Duty. The word 'increment' could only be justified if they disregarded the decrement which had previously taken place. It was provided that if the property were bought within twenty years, the purchase price should be taken as the present value. He suggested that if the value of property rose to the sum which was originally given for it——"
    I repeat these words:—
    "if the value of property rose to the sum which was originally given for it, the owner should not be liable to Increment Duty.
    "Mr. Lloyd George: To what extent do you suggest?
    "Mr. Wood: During the lifetime of the present owner. For instance, if a man twenty-five years ago, gave £2,0 0 for a property which had shrunk in value until to-day it was only worth £1,000 and which within ten years had appreciated again to 11,600 or £2,000, he would have to pay Increment Duty.
    "Mr. Lloyd George said he would make a note of that point."
    That happens to be the same case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby this afternoon.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: What is that document you are quoting from?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: From the paper, "Land Values." These are the very figures which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. It is the same point which was in his mind, and in the mind of Mr. Wood. The property which had depreciated and then appreciated, but had not come up to its original value, should not have Increment Duty paid for it. I want to point out to the Solicitor-General more of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. This is a longer extract than the last one, because I do not think I made it clear earlier. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
    "The expert gentlemen who had attended before him that morning had made suggestions to facilitate the smooth working of the Act, all of which were in conformity with its spirit and would improve its workmanship. With reference to the point urged by Mr. Wood with regard to the twenty years' purchase, he would be happy to accept any Amendment, and he would consider whether a provision could not be drafted to alter it. It was clearly unfair that in a case such as had been mentioned——"
    The House will remember that this is just the kind of case contemplated:—
    "a man should have to pay increment on what was really no increment. He, of course, could not say what form such an Amendment would take, but they would find that the letter would not fall short of the spirit of the pledge."
    If the meaning of words is what they appear upon the face of them, then
    1416
    I submit that this is the only meaning of the words. And I think that the extract entirely does away with the defence of the Government that this Clause, which they have put down, carries out the meaning of the Chancellor's pledge. I think it is obvious that that pledge is not carried either in the spirit or in the letter. I do not wish to make any accusations of bad faith. I have no doubt that the matter is a misunderstanding. But there it is: the misunderstanding is there! The people who heard these words thought what I am saying now; that is, that this particular case of decrement should be met and at the same time any partial recovery should be met. Everybody who has read these words thinks, and it is apparent, that the Clause of the Government does not meet the case.
    It only remains for me to show how my Clause does meet the case. It suggests, in the first place that the money for which the property was bought over twenty years ago, or the amount in the case of a mortgage which was advanced on mortgage, should be substituted as on 30th April, 1909, for the then value, as ascertained by the valuer, and that in order to arrive at the original site value you should then, on 30th April, 1909, make the deductions for the site value from the original price so given.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What about the depreciation of the land?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: That is the total value. To make the deduction for the site value it is suggested, instead of making the ordinary deductions from the full site value as on 30th April, 1909, you should make these deductions from the total value as substituted, being the sum for which the property was bought, say, twenty years ago. It may be said to me: "That is all very well; but supposing there was a building on the property when it was bought, and that by 30th April, 1909, that building has been pulled down?"
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Or depreciated?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Take the case of it being pulled down. There is no real increment to the owner because he, having pulled down the building, presumably has done nothing but what will improve the value of his property. The building was worthless. Otherwise the owner would not have pulled it down. Therefore, as a matter of fact, site value, as ascertained at that time, is the current

    1417
    site value having regard to what the man paid for it. If it is lower than the real site value of adjoining property valued as on 30th April, 1909, then all the same, there is no reason why increment should be payable. What I intend to convey is this: that there is no increase to the owner whatever. I put it this way. Although by this process site value at that time may be higher—if you like—than it is elsewhere around, that does not mean there is any increment, because it is only what the man gave for it originally.
    Mr. NEILSON: Will the Noble Lord give a concrete instance, say a property of £1,000, with the various values, purchased twenty-five years ago?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better reserve that case for his own speech. I will endeavour to make the point clear that if there is any increment to the owner, although presumably and apparently actual increment on the site value, that there is no increment to the owner. So much for that point. Then there is, in addition, the Clause about mortgages, which I think is very important, and which I do not see touched by the Government Clause, although various cases have been raised. There are words at the end of the Clause which really make the whole point very simple. May I call particular attention to these words:—
    "Where the total value of the land on an occasion under Section 2 of the principal Act does not exceed the total value as ascertained under this Section, no Increment Value Duty shall be payable, and any Increment Value Duty which, except for the provisions of this Section, would have been payable under the principal Act shall be deemed to have been paid."
    I think those words absolutely carry out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer led us to believe he intended to carry out. I do submit that the Government ought to accept them if they do not want to make people pay Increment Duty although as a matter of fact no increment has accrued. I do not want to elaborate the case any more. I think the House appreciates the point. Even if the buildings have depreciated, even if the site value has increased, and yet the total has not increased to the owner, and if the owner has lost on the whole transaction, I submit it was unfair for the State to say that any Increment Duty whatever is payable.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to second my Noble Friend's Motion. The question has been very fully debated, and I quite accept the suggestion that it is not necessary to restate the case. The point I desire to emphasise is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a definite pledge that in the case where property had been bought at a certain figure prior to the passing of this Act, and is valued at a lower figure at the time this Act was passed, and therefore stands at a lower figure than the purchase price originally, when that property rises again in value to a figure not exceeding the original purchase price paid for it, there should be no Increment Value Duty paid on that property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in that case you can go back twenty years, and if within twenty years a man had paid more than the present selling price, there is to be no increment. A most remarkable claim was put forward by the learned Attorney-General upon the Amendment which was passed early this afternoon when he said that Amendment was a fulfilment of that pledge. I think, if I may say so, that was a ridiculous suggestion, because it had nothing to do with the point at all. I am quite sure the Solicitor-General will not deny that. He will not deny that the Clause which has been carried does no more than leave the Act as it stood, with the exception of extending the period of twenty years to the lifetime of the present owner. Is not that a fact?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I will deal with that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not try and talk round the point. I say that with the greatest humility and courtesy we want a straight answer, and I say that the Clause we have just passed does no more than extend the period of twenty years to the lifetime of the present owner where that will be a longer period than twenty years. It merely alters the period within which in certain cases this concession will operate. But it makes no alteration whatever in the concession itself, and this pledge which was given did not refer at all, and did not deal or mention the question of the period, whether it would be twenty years or the lifetime of the present owner. That was mentioned in another quotation made by my Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley). In the quotation I rely upon, the sole question was whether where this had occurred, and where property when sold did not fetch a higher price than it originally cost when purchased before

    1419
    the Act was passed there should be no increment. The Clause moved by my Noble Friend does nothing but give effect to that pledge. All that this Clause does—and it has been carefully drafted, and will require but a few small Amendments to bring it into accord with the Clause already passed, and these Amendments can easily be made, and my Noble Friend has them ready—is merely to give effect to this pledge and to insure that in a case where the price obtained for the land is not greater than was originally paid for it there shall be no increment.
    I see the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) in his place. He was good enough to say that he considered, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered, that in such cases there ought to be no increment and no duty. It is a perfectly plain point. No question of site value arises at all. It is the question of the price paid. The price paid and the site value are totally different questions. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "where the site value remained the same," it would be different; but what he said was "where the price paid remains the same," there is no increment. The new Clause is intended to give effect to that promise. I do not see how other than by giving the Clause of the Noble Lord a Second Reading and suggesting words to make it more clear, if necessary, it can be done, and I do hope the hon. Member for Derby and his Friends will adhere to the opinion he expressed that this Clause is in accordance with the pledge already given. I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to announce the acceptance by the Government of this Clause, which is intended to carry out the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I shall do my best to make my contribution to the discussion brief and businesslike. The first thing we have to do is to see what is the real effect intended to be produced by the Noble Lord's new Clause. It is necessary for me to put to the House what I understand to be the object of the Clause of the Noble Lord. In order to appreciate the object one has, of course, to bear in mind what the provisions of the law, as it stands at this moment, are. I ask the House to allow me to state what many Members here well know, namely, what is the method adopted in order to arrive at the original site value of a piece of land. Supposing that the land is not covered with houses, but is bare land, the problem is a
    1420
    simpler one than if the land is covered with houses. If you take a property consisting of houses and land, and if that property had a total value (which for these purposes means a commercial value as a whole) of such and such a figure on the 30th April, 1909, then, in order to arrive at the original site value, you have to deduct from that total value—the value for houses and land together—what I may call the superstructure value. I am trying to make this case plain. That is the method to be adopted. You find first of all what on the 30th of April, 1909, was the total value—that is the commercial value of the whole thing, house, land, and superstructure—and then you subtract the superstructure value, and what you have left is the original site value. In order to do that you take the total value, and you take the superstructure value at the same date. What the Noble Lord wants to do is to take the total value at some past date, and subtract the superstructure value at some later date. I agree that that is a most convenient arrangement for those who wish to escape paying this tax, but it is at variance with the whole principle which lies at the bottom of any assessment of the site value. The site value is always to be obtained by subtracting the superstructure value from the total value. It is true to say that in every case when you wish to arrive at the site value as it stands at any given moment, it is arrived at by subtracting from the total value at that moment the superstructure value at that moment. What does the Noble Lord seek to do? Practically he says, "I accept your formula that you have to subtract superstructure value from total value to arrive at site value, but I want to substitute a different and earlier total value."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: My proposal does not allude to the general principle. It only refers to cases where the owner is actually getting no increment.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: An hon. Member opposite was good enough to say that I said something to produce a fog, but in what I am now saying I am trying to make things clear. If I may give an illustration I will try to show what the effect will be. Suppose that on the 30th April, 1909, the total value of a property, that is the house and the sub-soil, is £1,500. The house was built, say, twenty years ago. What you have to do is to subtract from that £1,500 so much as represents the superstructure.

    1421
    I will assume that the superstructure value is £1,000. You subtract £1,000 from £1,500, and the site value of the soil at that date is £500. Supposing you went back twenty years in the history of that property. Twenty years ago, when this house was first built, the man who built it bought the site upon which he put the house. He paid then not £500 for the site, but £200 for it. He put upon it a house which was worth when it was put up not £1,000 but £1,500. The result would be that twenty years ago the total value was £1,700; and twenty years ago you would have had a total value of £1,700, of which £200 represented the value of the land and the other £1,500 the house; whereas on the 30th April, 1909, you had a total value of £1,500, the land having gone up to £500 and the house having gone down to £1,000.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I am right in suggesting that that Amendment would not touch the point at all, because all that would have been bought would have been the land, and all that would have been bought would be the site. The whole property must have been bought.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and he is quite right. He has put his point clearly and I am much obliged to him. I will not assume the case of the land being bought. Let me assume the case of a man coming in and buying the house and the land twenty years ago for £1,700. I will point out the effect of the Amendment. Twenty years ago the superstructure value was £1,500, and twenty years use or abuse has brought it down to £1,000. It may be that part of it has been pulled down or burned down, or that it has not been kept in a state of repair, or else its value in some other way has gone down. But whatever the reason, the value of the house has gone down. The value of the land, however, on which it stands, has gone up, and whereas you had the superstructure value at £1,500 twenty years ago upon a site worth £200, making a total of £1,700, today you have a house of the value of £1,000 standing upon a site worth £500, with a total value of £1,500. Our object being to find out the site value of land in 1909, we take the total value in 1909 which was £1,500, and subtract the value of 1909, which was £1,000, and we have got left £500. What the Noble Lord wants to do is to keep for the purpose of subtraction the big superstructure value, but the thing to subtract from is not the total value
    1422
    of the same date, but the total value twenty years before. Supposing twenty years age this house and land here was bought for £1,700, and suppose that just before the Budget comes into force the whole house is burned to the ground. In that case the total value when the Budget comes into force is the same as the value of the site without any superstructure. We are asked under this Amendment to subtract from the total value of the site the value of a superstructure which existed twenty years ago at the price and value it was twenty years ago.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the Solicitor-General is putting it the other way about. I suggest that you should subtract to get the datum line what is actually there. In the case the hon. and learned Gentleman has just cited you would subtract only the charred bricks.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Again the Noble Lord is quite right. What he would seek to do is to take the total value not in 1909, but in 1889, and he would wish to substract from it the charred bricks. The question is what is the proper way in which to arrive at that site value which has to be put into the valuation. The Budget concedes that you may, under certain circumstances substitute an earlier silo value for the site value of 1909, but, to subtract from the total value of thirty years ago a thing which at this moment may be nothing is to substitute something which is neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Chair, chair."] This is a little complicated, and I was anxious to make the matter clear, and I apologise to the House. The principle on which all these site values is based is that before a subtraction of one figure from another figure is made you should see that both figures refer to the same date. If this Amendment is adopted the result will be that a man who had acquired a palace before the Budget came into force for a quarter of a million of money and who pulled down the palace would actually be able to claim the original site value as a quarter of a million, because it would be the total sum paid, less nothing which is upon the site. If you take everything off the site, there is nothing. Let me say a word about the hon. Gentleman who was referred to just now. I can quite understand he may take a view adverse to the Government view if he really supposes we are doing something quite different from that which we

    1423
    are doing. If a man gave for bare landed property a price before the Budget came into force, and when the Budget came into force he is asked to accept a site value lower than that price, then you are doing him an injustice, not because the house has depreciated—you have no house but because the land which he acquired as bare land was acquired before the Budget came into force at a larger figure than the figure put down when the original site value was ascertained. That case is provided for by the Budget as it stands.
    The case I put is one where there is no house upon the land, where it was bought twenty years ago at £1,700, and where it had gone down to £1,500 assessable site value when the Budget was passed. Our law provides for that case, and there is no Increment Value Duty to pay until there has been a rise up to the price that was paid. It is only by some unintentional confusion between those two classes of case that this difficulty has arisen. The word "property" is not improperly used if you apply it to land with a house upon it, but many hon. Gentlemen use it to mean land as distinguished from the buildings upon it. I do not think if this question is approached candidly there can be very much doubt about the sense in which the word "property" was used at his much discussed and quoted interview. I notice that some of the words the Noble Lord read were only consistent with the case put being the case of purchase of a piece of land which afterwards had gone down in value. I do not think the Noble Lord would dispute that that case is provided for under the Budget. Here is the very passage the Noble Lord put to the House, and I notice that Mr. Wood said he was referring to the case of a man who had bought property twenty-five years ago. The question is what he meant by "property." The Noble Lord thinks he was referring to house property. I go on only two sentences further, and I find this statement made by Mr. Wood:—
    "It was provided that, if the property were bought within twenty years, the purchase price should he taken as the present value."
    Where is that provided in the Act. It is provided for in the Budget if property means the land without buildings upon it. It is not provided for if it means land with buildings upon it.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: In that case what does he go on to ask for?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Noble Lord asks for a straight answer, and I am anxious to
    1424
    give a straight answer. He was referring to the case of a man who bought property twenty-five years ago which, as the House knows, would not be within our extension:—
    "It was provided, if the property was bought within twenty years, the purchase price should be taken as the present value."
    That is true if by "property" you mean what I believe Mr. Wood meant. He suggested that, if the value of the property rose to the sum which was originally given for it, the owner should not be liable to Increment Value Duty.
    "Mr. Lloyd George: What extension do you suggest?"
    Mr. Lloyd George meant, "Do you not think twenty years enough? How much more do you want?" That was a perfectly irrelevant question if the Noble Lord is right in his construction; but Mr. Wood, so far from thinking the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about house property immediately replied:—
    "During the lifetime of the present owner."
    Mr. Lloyd George went on to say he had had this suggestion made for the extension of time and he would consider it and see what could be done. I do not attribute to hon. Gentlemen opposite any want of complete good faith in the use they have made of this quotation, but I wish hon. Gentlemen who have spent so much time in talking about broken pledges would show some willingness to believe that hon. Gentlemen here do not break pledges deliberately. So far as I am able to understand that language, Mr. Wood was dealing with the case of property in the sense of landed property as distinguished from property with houses upon it. He said himself there was a provision in the Budget to provide for cases going back not more than twenty years, and he asked for a further extension. That is only consistent with his talking about land which has not a house upon it. I am sorry to have occupied the time of the House so long. My object in the matter is nothing more than to make a necessarily complicated matter as plain as I can, and I submit that the proposal made by the Noble Lord cannot reasonably be accepted.
    Mr. CATOR: I will ask the House to listen for a few moments to what I would put as a concrete example showing that there is a real hardship at the present time in the case of composite property. In the year 1899 a man spent £500 in the purchase of a piece of land, and £1,000 in building upon it, giving a total of £1,500. The house and land let together for £60.

    1425
    If you take that at twenty years' purchase you get a sum of £1,200. Thus, although the man has spent £1,500, the total value for valuation purposes is but £1,200. The site value is £400, and if you deduct that from the total value you get £800. Under the Act the owner has power to substitute the price given within twenty years for the land—£500. In 1911 he sells the property for £1,400, yet, in spite of having suffered a loss of £100 on the property, when it comes to assessing it for increment, the transaction actually is as follows:—The property was transferred for £1,400. Deducting the difference between the site value and the total value you get the figure of £800, and you arrive at a site value on the occasion, not of £500, but of £600. Although there is a loss of £100 on the property, he has to pay on £100 more increment value. Of course, you are allowed 10 per cent. on the £500, and you deduct £50 from the £100, but even then, if you take one-fifth you will find that the man will have to pay £10 Increment Duty, although he has lost £100 on the transaction. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a fair and just arrangement?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: There are two questions arising. The first is as to the Clause on its merits. I do not think it is necessary to deal with that after the extremely lucid and clear explanation given by the learned Solicitor-General. But there is also the question, which has been pressed home by the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk, as to whether there was, in the interview to which reference has been made, a definite pledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think I can throw some light upon that. Mr. Wood, whose name has been frequently quoted is the president of the Building Societies Association, of which I happen to be a vice-president. I have been in close and constant communication with him in reference to the Amendment of Clause 2, Sub-section (3) of the Finance Act. As a matter of fact, I had an Amendment on the Paper in Committee (which suffered the lot of a good many other Amendments) which represented what the Building Societies Association asked for. That new Clause did agree with the Clause of the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk in that it required the substitution of total interest for site value in a very limited point. It limited that to the question of mortgagees who had effected their mortgages prior to the date of the provisional valuation. But I know from my discus-
    1426
    sions with Mr. Wood on this point that he did not claim there was any pledge given to him in that interview in favour of that Clause. He did, however, claim that the Clause which has already been conceded by the Government, and which has been passed to-day, was in fulfilment of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that interview. That was a reasonable and substantial concession for which we may be grateful.
    But in reference to the point now put forward, I am in a position to say that there is no claim that that represents any pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is put on an entirely different basis. The Building Societies Association are asking for a much more limited Amendment to Clause 2, Sub-section (3), and I should like to make it perfectly clear that they do not ask it in virtue of any supposed pledge given at that interview, they are asking for it on its merits. I am afraid it would not be in order for me to go into the point of what they are asking for, but briefly what we wish the Government to concede is an arrangement which would suit the convenience of building societies. It is not that the Building Societies Association objects to the principle of the tax on its merits; they are asking for a change of administrative detail which would, in their opinion, save them an immense deal of labour in applying for copies of provisional valuations and in checking those provisional valuations with the mortgages which they have made on working-class houses. It would also save the Government Department a very considerable amount of trouble. But it would be out of order to discuss that now. I hope there may be another opportunity when the Finance Bill comes on, and when the Government may have more leisure to consider it. I should like, however, most definitely to say that this new Clause, even in its most limited form, is not being asked for on the ground that there was any pledge. I am quite certain that there was not, in the minds of those who were present at the interview, any such idea, and I am equally certain that all the attacks that have been made for the last two hours upon the Government on that ground are beside the mark and entirely without foundation.
    Mr. BOYTON: The learned Solicitor-General threw such a glamour and charm upon this dry-as-dust subject that it is rather difficult to cross swords with him. I want particularly to refer to Mr. Wood,

    1427
    who was a member of the deputation of building society representatives, friendly society representatives, and, I think, trades union society, which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I understood the Solicitor-General, Mr. Wood was not arguing from the point of view of the householder, he was rather arguing from the point of view of the landowner. It was only this afternoon I had in my hand a report of what took place at that deputation, and there, if my memory serves me rightly, and I am speaking subject to correction, Mr. Wood, it is stated, said that he represented a very large building society—I think it is called the Temperance Building Society—and they did not hold a single security in land. All their securities were in houses: their advances being upon houses. How, therefore, the learned Solicitor-General comes to the conclusion that Mr. Wood, as a well-known representative and mouthpiece of building societies, could be held to be only talking of land I am at a loss to understand. I would not have risen, except to remind the Solicitor-General that he is quite wrong about what took place at the interview but for the fact that I have been asked by numerous managers of building and friendly societies to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. According to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, Mr. Wood and the members of his committee and directors have altered their views, but generally throughout the country the representatives of the building societies have not altered their views, although Mr. Wood and others may have done so. They are just as anxious about the Finance Act as ever they were, and, owing to the depreciation of their securities, they are more anxious than ever they were, and gradually the truth is becoming known throughout the land.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking upon the Clause much too generally in what he is saying.
    Mr. BOYTON: I am sorry, and I will confine myself to advocating the Amendment which is before the House. It is supported, notwithstanding what hon. Members have said, notwithstanding what Mr. Wood is represented to say now, and what the hon. and learned Solicitor-General said—it is supported by building societies and friendly societies throughout the land and all parties interested in small property. I venture to hope that even at the eleventh hour the Government,
    1428
    in the person of the Solicitor-General, who is in charge of this Clause, will see their way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: When I intervened in the Debate at an earlier period I was not in the least interested as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised or not. I was not in the least concerned as to what took place at any particular interview, but I did carefully follow the Debate from both sides, and tried to appreciate what the real effects of the Amendment would be if it was carried, and I must confess that the Noble Lord, when he moved the Amendment, was most careful this afternoon to exclude from the whole of his lengthy speech what he said this evening in the concluding sentence of his statement. Had he said this afternoon what he said this evening then I certainly should not only have clearly understood the position, but would have given no countenance to the Amendment. He said in the last sentence this evening that he claimed whether there was an increase in the value of land or not an exemption from Increment Duty. That was the concluding sentence of his speech this evening. Nothing of that sort was stated this afternoon. What I had in my mind was a very clear case in regard to my own organisation, which bought a block of buildings for £18,000, pulled a number of houses down, and erected a building costing £30,000. For the purposes of argument let us say that the whole building was worth £50,000. Supposing a fire took place, and the whole structure was burnt to the ground and we were not desirous of building another set of offices at that particular place and on that site, and we sold the land for £28,000, or £10,000 more than the price originally paid. Although that would be less than the total cost of the building put up—namely, £50,000—obviously in that case We ought to pay Increment Duty, and what I wanted to make clear was that under those circumstances I was in favour of the lax. But, on the other hand, supposing a valuation took place of the land and buildings ten years ago, and supposing the valuation in 1900 showed £10,000 less than we paid for it, and then in two years' time we sold it for £3,000 more than that valuation, obviously, under those circumstances, we ought, I think, to claim exemption. I think that fairly bears on the point I made this afternoon. We frankly do not view this or any other question from the standpoint of party. I myself try not to think of it in

    1429
    that light, but I try to see whether it will benefit the class I represent, and it is quite an indifferent consideration to me which party it is that introduces it. It was with a view to explain this that I intervened.
    Mr. CASSEL: I only intervene for a very few minutes, and I wish to say that I think that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. Thomas) who spoke last made his point very fairly. The question comes tack to this, and let us leave aside for a few moments the points which are raised in regard to this particular amendment as to the way in which is is drafted. Let me put this question to the Solicitor-General plainly and frankly, and ask him if a man can prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he has made an actual loss on the transaction will the Government insist on exacting Increment Duty upon the property. If a man can prove having regard to the purchase price for which he bought and proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that on the sale he has made a substantial loss will the Solicitor-General say that either under the Act as it stands, or under any amendment, that man will be exempt: from Increment Duty. Let us leave aside all these words, I because anybody who listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a layman would have understood the meaning of what he said, and he would have gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that when a man could prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners or any impartial tribunal that he had made a loss upon the transaction he should not have to pay one-fifth of the supposed profit. I shall be satisfied if the Solicitor-General or Attorney-General would make two statements, and the first is that under the Act as it stands a man would not be subject to a duty if he could prove to the satisfaction of any reasonable man that he had suffered loss. My own construction is that he would be liable, but I advance any view as to the interpretation of this Act with the greatest hesitation. If the Solicitor-General or Attorney-General will state another interpretation of the Act, and say that a man who can prove that by reason of a purchase made before this Act came into force he has actually sustained a loss on the transaction he will be exempt, I shall be satisfied. I should also be satisfied if the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General would afterwards issue instructions to the valuers to give effect to that view. It is not my view of the Act.
    1430
    If on the other hand the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General agree with me that a man is liable for this duty although he has suffered a loss, the least he can do is to propose a new Clause which will give effect to the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as I think it would have been understood by any ordinary man.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: The speech that the hon. Member has just made throws a little light upon a rather complicated question. It is not a matter whether a man gains a profit or not in the use of land. A man may lose in dealing with land by putting up a wholly unsuitable building, or he may put up a building on an insecure foundation. He might do anything in the use of land which will lead to a loss, just as he might do anything in his business which might lead to a loss there, and the valuers could not take that into consideration. The question is whether the land has increased in value. Nearly all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side have confused the word "profit" with the word "increment." We have what we know as exhausted improvements. A man may make a drain, and it may prove in twelve months that it is useless for the purpose for which it was intended. Is a man to have that taken into account in estimating improvements? Obviously it is not an improvement at all. The Attorney-General referred to these improvements as super structures. I am inclined to think that is a misleading word, because it assumes that every improvement you place on land is a house or building. Other expenditures of money, such as making dykes and drains, may improve and greatly enhance the value of land, and the owner of land will be entitled to have a deduction made for these improvements. But these improvements might exhaust themselves. A house will wear out and become useless. A drain will cease to be operative at all. Other conditions may have come into operation which have entirely wiped out all the amount of money which has been expended. The question then is not whether a man has made a profit or a loss, but whether the land has increased in value or not.
    It has been assumed by nearly every speaker that the value of land is what a man pays for it. A man might pay far less or more than it is worth. The real value of land is what you can get out of it by its best use, and in valuing land you must take into consideration, not what a man is getting out of it as annual revenue,

    1431
    but what can be got out of it by its best use. You can go into the market to-morrow and buy a bit of land at half its value because a leading article appears in "The Times" saying that the taxation of land values was going to ruin agriculture. On the other hand a man might come along and pay a fictitious price for land. He might be an American millionaire who wants a particular site for a particular sentimental reason. The value of the land can only be ascertained by examination of what is its best use. I think so much confusion arises because people attach different values to different terms. It has been assumed on the other side that building land is land carrying buildings. Land carrying buildings might be agricultural land. Building land is land that is capable of carrying buildings as its best and most profitable use. I have seen in Scotland agricultural land carrying buildings because the land upon which the buildings were erected could only be used profitably when turned to agriculture. They were deserted buildings. The people had been driven out by the iniquitous landlords there, and these buildings now are not suitable for the purpose for which they were erected. The only way to use the land would be to pull the buildings down and grow grain.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What the hon. Member is saying is interesting, but I really do not see the precise connection with the Clause.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I was trying to meet the arguments which have been made by several hon. Gentlemen that unless a profit were made land would not be liable to Increment Duty. I am endeavouring to show that if you take as the value of land what a man paid for it and not what the land is capable of producing by its best use, you get misled entirely. I maintain that you can only arrive at this particular value by ascertaining to what use that land can be put in order to produce a maximum revenue, and if you capitalise that revenue you get at the value of the land. Such improvements as I have mentioned might be exhausted improvements, and would not be entitled to be deducted when arriving at the value for increment purposes. If a house has ceased to be saleable or to be useful as a house, it has no value; and, therefore, ought not to be deducted in arriving at the site value. I think in estimating this increment the valuer should not take into consideration whether a man
    1432
    has gained by his transaction over these twenty years, for he might have converted a large area of land into a lake or into pleasure land. It is useful for no other purpose, and it is not useful for revenue purposes. In valuing that land are you going to take into consideration what the owner has spent on it? Certainly not. You make no deduction for any improvements which are not useful and are not serving a revenue purpose. Therefore a man may have bought land twenty years ago, and may have used it or abused it, and spent an enormous amount of money on it, and now sell it for less than he originally paid, and yet be liable for Increment Duty, because he sells it at such a price as not to recoup all that he has spent upon it in the interval. That is not the issue. The issue is whether it has risen in value.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Chapple) has spoken with the greatest candour on this subject, because the principle he has laid down is that he wishes to tax a man although he has made a loss; he wishes to tax him as though he had made a profit. When an owner deals with land, and the result of the transaction means a loss to him, the hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, it is quite right to tax him because he has not made the best use of the land." That principle is not only flagrantly unjust, but it appears to be the principle on which the policy of this tax is justified. The only principle on which it can be justified is that if an owner makes a profit out of his land, the profit may be attributed in part to the action of the community. Then the State may come in and take a part of that profit. I am not arguing that that is wrong. Let us assume that it is right. If that is right, surely it carries the co-relative principle that if a man, having dealt with his land, makes a dead loss, he should not be called upon to pay to the community. If that be so, I say that the whole object of this Clause is to carry out that principle, namely, that if a man does make a loss he should not be called upon to pay to the State. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Wood, the representative of the building societies, as saying that the Government was not carrying out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I understood him to say was that Mr. Wood does not think that the promise made to the building societies by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interview has been fully carried out in the Clause put on the Paper.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I said exactly the opposite. I said that the Building Societies Association were asking for something less than the Amendment of the Noble Lord. They were asking something very much more restricted. They did not claim that as being the result of the pledge given to them. They were asking for it on its merits.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I admit that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that the Clause put on the Paper by the Government did not meet the views of the friendly societies.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: On the contrary, what I said was that that Clause which has already been moved by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and carried, was a concession giving effect to a definite pledge made and accepted as such. We claimed a pledge there, and we got it, but in the case of the other Clause moved by the Noble Lord, we do not say that there was a pledge.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice in supposing him to be the friend of friendly societies, for in my opinion they have been exceedingly badly treated. I think that neither the owners of land unconnected with friendly societies, nor friendly societies themselves, could possibly have understood by this statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything else, except what has already been put forward, namely, that when property is bought for or mortgaged for £2,000 and comes down in 1909 to £1,000, and then goes up again to £1,500, the owner of the land would naturally say, "I ought not to pay the tax when the result of the whole transaction has been to me a loss." If friendly societies think it reasonable to pay the tax under those cirsumstances, all I say is that I entirely differ, and I would recommend the friendly societies to have a better advocate, or someone who has got common sense. The Solicitor-General has endeavoured to explain away this pledge by saying that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of a man buying property he meant buying site value. We can believe a good deal, but with respect to the words, "supposing a man bought property for £2,000 and there is a slump of property in the neighbourhood, and it goes down to £1,000," are we really to think that he meant site value? Did anyone ever buy site value, or will anyone ever do so? Is it not absurd to tell us that when the Chan-
    1434
    cellor of the Exchequer talked of buying property for £2,000 twenty years ago he meant site value? I venture to ask whether, when the right hon. Gentleman talked of a slump of property in the neighbourhood, he meant us to understand that it was a slump in site values—a slump in something that is never bought or sold. I think any reasonable man can only put the meaning on the words which we put on them, namely, that he meant land plus houses. That is supported by what Mr. Wood said. Mr. Wood understood it was site value and houses. He said, speaking for the friendly societies, that they had nearly 8,000 mortgages, 90 per cent of them for sums not exceeding £500. He further stated that they had not a single mortgage on land alone. All their mortgages were on land plus buildings. Therefore, Mr. Wood was not concerned with site value. He was concerned with the property on which the building societies had mortgages, namely, land plus houses. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not mean site value without houses. I appeal once more to the Government whether they cannot really give effect to the plain commonsense English words of this pledge. We say that this Clause has for its object to carry out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to ensure that when a man makes a loss on a transaction he should not be called upon to pay just as if he had made a profit.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I rise to appeal to the House to conclude the discussion on this Clause. I am only suggesting that we have had this matter discussed before on other Amendments to a great extent. I would suggest to the House that we should get on from this to one of the later clauses in order that we may make further progress to-night. I only make this appeal for the convenience of the House.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I take it that the Attorney-General means to come to a conclusion on the Amendment which we are now discussing. I share the right hon. Gentleman's views. I think that working as we are, under a procedure that limits the time of our discussion, we should, so far as we can, apportion the time at our disposal with the most reasonable consideration as to the value of the subjects we are discussing. But I must remind the learned Attorney-General that earlier in the evening, when an effort was made to limit our discussion and get on to other business, we did not receive from the bench

    1435
    opposite the support and assistance we might reasonably have expected, and consequently their appeals do not come with a very good grace. At the same time I am bound to say, in the interests of those who are criticising this measure and wish to discuss more questions than one, that I do not see that we ought to object to the Attorney-General's appeal. But I hope he will remember that if these appeals are
    to be made with success to the Opposition we are entitled to expect that when efforts are made to curtail debate to give us a reasonable opportunity for discussing other questions we shall receive better treatment from the Government than we have received up to the present time.
    Question put, "That this Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 237.

    NEW CLAUSE.—Definition, of Licensed Premises.
    For the words "carried on upon the premises by the licence-holder" in the definition of premises in relation to the value of licensed premises in Section 52 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the words "authorised by the licence," and the provision in the Section shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Gretton.]
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. GRETTON: The purpose of this is a very simple one, namely, only that portion of licensed premises which is used for the licensed trade shall be liable to the Licence Duty. Section 52 of the principal Act says: "The expression 'premises' in relation to the value of licensed premises, includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold, except any such offices, courts, yards, or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be used for any trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licence-holder."

    1439
    The Amendment would come in in this way. Instead of the words, "carried on upon the premises by the licence-holder," you substitute the words, "authorised by the licence." The Clause as it stands in the principal Act results in very great hardship. Everyone in the House will understand that in large and considerable premises there are some portions which are not the subject of the licence, or which are not connected with the licensed business—portions where liquors cannot be sold. The case becomes even still harder and still more oppressive where there are two separate holdings on the licensed premises, one held by the licence-holder and the other let off for a business carried on by someone who is not holding the licence. Here is a case for which I should like to give chapter and verse, the case of a place where there are two assessments, the licensed premises being assessed at £80 a year, and the adjoining premises and stables at £100 a year. But the Commissioners claim that both those places in the aggregate should be treated as one for the purpose of the licensed duty. In spite of every argument advanced, it appears they are justified in holding that view under the Clause as it now stands. This case has been discussed several times, and the Government said they intended to deal with the grievance, but they have not dealt with it yet. I am not here to rely on any pledge; I rely to-night on the justice of the case I put before the House. Obviously, it is unfair to charge Licence Duty on portions of the premises which are not used for the licensed business. This matter is one of still greater hardship now that the Licence Duty is becoming an enormous and vastly increased burden, and the operation of the Clause of the principal Act is manifestly unfair. The intention of the Act is that the licence holder shall pay the Licence Duty on that portion of the premises in which he does his licensed trade. But to charge the Licence Duty on premises which are not necessary for the licensed trade is a manifest injustice. I propose this Clause for the careful consideration of the Government, for it deals with a very flagrant injustice, which I am sure they do not wish to continue. I do not know that they intend to oppose the Clause which I submit, but I imagine that the only argument which they can urge against it will be the difficulty of administration. I have one case in my hands to-night, and I am quite prepared to give other cases
    1440
    where there would be no difficulty in making a separate assessment, which would immediately get over the supposed difficulty of enabling justice to prevail.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: I beg to second the Motion.
    Under the interpretation that has been put upon the Clause of the principal Act by the valuers and by the collectors of the Licence Duty, apparently it is not possible for a licensee to carry on another business on the same premises. If he does carry on another business on the same premises that raises the assessable value of his portion of the premises, and as his Licence Duty is charged upon the annual value of the premises, the effect of carrying on a second business is to very largely raise the amount of Licence Duty he has to pay. That does seem to me to be an extraordinary proposition. What possible objection can there be to the licensed holder carrying on another business? I should have thought from the point of view of principle that he could have carried on another business, and should not be entirely taken up with the trade in liquor. He could carry on another business to which no doubt a large proportion of his time and his principal attention might be devoted. There is another point of principle involved in this Amendment. After all, the whole idea of these very largely increased Licence Duties is that you should appropriate to the State the monopoly value conferred upon the licence holder by the licence. It cannot possibly be contended that the State by their licence has conferred any monopoly value in connection with any other business carried on by the licence holder. Therefore, on principle, again, it seems to me utterly unfair and absurd that this other business should be part of the monopoly value of the licensed business. Surely then you ought to limit the range and effect of the tax to the licensed business. It is contended that some businesses might be assisted by having adjacent to them a licensed business. That may be so, but anyhow there are businesses which are not so assisted. Take the businesses carried on by licensed holders in the smaller towns. Take the case of a jobmaster. I do not quite see why a licensee should not be able to carry on that business without paying an extra charge for his licence. There was the case of the undertaker suggested by a former Solicitor-General who

    1441
    might actually be charged higher Licence Duty according to the number of coffins he might have in an adjoining garden. If the licensee choose to let the extra portion of his business to somebody else, that other person can carry out the business entirely unaffected by the duty. Thus the other business may enhance the licence, but the moment somebody else conducts it there is no duty. That is a very grave injustice, and even if there is some administrative difficulty, it is one that ought to be got over. This does seem to show another instance of the absurdity of charging the licensees on the annual value instead of on the amount of business discharged, which is the only fair basis on which you really should charge them.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the best part of the speech of the hon. Member who seconded will give some indication of what is in his mind in proposing this new Clause. Leaving aside altogether those observations which would introduce a discussion of a much wider character, I will confine myself to the new Clause before the House, and deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton). The matter stands thus. The Licence Duty has to be calculated on the annual value, and the annual value of the premises has to be calculated, and was formerly calculated, under the Revenue Act of 1880 and under the Excise Act of 1885; and the method under both those Acts is just the same as it was when the principal Act of 1909–10 was introduced. Before Amendment was made there was a concession granted to hon. Members, which they will, no doubt, remember. They make no reference to the exemption which is included under Section 52 in respect of any trade or business which may be carried on in the premises, or any business connected with the premises which was distinct from the trade or business carried on by the licence-holder. That concession was given, and those words were introduced and accepted at the time. There is now an effort to introduce a further concession, and an extension, therefore, of the exemptions which were offered by the Government in answer to the arguments which were pressed during the discussion of the principal Act. It is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. First of all, it would mean loss of revenue, and it would make, as the hon. Member for Rutland rightly said, a great difficulty in administration.
    Mr. GRETTON: I did not say that it would.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman foresaw that it would be said by the Government that there would be a difficulty in administration.
    Mr. GRETTON: From my knowledge of the Government.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And from the hon. Member's expert knowledge. He is quite right in the view he takes. That is one of the objections to it. But I rest the case upon this. What we have done is to make a concession under the principal Act, going as far as we could go then, and no case has been made out for any further concession. On the contrary, the words introduced have carried out exactly what was said by the Government and what was understood at the time. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. YOUNGER: The Attorney-General has done just what I thought he would; but all the same his arguments do not hold good. That which the hon. and learned Gentleman says was a concession is surely improperly described. There is no concession at all in exempting businesses of the kind referred to. Under the old system, when the tax was very small, the valuation of the whole of the premises was a matter of comparatively little consequence, but it becomes a matter of very serious consequence when the tax is large. We protested at the time against the words which were introduced into the Act on the ground that they were not nearly sufficient to cover the situation, but the then Solicitor-General could not see his way to go any further, although I think he was personally inclined to do so. We intimated, however, that we were by no means satisfied. Is it not an absurdity when there is a heavy duty of this kind, that you should include in the valuation of a hotel, for instance, stables that may be in another part of the town? It is perfectly monstrous and ridiculous, but if the Attorney-General consults his advisers he will be told that that is what is done. As further showing the absurdity and inconsistency of this administration, they include in this valuation of a hotel the yard, offices, stables, and all that sort of thing, and charge full licence duty upon them; but if a country fair comes along and the licence holder puts up a small stand or something of that sort in the yard and sells beer to the country people, down

    1443
    come the customs and excise authorities and compel him to take out an occasional licence. Can anything be more ridiculous? Either the yard is licensed or it is not. Of course it is not licensed, and not being licensed you have no right whatever to rope it in and charge the Licence Duty upon it. The impossibility of fairly and equitably charging duty on this annual value has been admitted by the Government over and over again, and it is admitted in Section 44, which prescribes that a new register of annual licence values shall be prepared for the purpose of assessing the duty. Are you going to get these places roped in for the purpose of Licence Duty? Of course not. A stable in the next street is not to count; an undertaker's business at the end of the yard is not to count; only the trade that a man does is to be counted. Because you have passed a law which is taking an unconscionable time to get into smooth working order these people have to suffer, and you make no endeavour to save them from suffering at a very unfair and absurd rate. If this annual register of licence values had been ready, for instance, for the Budget of this next year, this Amendment would never have been proposed. It would not have been necessary. Heaven only knows when this register will appear. We have not even yet got the annual register of licence values for the £500 houses for 1909–10. I have asked for it again and again, and I am always told that it is going to appear in a very few weeks. If this comparatively small number of licences, a few thousands, are not yet valued, what hope is there for the next Budget or two to have the register of the whole of the licensed houses in the country?
    When such a flagrant case of injustice is brought before the Government it is their bounden duty to do something to remedy it. But there are no bowels of compassion, so far as I can see. The Attorney-General would perhaps like to say that we had a concession the other day on Clause 4 of the Bill? I was grateful for it, but it was no concession: it was the Government's recognition of their own mistake. Even this Government, when it recognises that it has made a mistake, tries, as a rule, to put the matter right. Here is a hardship. A hotel-keeper's stable, two streets off, is roped into the hotel for the purpose of Licence Duty. He cannot store a cask in
    1444
    it, or sell a cask of beer out of it. What has the hon. and learned Gentleman to say of the hotel-keeper in the Highlands who has got a place a considerable distance from his hotel where he occasionally sends some one to sleep when the hotel is too full? Would the right hon. Gentleman rope that in for Licence Duty? If he says he would not, let me tell him his officials would. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to bring the bright beams of his intellect to bear upon the Clause. It may be that he thinks that any alteration will create administrative difficulties. I do not blame him; but I do say that the Government ought to see that this Clause works justly.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: There has been talk of concessions. I want a little justice. I have several hotels in my Constituency, and the stables of them are removed entirely from the hotel. Why are these stables kept? Not for the amusement of the landlord. We have visitors—Members of this House it may be—who want to drive about the country and enjoy it. A beautiful country it is. Why should you deny visitors their pleasure? If the Government's proposal is unjust, I ask hon. Gentleman to join with me in an appeal to the Government to put it right
    Mr. GARDNER: I hardly think the learned Attorney-General is aware of the full extent of this injustice. I know very well cases of hotels and other licensed establishments which are of great value to the growing towns in which they are. I can give the Attorney-General one case in which on the premises are carried on a clothier's, millinery, and ironmonger's business, and that of wine and spirits and provisions. Each of these Departments are, to all intents and purposes, separate. They have been so considered by the local authorities who have actually, for local rating purposes, treated them separately. The spirit branch, as a matter of fact, takes up one-fifth of one of the departments, or one-twentieth of the whole of the business. Although treated separately for rating purposes, when it comes to a question of Licence Duty, down comes the Commissioner and says: "These are four separate departments, but, for the purpose of enabling your manager to supervise your business properly, you have a passage running along at the back, and that constitutes one whole business," and, notwithstanding that the excisable goods only occupy one-twentieth of the whole,

    1445
    the proprietor has to pay Licence Duty on the whole. Surely that is an injustice that ought to be remedied. It is grotesque that a comparatively small little country place should be thus rated on the gross, with the result that it is charged a Licence Duty such as Harrod's Stores has to pay in London. A system of licensing that brings about such an injustice as that ought to be remedied. The different departments are rated separately for local purposes, and why on earth cannot the Inland Revenue Authorities rate them similarly for licence purposes. I do not say that a pledge was given in connection with this matter, but I say there is here a just claim for remedy—a claim founded upon an oversight—because I do not think any Government could ever have intended to institute a system of that kind, and I hope the Attorney-General, who, I am sure, is actuated by a keen desire to do what is right, will not put down his foot and refuse to consider this matter.
    Sir JOHN DEWAR: I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) in asking the Government to deal with this grievance. The case put by my hon. Friend was startling, but I can assure my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that I have the same information. I do not see what reason the Government can give to justify such an arrangement. I can see no reason why a man should pay Licence Duty on a stable in which he keeps his horses. In my own Constituency and all over Scotland hotel proprietors are bound to keep posting establishments, and it is very unfair that a man who keeps horses for the convenience of the district should have to pay Licence Duty on the stables used for such a purpose. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger) said under the old Licence Duties it was perhaps unimportant, but since Licence Duties have been so increased it has become very serious for a great many of the struggling hotels all over Scotland. Although the matter is a difficult one to meet, I hope it is not beyond the capacity of the Government to find a remedy for it.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Until the Budget of 1909 the basis of annual value had been standing for eighty-five years, and it had been well established. We made a departure in order to deal with certain particular hard cases. Now it is proposed to overthrow the whole basis of the law of
    1446
    the assessment of public-houses altogether. The reason why these parts of the premises are brought into the licensed valuation, although the liquor may not be actually sold in those particular parts of the premises, is that they bring business to the licensed trade that is carried on in those premises. The hon. Member opposite gave an illustration of the farmers coming in with their carts on market day and going to drink in the public-house.
    Mr. YOUNGER: What I said was that the farmers set up a small table in the yard for which you make them pay licence.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is quite a separate point, and does not strictly arise on this Clause. The hon. Member gave the illustration of farmers coming with their traps into places within the curtilage of the public-house, and then going into the public-house to drink; consequently business is brought to the premises by the fact that the premises are extensive. It is quite impossible to draw the line suggested by hon. Members opposite. Suppose you say that stables attached to a public-house are not to count as part of the licensed premises for the purposes of valuation—how are you going to draw the line at stables? Would you say that outhouses or barns attached to the building are not to be allowed also?
    Mr. YOUNGER: The Amendment restricts this strictly to the premises authorised by the certificate.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: But why should you do so? There is no principle of justice there. Liquor cannot be sold in the outhouses or in the residential part of the premises, and why should you assess for Licence Duty the bedrooms and the attics in which the members of the household live? If you abandon this principle you will be involved in the greatest possible administrative difficulties. The Government saw at the same time when we were discussing the Bill of 1909 that anomalies and hardships do arise through the fact that you take annual value as the basis of your Licence Duty. That is not the best basis, and it is far from being an ideal basis at all. Therefore, we said the right policy is to shift the Licence Duty altogether from annual value, to get away from all those questions of barns, stables, and outhouses, and take the value of the premises as they are with the licence and the value without a licence,

    1447
    and then take the difference between the two and charge the Licence Duty upon that. That is a right and fair basis of valuation, and we are authorised by the Act of 1909 to carry out the valuation on those lines with a view of placing the Licence Duty on what is unquestionably a far better basis. Instead of trying to tinker further with the annual value, which has been the basis of the law for eighty-five years, it is better to wait, until we can get out a proper valuation, which is now being proceeded with by the Board of Inland Revenue, and to place once and for all the whole system on a much fairer basis of Licence Duty valuation.
    Captain SPENDER CLAY: I have listened to the reply of the Postmaster-General, and I fail to see that he has answered the points put by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. On the Second Reading of this Bill I brought a concrete case absolutely similar to the one mentioned already of licensed premises, which was a free House with part of the premises used for a tobacco business and the rest for the licensed trade. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to a remark which I made, said it seemed to him it was a very unusual case, and he asked me to give him the details. It was a case in which the tax amounted to no less than 4s. in the £1 on his unlicensed business. That was a Super-tax on his business. I gave these figures at the request of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not know whether he received them or not, because he had not the courtesy to acknowledge the receipt of them.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did receive them, and I did acknowledge them.
    Captain SPENDER CLAY: I did not receive the answer, but no doubt a mistake has been made, and I willingly withdraw and apologise for having made that remark. It is a case of considerable difficulty, and one which I think is unusual. I do think there ought to be some method of separately assessing for taxation two businesses carried on under one firm. It is not right that a man should be heavily taxed because he happens to have another business which he cannot separate from his licensed business. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the
    1448
    Bill will see his way to reconsider the decision already made and reduce undoubted hardships which will occur through the action and the incidence of this tax.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I do not feel quite satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General. It seems to me in this case there is really a grievance which requires to be dealt with. The case, as I understand, upon which main reliance is placed is one where there are premises in a different curtilage from that in which liquor is lawfully sold which will be included for the purposes of taxation. Although I have had some experience of licensing matters, I am bound to say I do not know of one myself, but, if such a grievance does exist, it is obvious, I think, to everyone's sense of justice it should be dealt with, and I hope it will receive attention from His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have had an opportunity of consulting the officials of the Customs and Excise Department, and they assure me they are much surprised at the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger). They conveyed to me their surprise that the statement that cases of the assessment of separate curtilages, such as stables, existed. I will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to have this question looked into. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Captain Spender Clay), I should like to repeat that I did receive the particulars he was good enough to send me, and I certainly signed a letter in answer to him, after having myself investigated the facts. I am afraid the contents of the letter would hardly meet his wishes and expectations, but I want to give him the assurance that I personally attended to the matter.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Did the right hon. Gentleman's officials also express surprise at my statement that occasionally it was demanded for yards?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am dealing entirely with the point as to curtilage.
    Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 261.

    Division No. 95.]

    AYES.

    [10.0 p.m.

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

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Guinness, Hon. W. E.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balcarres, Lord

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston, H.

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bird, A.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Spear, John Ward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Stanier, Beville

    Campion, W. R.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Starkey, John R.

    Cassel, Felix

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cator, John

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Cave, George

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

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Craig, Norman (Kent)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Croft, H. P.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Mount, William Arther

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

    Dixon, C. H.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Winterton, Earl

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Younger, George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Boyton.

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Greene, W. R.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Boland, John Pius

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Anderson, A. M.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Armitage, R.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Brace, William

    Crooks, William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Barton, William

    Byles, William Pollard

    Dawes, J. A.

    Beale, W. P.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Delany, William

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Dillon, John

    Keating, M.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Lansbury, George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sydney

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Logan, John William

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    MacGhee, Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Furness, Stephen

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Gill, A. H.

    Manfield, Harry

    Sheehy, David

    Glanville, H. J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Shortt, Edward

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, H. B. L (Northampton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

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

    Snowden, P.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gulland, John W.

    Molloy, M.

    Summers, James Woolley

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hackett, J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Sutton, John E.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morrell, Philip

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Muldoon, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Munro, R.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harwood, George

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Neilson, Francis

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hayward, Evan

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Watt, Henry A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Webb, H.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, James

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hughes, S. L.

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

    Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

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

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Johnson, W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Howard.

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

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

    Division No. 96.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

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

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Goldman, C. S.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Astor, Waldorf

    Grant, J. A.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

    Baird, J. L.

    Greene, W. R.

    Quilter, William Eley C.

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

    Guinness, Hon. Walter E.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rice, Hon. Walter F.

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

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Baring, Captain Hon. G.

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hills, J. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Bigland, Alfred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bird, A.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Spear, John Ward

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyton, J.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kirkwood, J. H. M.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Butcher, J. G.

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campion, W. R.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Alan John

    Cassel, Felix

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Cator, John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cave, George

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Craig, Norman (Kent)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Croft, H. P.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

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

    Dixon, C. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Winterton, Earl

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nield, Herbert

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Peel.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Gilhooly, James

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Black, Arthur W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cowan, W. H.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Boyle, O. (Mayo, N.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Brace, William

    Crooks, William

    Anderson, A. M.

    Brigg, Sir John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Armitage, R.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Delany, William

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Dillon, John

    Barton, William

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Donelan, Capt. A. J. C.

    Beale, W. P.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

    Clynes, J. R.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    1450

    1451

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tiperary, N.)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Logan, John William

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Falconer, J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lundon, T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacGhee, Richard

    Robinson, Sydney

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

    Manfield, Harry

    St. Maur, Harold

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Meagher, Michael

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Hackett, J.

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

    Sheehy, David

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shortt, Edward

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molloy, M.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroc)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Snowden, Philip

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Summers, James Woolley

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muldoon, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Home, Charles Silvester, (Ipswich)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Dowd, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Grady, James

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    O'Malley, William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Johnson, W.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

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

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, P (Middlesbrough)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Lansbury, George

    Reddy, M.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief in, respect of Income Tax wider Schedule A.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section thirty-five of the Finance Act, 1894, in respect of Income Tax imposed under Schedule A, the amount of the assessment shall, for the purposes of collection, be reduced by a sum equal to one-fourth part thereof—

    (a) in the case of an assessment on lands inclusive of the farmhouse and other buildings, if any; and

    1452

    (b) in the case of an assessment on any house, the annual value of which, as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, does not exceed twelve pounds.

    (2) Section sixty-nine of the principal Act is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Courthope.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. COURTHOPE: The effect of the Clause is to repeal Section (69) of the

    1453
    Finance Act of 1910 and put in its place what I may call a flat rate of 25 per cent. as the statutory deduction for Schedule A assessments in the case of land and labourers' cottages. It may be necessary to explain what led up last year to Section (69) of the Finance Act. An influential deputation from the Central Land Association and other organisations interested in agriculture and land generally waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and succeeded in convincing him, as indeed any reasonable man could not fail to be convinced, that Schedule A inflicted a grave hardship upon owners of property in rural districts, in other words that the statutory deductions for land and cottages respectively did not in any way represent the cost of repairs and maintenance which occurred on these estates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to go as far as he could to meet that grievance. He stated frankly that it was impossible in the position in which he found himself to meet it entirely, but he would go as far as possible to meet the grievance, and the result was that the admittedly experimental Clause (69) was inserted whereby those who have to pay Schedule A Income Tax might claim a rebate from the Treasury if they could prove from their books that their expenditure on repairs and maintenance of land and of labourers' cottages amounted to 25 per cent. of the gross assessment.
    The effect of that Clause was to enable owners who have to pay Schedule A to claim a rebate up to 25 per cent. for repairs and maintenance if they could prove by their books that at least 25 per cent. was expended under those circumstances. I think it will be admitted by the Secretary to the Treasury that in all cases in which Form 99 was presented ample proof was shown that at least 25 per cent. was expended—in other words, that the experimental part of the Clause had done its work, and that 25 per cent. was well within the mark. Therefore it would be perfectly safe for the Government to give a 25 per cent. rebate in all the cases. I do not rest my argument on the very incomplete statement which I have made at present. I want to draw the the attention of the Government to two great drawbacks in the method set up by Clause (69) of the Act of last year. In the first place a very great difficulty is placed upon landowners in filling up this form properly. They have to divide their estates into three sections, and they have also to divide the expenditure upon their
    1454
    estates into three sections. First of all there is agricultural land and the buildings which are connected with it. Secondly, there are houses of a value not exceeding £8 a year—in other words labourers' cottages. Thirdly, there are shops, houses, and cottages, which are assessed on amounts more than £8 a year.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows well how difficult it is even on estates where most accurate books are kept to divide expenditure, into three parts. In the case of labour a time sheet or labour book is kept, and it is comparatively easy to divide the direct expenditure on labour into the three necessary headings, but when we come to material it is very difficult indeed. Take an estate of some thousands of acres which employs a considerable staff in its workshops. It probably fells its own timber. That timber is sawn by the estate sawyers into the sizes most suitable for estate repairs, and it is stacked and stored. It is practically impossible four years after the trees were felled to tell the exact cost of any piece of timber which goes to the repair of a cottage, or any piece which goes to the repair of a farmhouse. In the same way and in the same work such matters as glass, nails, paint, varnish, and a score of others things are bought in bulk. Nails, for instance, are bought by the ton. It is quite impossible unless you have a very large staff constantly on the spot to tell the value or even the weight of nails or the value of paint, varnish, putty, cement, and so forth that go into these three different categories of farm buildings, labourers' cottages, shops, and so on. Of course it might be possible to divide bricks and matters like that which are bought in quantity and measured out in certain work, but in the other matters to which I have referred it is impossible to make this division. I might multiply these cases indefinitely. Take another very common case, shooting and water pipes. It is the commonest thing on these large rural estates that some large building or farmhouse has got into a state of disrepair. If the shooting is replaced it is not always destroyed. Part of it is broken and goes on the scrap heap as old metal, but there may be a great deal of it of sufficient use for repairing small buildings, taking the water off the roof of a pig sty or a cow-house, and it is subsequently used for that purpose, and it is quite impossible for anyone, however carefully he goes into it, to account for every item of that kind of

    1455
    material which comes within the three categories required by Form 99. The result is a certain amount of guess work has to take place, and in fact a certain amount of guess work has been practically sanctioned by the Board of Inland Revenue, because I think it is a matter of common knowledge that instructions have been given to those who are concerned with Form 99 that a certain amount of guess work in these matters should be allowed.
    A very strong point might be made of the difficulties which the officials have in dealing with these matters. The details required by Form 99 are not and cannot be in the possession of the owner or his tenants, and are not even in the possession of the local collector of taxes. The result is that the Form has either to be returned in blank, in which case it has to be filled in by the District Supervisor or by some higher official at Somerset House, or else the owner has to apply beforehand to the District Supervisor to obtain the information which will enable him to fill up the Form. The result is that an immense amount of extra work is thrown upon the officials who have to deal with these matters. That does not end it. There must be an enormous accumulation of these Forms waiting at Somerset House to be checked, and how the staff are to proceed with the work of checking passes the wit of man. They cannot do it. But directly it becomes known that the staff cannot check these accounts, there will immediately be a premium on dishonesty. Surely it is better to obviate all these difficulties by doing away with the necessity for making and allowing a claim in that way. I prefaced my remarks by showing, and it is not denied, that whenever a claim is made the owner has to prove his claim for a flat rate of 25 per cent. Why not give it him straight away instead of putting a premium on fraudulent returns, and so save an immense amount of work to the official staff who have to deal with this matter. I do not pretend for a moment that the Clause which I now move for a flat rate of 25 per cent. is a counsel of perfection.
    To reach the ideal you want a system which will allow the good landlord to deduct all expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the estate—I do not say on improvements of the estate, or raising the rents, or anything like that—while pre-
    1456
    venting the bad landlord from deducting more than he has actually expended. It is a very difficult thing to devise. I understand the Treasury point of view is that it is impossible to allow these assessments for Income Tax to come under the Schedule D, which would at once meet the difficulty. To allow them under Schedule A would be very difficult indeed. This Clause now proposed is a great improvement on Clause (69) passed last year. It would cost the Treasury nothing at all; in fact, it would possibly affect a saving by enabling them to reduce the very heavy staff required to deal with this matter, while it would remove a great difficulty from the landowner as well as prevent a premium from being put upon fraudulent returns, and fraudulent returns can be made with perfect impunity under the present system, I should say. I have made one small alteration in detail in the Clause I propose as compared with Section (69) of the Act of last year. The scale in that Act for labourers' cottages was £8, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows a great many bonâ fide, labourers' cottages exceed £8 in assessable value. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give this benefit to labourers' cottages, and I have put in £12 as the limit, which will include all bonâ fide labourers' cottages, and which I do not think will include anything else. I have made careful inquiries and I find that no village shop or weekend house or anything of that kind will get the benefit of this Clause. I hope the Government will see their way to give a sympathetic answer to this matter which I have endeavoured to present in as concise a form as possible.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second the Motion.
    We on this side freely recognise that Section 69 of the Finance Act was, to a certain extent, a concession given by the Government, and we are very grateful to them for having met us in a certain way in answer to the claim we put before them. I agree with my hon. Friend that neither Section 69 nor the Clause he saw proposes is an adequate solution for dealing with a very great hardship. I believe the only fair and just thing is to allow the landowners to be assessed under Schedule D in the same way as any other persons in the country. Surely the fairest thing is to allow to be put on one side the actual money he received for rents and on the other side the ordinary annual expenditure upon the upkeep of his estate, not including

    1457
    capital expenditure, and to be allowed to take an average on three years of the money received. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last year that he could not give us that concession because it would cost the Treasury something over three million pounds per year. We were rather glad to have that admission, because it showed us that even a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to admit that landowners in the past have been unjustly taxed every year to the extent of three million pounds. This Clause only asks that the landowners of this country should be relieved from a very great deal of trouble in filling up this particular form, and also that the Treasury officials should be relieved from a great deal of worry and work in trying to carry out the provision I know it will be asked, "Why should not landowners fill us these forms? They have large estate staffs, and their obvious business is to fill up forms sent them by the Government."
    Landowners who have estate staffs do not keep them for the sole purpose of filling up forms for the benefit or amusement of the Government, but for keeping the ordinary accounts of the estate. But there are a large number of landowners throughout the country who do not keep any clerical staff at all, but keep their accounts themselves, and a great deal of their time during the last twelve months has been occupied in filling up Form IV. and other missives sent them by the Government. It may possibly be said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it would not be much use granting this concession, because comparatively few people have troubled to send in returns. The answer to that is that it requires a great deal of labour to fill in the returns accurately. I suggest that the Inland Revenue will be flooded with these returns in a short time. In the interests of the Inland Revenue, quite as much as in the interests of the landowners themselves, I submit that a good case has been made out for granting a flat rate under Schedule A instead of forcing landowners to make out the very difficult return now required. I beg to Second the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Mover of the Clause was quite right in thinking that we should not be able to accept his proposal, and for the very reason that he himself gave. He pointed out, with force, that the giving of a flat rate would result in the inefficient and bad landlord getting the whole of the reduction intended for the
    1458
    good landlord who keeps up his estate to the best of his ability, and in a condition which is not merely a credit to himself, but a source of satisfaction to his tenants. The relief given under Section (69) of the principal Act, which I am glad to hear gratefully acknowledged by the Seconder of the new Clause, was a very substantial concession. It was an addition to the only relief given to landlords in this respect, and given by a Liberal Government. The only complaint against it is that it takes a certain amount of time to fill up the necessary form. The Seconder said that if only they had had time the Inland Revenue would have been flooded with a, very large number of returns which, owing to lack of time, they had not had the opportunity of receiving, and that shortly they would be flooded with applications.
    I myself, partly out of curiosity and partly in the hope of getting relief, have filled up one of these forms, and I confess it took a certain amount of time. Why? Because it is necessary to produce a five years' average. But in every succeeding year he will not have to compute five years' averages; he will only have to compute one. He will have behind him four years on which to base his calculations, and he will have a basis in the future on which to calculate the particular year extra on which he claims relief. Any trouble that may have been occasioned in the past will in the future be only one-fifth. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have any real difficulty in arriving at what the relief ought to be. He asks that it shall be one-fourth of the income receivable in respect of the land and houses not exceeding £12 in value. A very good reason for fixing upon £8 which we did in Clause (69) was that £8 is the limit of the compounding householder and is, I think, the outside price of an ordinary agricultural labourer's cottage, at all events in the West of England. I think that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment are under the impression that the expenses of a great number of landlords in keeping up their property exceeds 25 per cent.
    I informed the House on the Debates on the principal Act that we had accurate knowledge of the expenses of a very great number of estates submitted to us, in confidence, of course, by landowners from every part of the country. The result of our examination was that after all the

    1459
    deductions were made which fell to be deducted under the principal Act, there was really an astonishingly small number of landowners whose legitimate expenses upon the maintenance of their estates exceeded 25 per cent. If there was an apparent increase in excess of the 25 per cent.—as a great number of accounts showed—there were in them all sorts of items which could not be legitimately described as expenses in the maintenance of the estate. But 25 per cent. as a rule is a fair deduction to be allowed if you wish to keep up your estate in a condition of efficiency. For the reasons which I have given the Government cannot accept the Clause proposed. I hope the House may be moved, not merely by party considerations, to accept the view which I have put, by the fact that our position is based upon reason and argument.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman nobody on this side of the House is actuated by party motives in pressing the views we have pressed upon the House. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that from inquiries which the Government made as to expenditure on estates they came to the conclusion that 25 per cent. is the legitimate charge that should be allowed for upkeep. That is what my hon. Friends ask should be made permanent and not temporary. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing with this matter he made this proposal as a temporary, and he certainly made it in a very generous manner at the time. I acknowledged then, as I do now, that it was the first concession made to the owners of land in regard to the upkeep of their estates. What surprises me in connection with this matter is the attitude of the Labour party in regard to the upkeep of landed estates and for this reason. It is a question of very great importance, not really so much to the owners of estates as to those connected with the estates. The right hon. Gentleman in telling the House that 25 per cent. of the income from agricultural estates represents a fair proportion of the income which the owner has to expend in order to keep his property in a satisfactory condition is grossly below the real expenditure. I go further and say that nearly 50 or 60 per cent. of the gross incomes goes back in one form or another into the estate before the owner, for the time being, can touch one single penny for any purpose of his own.
    1460
    Maintenance means the ordinary annual repairs necessary to keep buildings, cottages, etc., in good order, and those normal improvements which every reasonable landlord makes every year upon his estate. And where does the rest of the money go? I say, before the owner can touch any of it, at least 85 per cent. of it goes in labour. It goes in the maintenance of works, roads, surroundings, and a variety of things, and anybody who takes the trouble to really examine the accounts of any estate—and if anybody is curious about the subject they are perfectly welcome to examine mine if they choose—they will find that the great bulk of the money, amounting to something like 50 per cent. of the income, goes in payment of labour. In other words, the owner for the time being is not the owner of income represented by half the gross figures in the rentbooks, but is trustee for the money for those who look to it as a source of their wages for labour. My hon. Friends who moved this Clause have not done so because they believe that the adoption of the Clause means justice, but only because they believe it is a more definite step in the direction of justice than yet taken. What objection have hon. Gentlemen to the suggestion of my hon. Friends that the owners of land should be put in the same position as all other payers of Income Tax. They should pay under the rules of Schedule D. That is what all owners of, land always ask for, and for my part I have never understood why it cannot be conceded. Nobody objects to pay their fair share of the taxation of the day required to keep the estate going. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"]. That is my belief. The hon. Member opposite who interrupts may disbelieve me because he may object to pay his share.
    Mr. BOOTH: I object to paying yours.
    Mr. LONG: I believe there is no objection on the part of anybody to pay his fair share of taxation, but what people are entitled to ask is that they should be assessed upon a fair basis, and that all should be assessed upon a similar basis. This principle does not apply to landed estates, and the answer of the Government on this point has not been satisfactory. On the other hand I recognise that there has been a real concession to the owners of property. I wish the Government could see their way to make the concession they have made permanent instead of temporary. I am not at all sure but I

    1461

    think it was quite obvious that the Secretary to the Treasury could not go further than he has done. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be here to take part in this Debate because, in view of the impressions made upon him by previous Debates, I think he would have been ready to give us some indication of hope for the future. I for one should be very unwilling by my vote to appear ungrateful to the Government for what has been a real concession, although it is inadequate.
    I think my hon. Friend who moved this Clause has rendered a very real service not only to the owners of land but also to the cause of just taxation. For my part I hope my hon. Friend will be content with the discussion and not think it necessary to press his proposal to a Division, because I am afraid that a Division may prejudice the further consideration of this question, and tend to make the Government feel that any overtures which they make are not met with a spirit of good will. I believe, if we can have an opportunity of putting our case in a more complete form, the justice of it will be felt more especially amongst those who represent the labour interests in this House, and it will be realised that this is a question which affects not merely the owners of land and the occupiers of large farms, but also those who are dependent upon the income derived from land for the wages which enable them to get a living for themselves and their wives and families. It is a much bigger question than those who look upon it as a mere landlord's question seem to realise. I hope this discussion will not be the end but only the beginning or continuation of the consideration of this very important subject by the House, and that in the end we shall receive a greater measure of justice than we have been able to obtain up to the present.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: As one connected with the Association which collected the estate balance-sheets to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I should like to have heard from him what was the average amount, as shown by official figures, after deducting all unnecessary charges, expended upon the maintenance of estates throughout England and Wales. As a matter of fact I looked very carefully through the balance-sheets which have been mentioned in conjunction with the secretaries of the Land Agents' Society
    1462
    and the Surveyors' Institute, and we eliminated those in which any improper charges appeared so that the Treasury could not take exception to the inclusion of family charges and other unusual expenses which appeared upon certain balance-sheets: these we discarded and never sent to the Treasury at all. According to my figures, those balance-sheets which were duly submitted to an auditor, showed a permissible expenditure upon maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management on typical estates of varying character of considerably over 30 per cent. in England and Wales and considerably over 40 per cent. in Scotland. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that up to 25 per cent. would be allowed in respect of any expenses referred to in this Section, the Section is so framed that it is impossible to obtain anything like 25 per cent. on most estates, although this amount, and more, may have been actually expended.
    Section 69, Sub-section (3) of the principal Act has been submitted to many learned counsel, and they have given very diverse views, but the majority of them hold the view that it is impossible to aggregate farm premises and cottages in order to find out whether the expenditure upon them in the aggregate has exceeded the 25 per cent. or has approximated to that limit of deduction. The Section appears to divide an estate into three different Sections: first of all, farm premises, including farm buildings; secondly, cottages; and, finally, those parts of an estate to which the Section affords no relief at all. As regards the first two categories, because an allowance in the Act of 1894 was limited, in the case of farm premises, to one-eighth, and, in the case of cottages, to one-sixth, the form which has been promulgated under this Section insists upon putting the farm premises and cottages into different categories with the result that an owner who may expend more than 25 per cent. on his cottages and less than 25 per cent. on his farm premises is wholly unable to get the full benefit of the 25 per cent. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured him he would get on the estate as a whole. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman so to alter Sub-section (3) as to enable the full benefit of that 25 per cent. being obtained in every case where it has actually been expended for the purposes of maintenance, management, insurance, and repairs, whether in respect of cottages or in respect of farm premises. It is a very

    1463
    reasonable request, and only in accordance with the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Question. "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman might give us another quarter of an hour, in order to discuss the next Amendment which is regarded with great interest by many hon. Members.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not anticipate any difficulty in dealing with that tomorrow. There are hon. Members on the other side of the House who desire to raise a question of general interest and it is really to meet their convenience that I have moved the adjournment of the Debate at this hour.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am quite satisfied.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I rise to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary, on behalf of the Government, to place any new clauses on the Paper which would take precedence of those of which notice has been given. It would be manifestly unfair to hon. Members if their opportunities of the discussion are curtailed in that way.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think any new clauses are to be put down. There are one or two new Amendments, but I understand that these will be taken as the different clauses to which they are attached are reached.
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I take it that they are new Amendments to old clauses in the original Bill and not Amendments to new clauses.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is one Amendment to a new clause and it is rather a curious case. It has arisen with regard to what was originally Clause 6 and has reference to gamekeepers. I had to leave out a new clause we put in in order to meet a technical difficulty that has been pointed out. But I do not think it will take more than five minutes.
    Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

  MILITARY OFFICERS' SASHES.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
  Mr. MALCOLM: I wish to raise a question of some emergency affecting commissioned officers in the regular Army and in the Territorial Force. It may be in the recollection of the House that some ten days ago—I believe it was on the 20th March—an Army order was issued which was a command that commissioned officers in the Infantry—both the Regular Army and the Territorials—should buy for themselves a crimson and gold sash to be worn on review occasions. The cost of this sash, as I have discovered from various tailors' bills sent to me ranges from £5 to £7. I have accounts in which the items are £5 15s., £6, and £6 10s. I do not want to comment on the order itself, but I desire to point out that that involves great expense to subalterns and others whom the Secretary of State, not very long ago, described as being very inadequately paid, I wish to appeal to the Government on the point of cost. I am afraid if I deferred doing so till a later day it is quite possible that many of these sashes, however unwillingly, will have been bought and possibly paid for. Suppose the expense of these sashes should fall on the nation it would require about a quarter of a million sterling for the Regular Army alone, and to extend the supply to the Territorial officers would mean another £30,000 at least, or close upon £300,000 in all. I am perfectly certain that no Government, however strong, would dare in the estimates to place that burden on the taxpayers. Why should they not treat individual officers with the same consideration, and relieve them of what is really an extravagant charge I Surely the money could be very much better spent than on articles of useless personal adornment.
  It is the third piece of personal adornment of the kind which has been put upon commissioned officers of the Army within the last ten years, and I think the time has come when everything goes to show that this kind of adornment is going out of fashion both in the Cavalry and in the Infantry, and this is one of the few surviving misfortunes upon which the British soldier has to spend his money. I want, therefore, to ask in no spirit of party, because friends of mine on all sides of the House have received information the same as I have done, whether the Govern-

  1465
  ment cannot see their way to relieve these officers of a charge which I do not think should be put upon them.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I wish to join my hon. Friends in making this appeal. I have been in command of a battalion, and one of the chief difficulties is the everlasting changes of uniform. I have served in the Militia and the Special Reserve, and during that time I have had to buy no less than four different sashes of different patterns. Not one of them was ever worn out. I had to buy a new one last year and I do protest against this needless expenditure. I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway think this is a laughing matter, but I can assure them that it is very difficult to get officers to serve in the Territorial Force and Special Reserve, and this expenditure to them is a very serious matter. I do appeal to the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite to give an assurance that this matter will be dealt with. We are ready to stand any reasonable expense, but we do protest against this unreasonable expenditure which prevents us from getting officers.
  Major GUEST: I should like to identify myself with the request which has been make in regard to the officers' expenditure. It is a very difficult problem to solve to get a good supply of officers, and anything which is done to increase the expenditure which officers have to bear adds to the difficulty of the problem which the Government have to solve, I ask His Majesty's Government therefore to reconsider this matter.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I want to identify myself with the Members of this House who have spoken already on this point. The other day right hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed their sympathy, and the Secretary of State for War suggested that the expenditure should be cut down, and said he would do what he could to do so. The very first thing that happens is that officers are ordered to have new sashes. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Croydon that officers do not care to be too well dressed, but what they want is that they should have one decent uniform and stick to it, as these perpetual changes cost a great deal. £6 is three weeks' pay of a second lieutenant, and if within a short time a second sash is ordered he is charged six weeks' pay in order to follow the fashion. If we are going to bring fashions into the Army you
  1466
  never know where you are going to stop. Perhaps you will have the harem skirt for Highland regiments. It will not be enough to say that it shall be optional for officers in the Army, because what will happen will be that some of the senior officers will not get it and the junior officers will have to get it. The adjutant will probably wish them all to be the same, and will say to the last joined subaltern, "Of course, it is optional, but you are different from all the rest." It must be absolutely decided that the new sash is not required and the present one is sufficiently good.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I wish to associate myself with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the matter. I am against this sash on a point of principle. I do not think any soldier ought to be asked to pay for any part of his kit. This is a ceremonial sash. All these contraptions should be cut out absolutely. To ask the subalterns to pay £5 or £6 for a sash is asking too much, and I trust the right hon Gentleman who represents the War Office will agree to the appeal that has been made.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: I entirely agree with everything that has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm). These changes are not unusual. When the Army is at a low ebb they generally invent a new button. On this occasion it is a sash. I think after what has passed lately in regard to the expenses especially of young officers in comparison with their pay, anything of this description is unnecessary, vexatious, and expensive.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: I should like to associate myself with other hon. Members who have spoken on the subject. A short time ago it was proposed to introduce a new shako into the Army. It was given up simply because of the expense which would fall on the ratepayers. The cost of the shako would have been about £300,000, which is the sum this sash costs officers in the Army.
  12.0 M.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for WAR (Colonel Seely): I need hardly say the responsible authorities are entirely in accord with what has fallen from hon. Members on all sides of the House, as to the undesirability of constant changes of uniform and of any kind of extravagant improvement. They associate themselves entirely with the view that severe simplicity in dress should be maintained if possible. With regard to

  1467
  this sash it was thought that the officers of the Army as a whole would welcome its introduction. I know nothing of it at first hand, but I had an opportunity of seeing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War this afternoon. [An HON. MEMBER: "In a sash."] No, not in a sash. He said at once that if it was the sense of the House of Commons that this was an unreasonable change to force upon officers of the Army, and if it were found that, though it was thought originally they would welcome the introduction of the new sash as a useful article instead of something only for ceremonial purposes, it was the sense of the House that this extra cost should not be put upon officers, he would, in deference to the wish of the House, reconsider the decision which has been come to. I stated in reply to a question to-day that no officer would be compelled to adopt this sash. I appreciate the point which was made by the Noble Lord the Member for the Western Division of Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) that if this is allowed to remain optional it would in point of fact become compulsory. Of course that is a point that may fairly be made, but the Secretary of State is prepared to consider the whole matter. In the meantime I can assure the House that there will be no compulsion on any officer to buy this sash. I trust that what I have said will satisfy the House.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I cannot say that my friends and that I as an old soldier are satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I fancy I know a great deal more about sashes than he does. May I remind the House what the origin of the sash was? It was originally a net worn across the shoulders of officers in which wounded men were carried to the field hospital. That was a very honourable origin. Nowadays it is a gold band worn round the waist, or it is not worn at all if the unfortunate officer cannot afford it. Well, I say that is wrong. We have heard a great deal during the past month about the pay of the officers. I say that to ask him to pay for this crimson or scarlet and gold sash is to put an unfair burden upon him. When I joined the Army I had to buy a sash which was worn on ceremonial occasions only. I still have that sash. I wore it in the year 1875, and it is as good now as it was at first. That is because it was only worn on ceremonial occasions. If you are going to
  1468
  use the sash for ordinary wear, which I understand is to be the case in future, the result will be that the first day the officer is out in a storm the sash will be made worthless. Everyone who has worn a red coat knows that the sash would become stained with the colour from the coat. You would not only penalise the officer by making him pay for a costly article, but for an article which when he was exposed to rain would be destroyed. What I object to is the idea that this sash is going to be optional. We had a very good Debate about giving the private soldier a chance to get the rank of officer. What is going to handicap him? First of all the crimson and gold sash. He cannot afford to buy it and when he has bought it it will ruin his clothes. Speaking as an old soldier who was in the Army for many years, and was adjutant for between five and six years, a more unreasonable thing than to insist upon having as part of the uniform things that one officer can afford and that another cannot afford, and that owing to a very proper pride they were compelled, at a personal sacrifice, to wear, no Secretary for War ever thought of.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend opposite says. If you make a sash optional you make it compulsory. If the War Office had to bear the expenses of these constant changes we should very soon hear the last of this intolerable infliction on officers. Since I joined the Army I have known of changes in badges, sashes, the way you wear your sash—over your shoulder or round your middle—in caps, and everything else, and when my right hon. Friend joined the Army our corps was better dressed than at the present time. I really think that it is time to insist that these vexatious and expensive changes should cease. If the War Office are going to make this sash optional, which is, in other words, compulsory, they ought to bear the cost.
  Mr. CARLILE: It is commonly believed that the War Office are at present considering the advisability of making us get a new head-dress. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that this is not so it will reassure a great many people, as this change would be a still more serious source of expense than that which has been already referred to.
  Colonel SEELY: There is no possibility of any change of the head-dress of the Army for some time to come.
  Mr. CARLILE: In all branches?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: In view of the announcement on behalf of the War Office that these sashes will not be compulsory what will happen to those officers who since the order was promulgated on the 9th of March have provided themselves with these sashes? The right hon. Gentleman knows, I suppose, that the total pay of a subaltern comes to about £90 a year, and there is the cost to his parents of about £2,000. Out of the £90 a year the subaltern has to provide himself with a uniform, and I understand that an order of the 9th March made it necessary for him to spend £7 on a sash. Now that attention has been directed to it the unanimous feeling of the House is against such an innovation. If it is said by the House of Commons that such an innovation should not be sanctioned, surely some consideration is due to the tradesmen who have laid in a stock of sashes of this kind. A stronger point is that many have already provided themselves with sashes under this order, and if, as a result of this discussion, the order should be revoked, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that those who had already done so should not be allowed to suffer pecuniary loss. To permit the sash to be worn optionally would be absolutely useless, for no young man of spirit, if this accoutrement is thought to be necessary, would care to be without it. I hope that it is not the intention of the Government to leave optional the wearing of the sash, and that it will discharge the elementary obligation of justice by reimbursing those who have already provided themselves with sashes through an error which was not theirs but that of the War Office.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I think the House has expressed a very fair opinion on this matter. I do not think it will be necessary to continue the discussion very much longer. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has with great shrewdness and accuracy pointed out the difficulties of the matter. I think my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War has very fairly met the House, having said that the whole subject is to be reconsidered in view of the opinion which has been expressed by the House of Commons. Under the circumstances I hope the House will rest satisfied with the discussion which has taken place.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: We want a promise. Consideration is of no good at all. The Government have done wrong, and we want a promise that they are going to put things right. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.

  Civil Service Certificates.
  Civil Service Certificates.
  Accountant-General (Navy).
  Accountant-General (Navy).
  Invalidity Insurance.
  Invalidity Insurance.
  Finance Act, 1910.
  Finance Act, 1910.
  Drainage in Ireland.
  Drainage in Ireland.
  Cork Assises Cases.
  Cork Assises Cases.
  Warrants for Arrest.
  Warrants for Arrest.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants.
  Evicted Tenants.
  Deductions from Grants.
  Deductions from Grants.
  Irish Teachers' Fees.
  Irish Teachers' Fees.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Pension Claim (Adare).
  Pension Claim (Adare).
  Labourers' Cottages (Fermoy).
  Labourers' Cottages (Fermoy).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant (Kildorrery, County Cork).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant (Kildorrery, County Cork).
  Fishermen's Cottages (Ireland).
  Fishermen's Cottages (Ireland).
  Unemployed (Dublin).
  Unemployed (Dublin).
  Ventry Estate (County Kerry).
  Ventry Estate (County Kerry).
  Irish Bills Blocked.
  Irish Bills Blocked.
  Declaration of London.
  Declaration of London.
  Military Officers' Sashes.
  Military Officers' Sashes.
  Military Medical Books.
  Military Medical Books.
  Greenock Torpedo Factory.
  Greenock Torpedo Factory.
  7th Hussars.
  7th Hussars.
  Military Inspections.
  Military Inspections.
  Coronation (Special Reserve).
  Coronation (Special Reserve).
  Quartermasters (Territorial).
  Quartermasters (Territorial).
  Silver Coinage (India).
  Silver Coinage (India).
  Triple Alliance.
  Triple Alliance.
  Silver Production.
  Silver Production.
  Wheat Prices.
  Wheat Prices.
  Letter Carrier Armstrong (Enniskillen).
  Letter Carrier Armstrong (Enniskillen).
  Medical Service (Scottish Collieries).
  Medical Service (Scottish Collieries).
  Congested Districts (Scotland).
  Congested Districts (Scotland).
  Distress Committee (Aberdeen).
  Distress Committee (Aberdeen).

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—
Consolidated Fund (No. 1).
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation.
Ayrshire (Loch Bradan) Water Distribution Order Confirmation.
Irvine Burgh Order Confirmation.
Military Lands Provisional Order Confirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CHESHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order for the Second Reading on Wednesday next, discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the series of Resolutions which stand in my name are Resolutions which are usually moved about this period of the year. The time under ordinary circumstances after which a Private Bill is not to be read a second time is generally fixed towards the latter days of June, but I have thought it expedient to extend the time a little this year for circumstances which will be in the minds of everybody. Therefore I have suggested the 4th day of July. With that exception the Motion is entirely in accordance with what has been done for many years past. I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 4th day of July next:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 9th day of May next:
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:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 9th day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 11th day of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 11th day of May next.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to:
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 42.)

REFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to order).
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed that the argument in support of the Bill now before your Lordships which has had most influence not only amongst your Lordships but also amongst the people of this country is the argument that, because the Referendum has been a success in other parts of the world, therefore it is likely to be a success in this country. That was the line of argument adopted by Lord Tennyson, who was at one time Governor of Australia, and who, on the First Reading, spoke with some personal knowledge of the subject. It was also, as a matter of personal experience, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who whilst in South Africa had seen something of its action there; and it was also, I think, one of the main points urged on the First Reading by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. The noble Lord made so much point of it that I shall venture to remind your Lordships of the form in which he pressed that argument. He said—
"This system is in operation in Switzerland and in some of the American States and in some of our Dominions across the sea. I do not press these analogies too far. I am quite aware that there are differences not only in the Constitutional form of the Governments of those countries as compared with our own, but in their customs and circumstances; but I am entitled to make this point, that wherever it has been tried it has been successful and that no one in any country in which it is now part of the Constitution proposes to abandon it."
In the course of the remarks which I shall address to your Lordships this evening I am anxious, by reference to the various occasions upon which the Referendum has been used, not only in our Dominions but also in other parts of the world, to show that there is no instance to which the noble Lord can point of the use of the Referendum which can fairly be quoted as an argument in support of this Bill.
With regard to Switzerland, it is, happily, unnecessary for me to say very much to your Lordships. That matter was very fully, and, it seemed to me, admirably dealt with by Lord Willoughby de Broke last night at an hour when the Benches of the House were less fully occupied than they are at the present moment.
712
I was sorry, because although the noble Lord concluded by saying that he was in favour of the Referendum, his arguments one and all seemed to point to the fact that it would not be wise to adopt this Swiss system because our system in this country was so very different. I would point out to your Lordships the very important fact that although the Referendum exists in Switzerland the people of that country make very small use of it indeed, though there are three categories into which Referenda can be divided—subjects which must be referred, subjects which may be referred, and subjects which come to the Referendum under popular initiative. It will interest Lord Courtney to know that in Switzerland the system of proportional representation was refused under the Referendum, and the noble Lord who spoke last yesterday evening made very fair reference to the fact that so few people vote in the Referendum in Switzerland that in some of the Cantons it has been found necessary to inflict a fine upon those who do not record their vote.
There is one point to which I hope some of those noble Lords on the Government Benches who are in favour of the Referendum may direct their attention. We are told that it is a democratic system, and that therefore His Majesty's Government should be heartily in support of it. But I ask whether experience has proved that it is a progressive measure as well as a pseudo-democratic measure. A good many subjects referred in this way to the people of the country are not subjects upon which it is very easy for them to take a wholly scientific view. I have in mind such a question as vaccination. It is not difficult for a scientist to persuade an assembly of representative men such as the House of Commons of the value of vaccination, but when vaccination was referred to the people of Switzerland it was rejected in 1882 by a vast majority, and it seems to me that there does lie in that direction some danger lest in matters of this kind, which require a certain amount of technical training, reference to the people of this country will find them less prepared to adopt a new idea than the House of Commons. In Switzerland there is no Party system. The members elected to their Assembly are not as our members, of one Party or another. They are rather in the position of elected administrators—Civil servants rather than representatives

713
and the Bill which is referred to the people is an agreed Bill; no Budget is subject to the Referendum at all.
Then as to the United States of America. The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal spoke for some time upon that subject on the occasion of the First Reading, and it is not necessary for me to say much now, except to point out to the noble Lord that if lie is anxious to use the United States of America as an analogy it would be fairer to ask us to adopt something more like their system than the system which he proposes in this Bill. There is no general system of Referendum in the United States. It is used only in the States, and not throughout the whole of the Federation. Therefore it would be a fairer analogy in this country to ask Wales to vote upon such a question as the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, Ireland to vote on Home Rule, and Scotland on their Land Bill. It is only by such a system that you really get an analogy.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the noble Earl suggest that Home Rule interests only Ireland?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not suggest that. At the same time if the noble Lord is going to use America as an argument, I do not think it is unfair to point out that the Referendum in the United States is kept within a smaller area and is not used throughout the whole Federation. Your Lordships have heard the figures relating to Switzerland. I will give some interesting figures later dealing with Australia. But it is important first that we should know how large a number of people in this country vote at a General Election. At the election in January,1910, 90 per cent. of the electors on the roll voted, and it is more democratic to get 90 per cent. of the people to record their opinion at the General Election than under a system of Referendum to get less than 50 per cent.; and the municipal polls in this country show that it is very difficult indeed to get the electors, although their pockets are directly affected, to take sufficient interest in these matters to go to the polls. I always thought that the old school board system, with election ad hoc, was an admirable system, and calculated to interest people in the educational system of this country, but it also did seem to me that
714
the strongest argument against the election of a school board ad hoc was the fact that the ratepayers did not come in very large numbers to such an election. Indeed there seemed to be a tendency to tire the voters by giving them too many things to vote about, and it was not altogether unwise to alter the system. The figures with regard to the five cases which I have been able to get from the Local Government Board of polls taken under the Borough Funds Act; are instructive. In the case of Bicester 18·5 per cent. of the voters recorded their votes; in the case of Paddington, 16·5 per cent.; in the case of Exmouth, 68 per cent.; in the case of Little Hulton, 50·2 per cent.; and in the case of Llanelly, 24·2 per cent. Those polls did not refer to any matter of great importance except to those people who were asked to vote, and yet under these circumstances they were not found very ready to go to the poll.
Let us turn to the Dominions beyond the seas and see what assistance can be found to help us in discussing the merits and the demerits of this Bill. The Referendum has been used on the whole very little in our Dominions for any purpose whatever. I shall venture; for the sake of clearness, to classify the instances of its use and put them into three classes. I will deal first with the cases of great Constitutional changes—namely, the formation of the Federation of Australia and the Union of South Africa. I may remind your Lordships, in passing, that in the case of the formation of the Federation of Canada there was no Referendum at all; in only one instance was a General Election held, and the assent of the Parliaments was considered sufficient authority for the formation of the Union of the Provinces and the abandonment by the Provinces of their autonomy.
In the case of Australia, on the other hand, the greatest care was taken to secure the fullest consultation of the people. It was agreed at a Conference of Premiers held in January, 1895, that a Federal Constitution should be framed by a Convention which was to be popularly elected, and that when that Convention bad conic to a decision Bills should be submitted to the Parliaments of each of the Colonies to give effect to those Resolutions. Bills were so submitted and were passed, but the proportion of people who voted was

715
very small indeed. The percentages of the electors voting in the several Colonies when this great question of the Federation of Australia was brought up were: Victoria, 43·5 per cent.; New South. Wales, 51·25 per cent.; South Australia, 30·9 per cent.; Tasmania, 25 per cent. Then the terms of the Constitution were drawn up and referred to the people of Australia, and we find that even then a very small proportion of the people voted. I venture to say that it is very remarkable indeed that on a matter of such great importance as the Federation of the various Colonies you should find such a small percentage as this being content to go to the poll—namely: in New South Wales, 49·88 per cent.; in Victoria, 48·94 per cent.; in Tasmania, 46·5 per cent.; and in South Australia, 39·44 per cent. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the rather remarkable history of the Federation of Australia will remember that there was a further Conference of the Premiers because New South Wales had not reached the requisite 80,000 votes, and after that Conference, the Bill having been altered, the matter was once more referred to the people of Australia, and on that occasion there was the highest percentage of votes that has ever been cast on a similar occasion—namely: New South Wales, 63·4 per cent.; Victoria, 56·3 per cent.; South Australia, 54·4 per cent.; Tasmania, 36·5 per cent.; Queensland, 64·8 per cent.; and Western Australia, 67·1 per cent. I venture to say that in all these cases of the use of the Referendum the proportion of voters compares very badly indeed with the number of people who go to the poll at a General Election in this country.
In the case of the Union of South Africa we find that the older precedent of Canada was followed except in the case of Natal, to which the noble Earl who was lately High Commissioner referred on the occasion of the First Reading of this Bill. But even there we find that the percentage of people who voted in Natal was only 58·2, although there was a great deal of excitement in the Colony and people were urged to record their vote. It is not too much, I think, to deduce from these figures the conclusion that people dislike coming in large numbers to a Referendum, and that certainly unless there is the excitement which attaches to a vivid personality people are less likely to vote than at a
716
General Election. So much for the first case, which has reference to the formation of great Constitutions.
The second category consists of alterations of Constitutions. The ordinary Dominion has full power to alter its Constitution, subject in certain cases to some formalities. This principle, however, obviously cannot be applied to cases of a Federation proper. A Federation is, generally speaking, a quasi Treaty between the various States who enter into the Federation, and any alteration of the Constitution demands a good deal of ceremony and must be carefully guarded with restrictions. In the case of Canada, so strongly is this recognised that the Constitution as a whole, and in particular the distribution of powers between the Provinces and the Dominion, cannot be altered except by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. They have no Referendum but are content with the one possibility of an alteration being made by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia the makers of the Constitution are anxious themselves to be able to alter the Constitution, and they provide that in any case of an alteration of the Constitution there should be a Referendum to the people. But it is important to notice that they do not in Australia, generally speaking, apply the Referendum as the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill desires to apply it. They do not apply it in cases of deadlock between the two Houses, except in connection with a Constitutional Amendment; that makes a very great difference between the system as proposed in this Bill and the experience which we can gather from Australia. The Dominions beyond the seas do not use it for the purposes for which the noble Lord makes use of it in his Bill. In any case of a Constitutional Amendment, whether approved of or not by both Houses of Parliament, it has to be referred to the people as a whole.
Let me give the instances that have occurred of a Referendum taken under such circumstances. There have been two or three. The first occasion was in 1906, when a Referendum was taken contemporaneously with a General Election to the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth. The question which was submitted was an extraordinarily trivial one. Up till then a Senator's period of

717
office had always begun on January 1 or July 1—I have forgotten which—but it was thought more convenient that the period of office should open on the other date, and the whole process of a Referendum was necessary in order to secure that trifling alteration in the law. There was a large majority in favour of the change. The figures were for the whole Commonwealth: For, 774,011; against, 162,470; but no fewer than 112,155 ballot papers—more than 9 per cent.—were spoiled. Then in April of last year, contemporaneously with the General Election, two Referenda were taken on important questions. The first was to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Commonwealth to take over all the debts of the Constitution as existing at the time when they were taken over and not merely the debts as they existed at the time of the passing of the Constitution. On that occasion the percentage of voters was 57, although the Referendum took place at the same time as a General Election; and your Lordships will, of course, understand that you are far more likely to get people to vote at the same time as a General Election than if there is not that excitement going on at the same time.
The other proposal was a readjustment of the Commonwealth and the State finances. The total vote in favour of the law was 645,514; against, 670,838; and 82,437 papers were informal. The percentage of voters to the total number of electors enrolled was fifty-eight. It was not carried as a Constitutional Amendment, but in spite of that it became law within the next session of Parliament; and I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that in these circumstances it may be necessary for him, if this Bill is allowed to proceed farther, to insert some provision which may prevent a measure which has been voted against by the people becoming law within a certain limited period of time. I am sure Lord Northcote, who has been Governor of Australia, appreciates the point that though it was rejected by the people of Australia as an Amendment to the Constitution it was passed as a general law and it was passed, I think, by a Labour Ministry. But in spite of that it does seem to me a very remarkable result of the Referendum that a proposal rejected at the Referendum shall become law within a year or within a very short time after-
718
wards. It is interesting, too, in this way, that it shows a certain unwillingness on the part of the Labour Party, with whom democratic measures are popular, to accept as desirable the making permanent and changeable only by the Referendum of any financial provisions; and their attitude is the more noteworthy because with the Labour Party the Referendum is a very prominent plank in their platform. I may add that in April of this year two very important Bills will be submitted to the Referendum by the Commonwealth Government quite apart from a General Election, and I am sure it will be interesting to all of us to notice what proportion of the people can be persuaded to go to the poll apart from the excitement of a General Election.
Now I come to the third category—definite cases when Parliament has referred questions to the people. Those are generally cases in which Parliament has preferred not to express an opinion of its own, but has definitely asked the people to decide the question for them. The first reference of this kind to Referendum was in South Australia in the year 1896. At that time the system of education was secular, and. those who were in favour of religious education thought that the introduction of female suffrage was a favourable opportunity to bring their proposals once more before the people of South Australia, and therefore the electors were asked three questions. They were asked, first, whether they desired the continuance of the existing system. In favour of continuing the existing system 51,744 voted, and 17,755 against. Secondly, they were asked whether they desired the introduction of undenominational scriptural instruction in school hours; 18,889 voted for, and 34,922 against. Finally, they were asked whether they were prepared to approve of State capitation grants to denominational schools for secular results; 13,420 voted for, and 41,975 against.. Those figures are a very interesting study. It is difficult without a good deal of knowledge of the local circumstances to draw any very definite conclusions from them except this, that a great deal must depend upon the shape in which questions are put to the people, and their answers must very largely depend upon the form in which the questions are put.
Let me turn to a somewhat similar instance of a reference to the people of

719
Canada. There had been in various States a movement in favour of the prohibition of liquor. It was found, however, that although the results were in favour of prohibition, a general law affecting the whole of Canada was the only way in which they could carry out their proposals. Accordingly a Referendum of the whole of Canada was taken under the Act of 1898, and the result was a majority of some 14,000 for prohibition out of a total vote of 543,049. No more than 23 per cent. of the electorate were in favour of a prohibitory law, and therefore, although you had a majority upon Referendum in favour of action of this kind, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated in the Canadian House of Commons on March 21, 1899, that in his opinion the voice of the electorate as expressed was not such as to warrant the Government in introducing a prohibitory measure, and he indicated that unless at least one-half of the electorate recorded their votes in favour of the policy it would not be possible to expect Parliament to pass a prohibitory measure; and since that time nothing has been done.
Then there is the case which was referred to by Lord Tennyson on the First Reading of this Bill—the case of Queensland, where again there was a reference on the question of religious instruction in the schools. This action is interesting. At the Referendum the people voted in favour of religious instruction being given in the schools, and you had this curious result, that in the next session of Parliament the Premier for the time being introduced a measure to that effect, but said that he was hostile to it, and he and other Members of Parliament who voted in favour of the Bill said that although they voted for it they were entirely opposed to the principle, but that they supported it because it had been carried by a Referendum. I do not think it would be in accord with the traditions of our public life that members of the Government here in this country should introduce into either House of Parliament and carry a measure of which they declared themselves to be opponents. I do not deny that there seems to be a growing use of the Referendum in certain of our Dominions. There will be before very long, also at the same moment as a General Election, a Referendum taken in the Dominion of New Zealand upon the question of total prohibition. That, I think, takes place in the course of next
720
month, and if three-fifths are in favour of total prohibition the measure will forthwith be passed through both Houses of Parliament.
I now turn to a perhaps more important question—the use of the Referendum in cases of deadlock. As your Lordships may have perceived, no instances have yet occurred in which the difference of opinion between the two Houses has been settled by the Referendum. Provisions for settling such differences in this way form no part of the ordinary Colonial Constitution. South Africa definitely rejected it; Canada has no provision of the kind; and in Australia, though the Referendum may be used in eases of Constitutional Amendment, it is not used in cases of ordinary deadlock. There is that exception, the Constitutional alteration of the Commonwealth, and also the one isolated instance of deadlock which might take place in Queensland. The provision which has been made by these wise Statesmen, with the experience of the world before them, has been that in ordinary cases of deadlock there should be joint sittings of both Houses rather than a Referendum to the people; and I would spend, with your Lordships' permission, some little time in dealing with this special case of Queensland, because in it is also involved a question of, I hope, merely academic interest—the swamping of the Upper House of Legislature. In 1907 the Governor of Queensland, Lord Chelmsford, refused to add members to the Upper House at the request of Mr. Kidston, who was then Prime Minister, and who was anxious to secure enough supporters in the Upper House to pass two particular Bills. The Governor refused him the creation of these members, and he forthwith resigned. Mr. Philp took office on the resignation of Mr. Kidston, but he was refused a Vote of Supply by the House of Assembly, and, finding himself unable to carry on the Government, the Governor granted him a Dissolution.
But at the Dissolution he was decisively defeated, and the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Kidston, was returned to power. Mr. Kidston, however, was not satisfied with his position, which rested upon coalition, and he therefore proceeded to form a partnership with his former opponent, Mr. Philp. This he did after securing the passage of a couple of Bills, including the

721
Bill for the Removal of Deadlocks. This Act for the removal of deadlocks has not yet been put into force. Whether it ever will be is, of course, doubtful; but I think you will admit that the existence of that Act very materially alters the position of the Upper House in Queensland. Before the passing of that Act it would have been Constitutional and not unusual for the Governor to swamp the Upper House if thought desirable at any time. The thing had been done more than once in New South Wales. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington did not have the question put to him when he was Governor there; the principle was conceded in 1892 in the case of New Zealand, and it is interesting to note that Dominion Day in New Zealand is fixed on the anniversary of the day on which the Despatch was sent from the Colonial Office in this country approving of the creation of additional members to the Upper House in that Dominion. I think we may say that this review of what has happened shows that there is nowhere in any of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas an instance in which we can find that the Referendum is in favour as a method of settling matters of dispute between the two Houses.
The Bill now before the House goes a great deal further even than settling Parliamentary deadlocks between the two Houses. There is, as I have said, in the Commonwealth and in Queensland provision for a Referendum in eases of Bills being rejected by the Upper House, but these provisions differ considerably from those in the noble Lord's Bill. In the case of this Bill there is a provision for an artificial majority, which requires that the total affirmative vote in the United Kingdom must exceed the total negative vote by not less than 2 per cent. of the latter vote before a Bill can be presented for the Royal Assent. I would point out to the noble Lord that in all these cases a simple majority suffices. The figures which I have given to your Lordships show that it is rarely that more than 50 per cent. of the electors take part in a Referendum. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to accept a vote carried, so to speak, by a majority of a minority. It is not an inconceivable thing. It is, so far as any experience in the Colonies tells us, not unlikely to happen in this country that so few will go to the poll—less than 50 per
722
cent.—that through the people not taking. the trouble to vote a measure may be carried by the majority of a minority.
There is another part of this Bill which is completely without parallel anywhere in the Dominions, and that is the provision proposed to be made by Clause 2 for the reference to the people of Bills which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament but against which a petition is presented to the Crown signed by not fewer than 200 members of the House of Commons praying that the Bill may be submitted to a poll of the Parliamentary electors. If we may judge at all from the example of what has happened in the Dominions, a minority of the people of this country might thus over-ride a majority in the House of Commons who had been elected with the full concurrence and the full approval of this country. Therefore we come to this conclusion. In Canada opinion seems on all sides completely opposed to measures like the Referendum; it has never been seriously proposed as a solution for deadlocks between the two Houses. South Africa deliberately rejected it as part of her new Constitution. In Australia the Referendum appears quite unable to secure adequate voting on the part of those to whom it is submitted, and the number of spoiled papers has been extremely large in the Australian cases. Thus, even in the case of the Referenda for the establishment of the Commonwealth Government, when the utmost efforts were made to arouse the interest of the electors, the vote was only about 50 per cent. of the possible voters—considerably less than the average vote at ordinary Elections. There are no figures available as to the cost of the Referendum apart from a General Election, but in view of the Referenda which are to take place in Australia next month a sum of £40,000 has been set aside. We cannot tell if that will be a sufficient sum or not, but it would not be an extravagant thing, considering the proportions of population, to multiply that and say that a Referendum on those lines in this country would cost something like £200,000. Therefore I venture to say that so far, at any rate, there is no experience in any of our Dominions to show that the Referendum is of use in any cases of deadlock.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition last night provided us with

723
,one of those surprises to which we are becoming accustomed on this side of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has been making speeches about the country in favour of the reform schemes of himself and his friends. They include the Referendum. I am afraid that the noble Earl was insufficiently reported, because it was very difficult from the London Press to find the full effect of his various declarations. But I certainly gather from the speeches which he made in Glasgow and in Edinburgh that he and the Opposition propose in their new scheme to make a very large use of the Referendum in their great. scheme of reform. Last night, however, we learned from the noble Marquess that that would probably not be the case. He seemed to minimise as far as possible the opportunities for the Referendum, and I thought that he answered a speech which was made later in the evening by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who taunted His Majesty's Government with their unwillingness to trust the people. They on their side, he thought, were ready and anxious to trust the people, but it was His Majesty's Government who shrank from that ordeal. We find that, after all, noble Lords opposite do not wish to refer matters to the people of this country or to trust the people at very frequent intervals, but that it is to be used sparingly and on rare occasions.
There is one matter which has been the subject of very real regret to most noble Lords on this side of the House in the course of the debates which have taken place on this question, and it is that it seems almost impossible for any noble Lord opposite speaking on the Referendum not to make at the same time an attack on the other House of Parliament. They frequently express their desire not to make an attack on the other House, but almost invariably they are betrayed into doing it before the end of their speech. That was so with the noble Marquess last night, who spoke of correcting the glaring and palpable defects of the other House. So also with the noble Lord who is the author of this Bill. And there is another point which I should like to put to noble Lords opposite, as to whether this Bill will not diminish the powers of your Lordships' House in respect to the compromise and the powers of revision and of amendment which we are anxious that your Lordships' House should possess. What is going to be referred to the people is not the Bill when
724
your Lordships have amended it or altered it; it is going to be the Bill as it left the House of Commons. Let us apply that to the Education Bill of 1906. Your Lordships spent a long time in altering that Bill. No doubt noble Lords opposite thought that it was much improved when it reached the end of Committee stage in this House; but the Bill which, under the noble Lord's proposal, would be submitted to the country would not be the Bill as amended by your Lordships, but the Bill as it left the House of Commons, and therefore the only alternative which would be before the people would be to accept the Bill as it left the House of Commons or to reject it altogether, without allowing them to take advantage of the Amendments which had been inserted in this House.
There is one aspect of this question which we welcome cordially from this side, and it is the extent to which the Referendum Bill admits the grievances of which we have complained for some years past. We are very glad, in the first place, that our grievances should be admitted; that the noble Lord should be ready, as I do not think he would have been ready eighteen months ago, to admit that the grievances exist. That is one step in advance. Then there is the matter to which Lord Willoughby de Broke referred last night with regret—the fact that plural voting is in theory now thrown over by noble Lords opposite, at any rate by the noble Lord who is responsible for this Bill. And, finally, there is another aspect which I do not think has been much touched upon. It is this, that the real chasm which divides noble Lords opposite from us on this great question is whether the will of the people should prevail within the limits of a single Parliament, or whether your Lordships shall always have the right to refer a matter to a General Election. That has been a claim which I think Constitutional theorists on the other side of the House have always made for noble Lords—that they should be able to refer a matter to a General Election for decision by the people. In that matter the noble Lord goes some way because under the Referendum a second General Election would not be necessary. He goes so far as to say that if there is returned to power a Government with the authority of the people of this country behind it, all the turmoil and the expense

725
and. the disturbance of a General Election is not necessary although your Lordships may not approve of the principle of an important Bill. There would be a power given to the Government to secure the passage into law of a Bill which had the approval of the House of Commons within the limits of a single Parliament, although your Lordships did not approve of the measure. That seems to me again to mark a very distinct advance towards the position of His Majesty's Government.
There is before us now as a House and as a Government the offer which your Lordships make of Reform and the Referendum. On the other hand, there is the Parliament Bill which has been discussed in two Parliaments, which in the shape of the Parliament Bill received a First Reading and. a good deal of discussion in the course of the last Parliament in another place, and which made a fleeting appearance upon the Table of your Lordships' House at the end of last session. What we say is that at the last two elections the policy of His Majesty's Government was fully before the people of this country. It was particularly before them at the last General Election. So also was your policy of the Referendum plus Reform, or, as I suppose we ought to call it, of Reform plus the Referendum. His Majesty's Government are now bound in honour to themselves and to the country to push forward their proposals and their Parliament Bill, rather than accept your solution which was refused by the people at the last election.
And there is this further, and perhaps less controversial, point. What we have to consider is whether the Referendum is a proper development of our Constitution, or whether it is being put on to it as an excrescence from outside having no organic connection with our Constitution naturally. Our opinion, your Lordships will have gathered, is that it is inconsistent with representative government in this country. We have always learned that the invention of representative government was one of the most valuable contributions to modern thought made by the Anglo-Saxon race. We are afraid that by substituting for representative government this device of the Referendum you add on a merely mechanical institution to the government of this country. We do not deny that the matter would be easy to do; but what we say is
726
that it would be wholly different from, and contrary to, the tendency of the Constitution of this country at the present time. In our opinion it would violate the traditions and cut at the very root of the theories which govern the Constitution of this country, and therefore His Majesty's Government will oppose this Bill as far as they possibly can.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, there seems to me some apparent contradiction between the line of argument adopted by the noble Viscount yesterday and that adopted in the speech to which we have just listened. If I understood the noble Viscount rightly, he contended yesterday that what had occurred in other countries in connection with the Referendum was of little or no importance. On the other hand, the greater portion of the noble Earl's speech to-day has been directed to showing what had and what had not happened in those countries. I gather that the noble Earl adopted this line of argument under the impression, which I think is erroneous, that our main case rests upon the experience gained in countries where the Referendum has already been put in practice. That impression is erroneous. Casual allusion has, indeed, been made in the course of this debate to the experience of other countries, and it would certainly be unwise to neglect it. I am about, in the course of my remarks, to make further allusion in that direction. But it would be a mistake to suppose that our main case rests upon the experience gained in other countries. Our arguments are based on the present condition of this country, and we want to introduce something which is fitted for this country and for this country alone.
There was one passage in the eloquent speech which the noble Viscount addressed to us yesterday which entirely removed any lingering doubts I may have had as to the advisability of applying the system of the Referendum to this country. The noble Viscount gave us an imaginary but very interesting Parliamentary calendar of the future. He contemplated that a Home Rule Bill would be referred to the country in July, 1911, and that it might be rejected. That, I think, is highly probable. He then said that a Unionist Government would come into power, and that after an interval of a year they would refer a Tariff Reform measure to the country. He

727
contemplated that that; would also be rejected. That is, I daresay, not at all improbable. The noble Viscount drew from these imaginary facts a conclusion very adverse to the adoption of the system of the Referendum. What, however, would be the result if the noble Viscount's political horoscope turned out to be correct? It would be that the country would then have to choose between a Liberal Government purged of Home Rule and a Unionist Government purged of Tariff Reform. My Lords, from the point of view of a Unionist Free Trader, nothing could be better. I believe that this would be a consummation which would be regarded by a very large number of people in this country, not merely with complacency, but. with unmixed satisfaction.
My Lords, I think that. we owe a deep debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Balfour for introducing this Bill. Whatever may be its ultimate fate it will, at all events, form a convenient means for crystallising public opinion on the subject of the Referendum. This measure, taken in conjunction with the scheme for the reform of this House which will soon be introduced by the noble Marquess, must be regarded as a plan for dealing with the Constitutional crisis alternative to that proposed by His Majesty's Government. Throughout all the turmoil and confusion of recent discussions one point has been very clearly fixed in the minds of a large number of people in this country. It is that whatever solution be adopted it should be one that holds out a reasonable prospect of stability, and one which shall guarantee the country against the inauguration of an era of endless discussion and spasmodic change in the fundamental institutions of the country.
The noble Viscount quoted yesterday from the writings of Burke, that great mine of political wisdom. Whilst he was speaking there was another passage in Burke's writings which occurred to my mind, and which, although I have been unable to verify it since, I think I can quote from memory with sufficient accuracy for my purposes. Burke said that it was unwise to make the extreme medicine of the Constitution its daily bread. Now that exactly describes the danger to which the execution of the Government programme exposes us. The plan brought forward by His Majesty's Government is violently resented by an important minority, and is notoriously
728
viewed with great apprehension amongst many in t he ranks of the majority. Can it be supposed that such a programme will be accepted as final? Surely not. The prospect which the Government programme opens up must indeed fill the mind of any sober thinking person who can rise above the Party interest of the day with a feeling little short of dismay. It is a prospect of prolonged and acrimonious discussions on vital Constitutional issues—discussions which, whatever be the ultimate result, cannot fail to produce acute discord in our internal, and weakness and vacillation in our external politics. The noble Viscount yesterday alluded to the effect that was being produced abroad by the crisis at home, and I am very glad that he did so, for, although I do not view the subject in the same light as the noble Viscount, I entirely agree that this aspect of the case has not, in the course of these discussions, received nearly the attention it deserves. Every one knows that our proceedings are being watched with great attention by observers on the Continent, and any one who is at all in touch with the views held by Continental Statesmen and diplomatists is aware that an opinion is gradually gaining ground to the effect that we are so torn by dissension on matters of internal policy that our influence as a world Power is, to say the least, greatly diminished. I daresay that the importance of this aspect of the case is exaggerated now, as it was a century ago by Napoleon. I do not doubt that if any serious crisis in foregin affairs occurred, we should in the future, as in the past, be found a united nation. Nevertheless, the mere fact that such an opinion exists is calculated to do harm to British interests, and to weaken that wholesome British influence which, when hacked up by a strong Navy, is one of the best securities for maintaining the peace of the world.
It does not appear to me that considerations of this nature afford any reason for rejecting the principle of the Referendum. But they do afford a very strong reason for pausing before the last chance which will occur of coming to a mutual understanding is finally abandoned. I cannot agree with the view expressed by the noble Viscount and others that, because the Conference broke down, all hope of a settlement by mutual agreement should be abandoned. On the contrary, I think that if His Majesty's Government oppose an alsolute non possums to the programme

729
now put forward by the Opposition, of which this Bill forms an integral part, they will, I venture to think, be accepting a very heavy responsibility to their countrymen of the present and future generations. In that case, when future historians come to write of the events now passing under our eyes, they will, I think, stand amazed at the want of versatility—I might almost say the sterility of political conception—shown by the Statesmen of the present day.
My Lords, the details of the measure proposed by my noble friend will, without doubt, form the subject of full discussion when the Bill arrives at the Committee Stage. We are now only discussing the principle, and what reason is there that the principle should be absolutely rejected? I have heard of none which carries conviction to my mind. The proposal, indeed, appears to have stirred to its depths whatever amount of latent conservatism exists in the minds of noble Lords opposite. It appears to be regarded as a dangerous innovation. It is thought. to be more revolutionary than anything proposed or contemplated by His Majesty's Government and their followers. My Lords, when a political Party which has already treated the whole of our fiscal system with but scant regard for the traditions of the past, and which avowedly contemplates other and more drastic innovations in the body politic—when such a Party warns us solemnly against being lured into the danger of revolutionary action, it is almost impossible not to receive their admonitions with a certain amount of amused scepticism. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? Without doubt, there are many of us who regret the necessity of having recourse to a measure of this sort. We should have preferred, had it been possible, to proceed on the old traditional lines of an unwritten and elastic Constitution. But such a course is no longer possible. A revolution of one sort or another has been forced on us. I care not to inquire who is responsible for its advent. Noble Lords opposite will say that the responsibility rests with those who rejected the Budget—a decision, I may remark incidentally, for which neither the noble Lord who introduced this Bill nor myself is in any degree responsible. Noble Lords on this side of the House may reply that the rejection of the Budget in no way justifies the introduction of a single-Chamber system, which they hold, rightly
730
in my opinion, will be the outcome of the programme adopted by the Government. Nothing, my Lords, is to be gained by bandying these half-truths and recriminations from one side to the other. The fact remains that, whatever be the cause or justification, proposals which may justly be termed revolutionary have emanated from the present Government, and the only effective way to check this revolution is by initiating other proposals which noble Lords opposite are quite welcome, if they choose, to designate as a counter-revolution.
And, my Lords, after all, considering all the circumstances in which we are now placed, is this proposal so very revolutionary? Is it not merely the natural and logical application of those democratic principles which are accepted by all in this country, and by none more than your Lordships, except perhaps by the extreme democrats themselves? The noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose temporary absence we all regret, twitted my noble friend the other day on the ground that he, a staunch Conservative, was enunciating the principles of the Contrat Social. My Lords, it is many years since I read the Contrat Social, but unless my memory plays me false Rousseau maintained that the British nation were under a great delusion in supposing they were a free people. He said that they were only free during a General Election, and that subsequently, having resigned their sovereignty, they were the slaves of the Parliament they had elected. When we consider the use which is avowedly going to be made of the majority obtained at the last election, when we reflect that that majority, returned not to abolish' but to reform the Second Chamber, is to be used to carry into effect drastic measures in other directions on which the country has not been consulted, I am not at all sure that Rousseau was not a true prophet.
The noble Lord who introduced this Bill has explained with great eloquence and lucidity why he and those who agree with him advocate the principles set forth in the Bill. We do not say that the representative system has broken down, but we maintain that its operation has undergone profound modifications. The absence of any system of proportional representation, the activity and ability of Party managers, and the impossibility of

731
differentiating between those questions to which the electors have and those to which they have not assented, have destroyed the practical guarantees which formerly existed that the majority of the House of Commons represents, in respect to any special issue of importance, the real opinions of the electors. My Lords, we want this Bill to stop log-rolling. Both the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack have pointed out the risks which would be involved in the acceptance of the principles of the Referendum. The noble and learned Lord asks what is likely to happen if the people are asked to give their opinion on a proposal to put an Income Tax of 50 per cent. on all incomes in excess of £5,000 a year. My Lords, I asked exactly the same question when the Parliament Bill was under discussion a few months ago, and I was told in reply that we could rely on the common sense of the people of this country not to approve of any such absurd proposal. I trust that that view is correct, but I maintain that under the proposal of my noble friend the people will have an opportunity of showing their common sense, whereas under the programme of His Majesty's Government no such opportunity will be given to them. Any fiscal monstrosity may be inserted into a Money Bill and passed into law without risk of interference from the Second Chamber when once the Speaker's certificate, which he will be unable to refuse, has been signed.
But then we were told by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he was pressed by my noble friend Lord Balfour, that we were not discussing the Parliament Bill. That is quite true; but, my Lords, I submit that it is quite impossible to discuss the present proposal adequately without instituting some comparison between the two systems. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on the occasion of the First Reading of this Bill, adopted a line of argument which is a virtual admission of the necessity of making such a comparison. If, the noble and learned Lord argued, the Parliament Bill is a bad one, that is no reason for passing another measure which the noble and learned Lord evidently thinks is much worse. My Lords, the relative merits of the two programmes is a matter of opinion, but I submit that, assuming the Referendum to be objectionable on its own merits, there
732
would be some force in the noble and learned Lord's argument if His Majesty's Government would submit the whole of their programme, including the reform of this House, to both Houses of Parliament, not merely for discussion, but also for amendment. But the plea falls to the ground when we are given to understand that no serious attempt at compromise is to be made, and that, if needs be, the views of the Government will be carried out by an extreme exercise of the Royal Prerogative. If this be the case, there is no alternative but to sketch out a general programme which may be laid before the country to take the place of that set forth by the Government.
Then, my Lords, another, and I readily admit a more serious, objection has been urged against the principle of the Bill. It is held that if it passes into law a fatal blow will be given to the principle of representative Government, because the adoption of the system known as the initiative must necessarily follow that of the Referendum. In fact, if I understand rightly, there is some apprehension that we may revert to the chaos and confusion which existed under the ancient Commonwealths before representative institutions had been called into existence. If it could be shown that the initiative must necessarily pass into the hands of the people if once the Referendum system were adopted, and that thus the sovereignty of the people would, as a matter of common practice, be asserted directly, and not through their representatives, I fully admit that the objection would be serious. But can this be shown? I think not. Whilst fully agreeing in what has been said as to the fallacy involved in endeavouring to establish too close an analogy between this and other countries, I think it is worth while to allude to the reasons which have led to the very tentative steps made towards the introduction of the initiative system in the United States of America. Mr. Bryce, who is nothing if he is not judicial, says that—
"the source of the desire of the people to take power out of the hands of the Legislature and wield it themselves probably lies, not so much in the eagerness of the masses to carry further the principle of popular sovereignty, as in a certain impatience with the representative Assemblies, which are supposed to be too largely the creatures of the Party organisations, and to be liable to yield to the influences which powerful financial interests can bring to bear."

733
Now, my Lords, leaving alone the allusion to the powerful financial interests, a discussion of which would involve me in the meshes of the fiscal controversy, I wish to point out that what Mr. Bryce says in the passage which I have quoted exactly applies to our case at present. If the Party organisations be allowed to wield unchecked the predominating power of which they now dispose, the almost inevitable result will be that the people will become impatient, and that they will wish to assert their sovereignty in a manner which might, indeed, inflict a fatal blow on the representative system. Whereas by applying a timely remedy, by arranging, as I hope will be arranged, that resort will only be had to the Referendum on very rare occasions, there is every hope that any danger of this kind will be averted, and that the result will be the same as that which, in another passage in his work, Mr. Bryce has told us has ensued in America—that is to say, that the assertion of the direct sovereignty of the whole people "has tended to check revolutionary tendencies."
Moreover, my Lords, does not this plea that we are not to adopt the Referendum because it may lead to the demand for the initiative rather savour of the well-worn fallacy known as "the thin end of the wedge" argument; that is to say, the argument that we are not to adopt some relatively moderate and unobjectionable reform because it may lead to the demand of sonic far more drastic and more objectionable reform at a later period? No one will deny that in some cases the plea may be allowed to hold good. Personally I think that Woman's Suffrage is a case in point. But it is an argument which has always been regarded with much distrust by reforming politicians, and I have certainly always understood that it was particularly obnoxious to Liberal politicians; for, in fact, past experience has shown that if it had been habitually accepted some of the most useful measures that have ever become law in this country would have been nipped in the bud. I believe we may safely consider this question on its own merits as one that, under present circumstances, is calculated to strengthen rather than to weaken our existing institutions, and that we need not be frightened by the bugbear that it will deal a death-blow to the representative system. For these reasons, my Lords,I
734
trust that the principle embodied in my noble friend's Bill will receive the approval of this House. It is one which should, I think, command the assent of moderate men of all Parties, inasmuch as the measure, if passed into law, will constitute a barrier against the attacks of those extremists who, like the Jacobins of a century ago, have usurped the forms, but do not appear to have imbibed the true spirit, of popular government. On the other hand, if nothing of the kind is clone, I confidently anticipate after a short lapse of time the advent of a period when the inure moderate politicians on the Liberal side will be looking anxiously about for some barrier to save them from being carried off their legs by the extremists of their own Party.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, this question has not been presented in quite such a definite way as I should have liked in order to get a clear issue with regard to it. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) said that the Referendum has been made a part of the policy of the Conservative Party in order to meet a revolution by a counter revolution, but we were told last night by the Leader of that Party that it was a proposal which they did not intend to support in the Division Lobby. I do not quite see how a Bill can be part of the Conservative policy and yet be a Bill which the Conservative Party, though extending to it. a sort of benevolent sympathy, are not prepared to accept on Second Reading.
I desire to approach this question from what I would call a moderate and Constitutional point of view. I quite agree with Lord Cromer that we are in a revolutionary period. In the debate on the rejection of the Budget of 1909 I ventured to say that this House had then entered upon an era of revolution. A revolutionary period was perhaps on its way, and could have been signalled by an approaching atmospheric depression; but we found ourselves in the centre of the cyclone when this House broke through the traditions of centuries and rejected the Budget. All politicians and Statesmen have recognised for many years that the House of Commons must be the supreme force in the Legislature and in determining what shall be the government of the country. Prominent Statesmen in this House—I need only mention the late

735
Lord Salisbury and the present Leader of the Conservative Party—have rendered lip-service to this principle. They have told us over and over again that. all they claim for the House of Lords is the power of delay and of appeal, not from Philip drunk to Philip sober, but from the hasty first impressions of the people to their deliberate and reconsidered decision. In that I go a great way with the Conservative Party.
I agree that in times of passion and excitement there should be an opportunity of calling a certain pause and of securing that the country should not be swept away by passion, but should have the opportunity of considering twice or even three times before determining on something which may be irrevocable. But is the Referendum a less revolutionary method of reconsidering than the proposal of the Government? The Referendum would, I think, in some cases work very harshly. The noble Earl who resumed the debate to-night pointed out by figures that, ordinarily speaking, the electors would not be much interested, and that it would require a much greater effort of the Parties to work them up than is the case at a General Election. As was said by the noble Earl, where we have the Referendum it has worked harshly. It was introduced into municipal government I think sixteen or eighteen years ago. Before then local authorities could promote measures involving loans pledging the credit of a town, but. since then we know that proposals which have been very desirable in the interests of the town have been repeatedly delayed for a year or more owing to the slackness and the indifference of the electors, which have led to a very light vote and sometimes to the rejection of a measure which the town really needed. In quiet times the Referendum might succeed in postponing legislation, though I do not think that is any great advantage, but it would offer no barrier to an excited and fierce people when there was some great crisis which roused the passions of the people to the utmost. What would have been the effect if, when the Lords threw out the first Reform Bill, they had had a Referendum and the Whig Government had presented their case to the country? There is very little doubt, not only that the rotten boroughs would have come toppling down, but that the House of Lords and the Bench of Bishops would have toppled down with them.
736
Another reason why I object to the Referendum is that I believe in the voice of the people uttered through their representatives and through a deliberative Assembly, but not in the voice of the people collected by a plebiscite. There are many measures which Parliament has passed and which Parliament ought to pass for which if you took a Referendum you would very likely not get a popular majority. My reading of history is that at the time when every Statesman and every political leader was convinced that the day had passed by for any further opposition to Catholic Emancipation and that the time had come for surrender to the claims of the Catholics there was so much anti-Popery feeling in the country that if the question had been put to the people Catholic Emancipation would have been rejected. There are many occasions on which it becomes a Parliamentary duty on the part of the Statesmen who have been chosen to govern the country to display courage and independence of thought and action, and to bring forward measures although at the time they may believe the people would not support them. Then I have heard it urged by Conservatives as an argument in favour of the Referendum that it would destroy log-rolling. It is represented that the Party now supporting the present Government is a composite Party, and that the Government is a composite Government, and concedes something to A, something to B, and something else to C, and that by their combined force they carry their measures. I would remind your Lordships that it is the duty of Liberals—I will say it is the duty of Statesmen—to deal with reforms though they know they only appeal to the interests of a particular section and may not appeal to the general mass of ignorant or indifferent opinion, and to pass them by an appeal to the reasoned allegiance of their supporters in Parliament and not to trust to an appeal to the public, many of whom care little or nothing about the matter. Take, for example, the question of the Scottish Land Bill or of Welsh Disestablishment. If these things are right, then I think it is for thoughtful men who have studied politics and come together in the House and heard debate and talk in the Lobbies to thrash out the question, and, if they make up their minds that the time has come to carry those measures, to carry them without caring whether they interest their electors in the constituencies or not, and avoid getting the electors excited over matters which really do not touch them.

737
My Lords, when we consider the intricacy and the diversity of the problems with which our Government have to deal, our world-wide interests, our Colonies, our trade, and so on, I think it would be a miserable abdication of responsibility if any Government were to clutch at the Referendum and entrust the determination of important questions of national policy to the ill-considered and ignorant voice of the people as it might be when stirred up. If you want to avoid revolutionary changes when public feeling is excited, you must make it easy for the popular body in Parliament to carry small changes bit by bit, and to readjust the machinery of Government, and make your revolution piecemeal instead of in the gross. The whole world has gone through a process of revolution, and is not the question whether you will take the revolution by degrees or in the lump? Take the history of France. Every one knows that if there was such stupidity in the governing forces of that; country during the whole of the eighteenth century as to make no reform possible they were bound to have the bloody and revolutionary change which came at the end of that century. I suppose that every important reform that has been made has been grudged by the Conservative Party, but how many of those changes would noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench now say they regretted Your Lordships have been educated by the experience of the past, but you do not allow that education to enlighten you as to what your conduct should be in the future. I say it is the maddest recklessness, it is not Conservatism, to try and convert the responsible and deliberate Government of this country into a mere plébiscitary Government, to be sluggish in quiet times and revolutionary in excited times.
I do not go into the details of the noble Lord's Bill. I do not care to pick up the little crumbs of comfort to be found, the little concessions that are made, in the recognition of our grievances and the admission that the relations of the Lords to the people have been for some time unsatisfactory. Of course, they have been unsatisfactory. They were bound to be unsatisfactory from the moment you emancipated the House of Commons from subjection to the territorial classes whose dominant place is in the House of Lords. It takes a generation for people gradually to realise their strength and what their wishes are, but these things must come and
738
do come. The House of Lords might have jogged on, I do not think very happily because the relations were unsatisfactory, had it not precipitated this conflict by accentuating the impossibility of working on the traditional unwritten understanding by breaking that understanding. The weaker Party broke it, and they have to make up their minds now what they are going to do. The weaker Party is the Party which have not got the mass of the electorate of the country behind them. Occasionally the Conservative Party in this country accidentally get a majority of the electorate, largely by the jettisoning of a number of their old principles and sometimes outbidding the Liberals in democratic and even Socialistic proposals. Noble Lords opposite who went up and down the country during the last election must have seen that you were face to face with a growing democratic spirit in the country, and that the existing House of Lords is absolutely inconsistent with that spirit. Your Lordships are good and kind and humane men enough individually, but what strikes me when you get together collectively is the utter want of touch between your Lordships and the country outside; and as you have not chosen to quietly acquiesce in the changed relations between the two Houses and between this House and the country, you have to accept now what is the beginning, in some respects at any rate, of a written Constitution. But, my Lords, personally I should still wish to go on as far as possible by means of understandings and gradual adjustments of matters of difference, because the merit of our Constitution is that it is an unwritten Constitution, the good sense of the people being content to use old forms, from time to time putting new spirit into them, so as to secure that those who govern the country should be in sympathy with the mass of the people.
LORD NORTHCOTE: My Lords, as one who has been in Australia more recently than the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, perhaps I may preface the few observations I have to offer on the Bill in general with one or two comments upon the speech with which the noble Earl commenced our proceedings to-day. In the first place, I cannot agree with the noble Earl in what he appeared to consider a fatal objection to this Bill—namely, that the proposals in it did not coincide precisely with the systems adopted in the United States, in Switzerland, or in our oversea Dominions. Surely

739
the Mother of Parliaments is great enough not only to accept the principle, but to regulate the manner in which that principle should be applied according to her own wisdom and understanding. With regard to the special quotations which the noble Earl made from Australian history, he undoubtedly gave them with that perfect accuracy which I should have expected from him, but I should like to make one or two comments upon the lessons which he drew from them. He spoke first of all of the small percentage of votes which were cast at the elections in Australia, and referred to the indifference which that showed on the part of the Australian people towards public questions in general. I agree with him that it is deplorable that so small a percentage of votes should be cast in Australia upon public questions, but I must remind him that this was equally the case at Parliamentary Elections; the apathy was not confined to special questions connected with the Referendum, but was general. I fail to recall any single election in Australia at which eighty per cent. of the electors voted.
Then the noble Earl referred to the trouble of putting the machinery of the Referendum into motion for the purpose of effecting a very slight change. If I thought that in this country the Referendum was to be applied to very small questions I should consider his objection a very serious one, undoubtedly so with regard to this country. But I would remind the noble Earl that the Australian Constitution was entirely a new one. Slight imperfections had crept into it, and the Referendum was the only machinery by which those imperfections could be put right. That would not apply in a Constitution like our own, where the Referendum would not be put into force except in cases of considerable gravity. Then, again, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Balfour, if I read it rightly, would expressly exclude any financial proposals being submitted to a Referendum, pond that question, which is a difficult one in Australia, would not arise in this country. The noble Earl made special reference to the case of Queensland and to the position in which the Premier of Queensland was placed in having to carry through legislation in consequence of the expressed will of the people, although he was personally opposed to that legislation. That was, he said, a position in which Ministers in this country
740
would never place themselves. But I do not know that there is anything peculiarly degrading in such a position. We on this side of the House who are in a majority have from time to time to acquiesce and tacitly assist in the carrying of measures in which we do not believe, because they are thought to be desired by the people at large. I have never considered that in so acquiescing we were acting in a dishonourable manner. My noble friend made a perfectly true statement with regard to the practice in Australia in the case of a deadlock between the two Houses. It is undoubtedly the case that when there is a deadlock between the two Houses, the Referendum is not invoked to settle the difference. What is invoked is a Dissolution. If the noble Earl prefers that when there is a similar difficulty here the Government should submit the matter to the arbitrament of a General Election so be it. I do not think the Opposition would have very great objection. The noble Earl taunted the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition with his alleged curtailment of the number of subjects to which he would wish to see the Referendum applied. But, however limited that number may be, the number is greater than that suggested by His Majesty's Ministers, for they do not intend to consult the people upon any occasion at all.
My Lords, general questions have already been so fully discussed that I will not detain the House with more than a single word upon them. It has been said that there is something un-Conservative and un-Constitutional in our action in favouring the principle of the Referendum. I must say that I have never been able to see upon what ground that charge is based. Our principle is that we desire to ascertain and carry out the will of the people when it is once plainly expressed, and, as I take it, the Referendum is merely intended to be a comparatively easy, simple, and cheap method of ascertaining what that will is. I need hardly reiterate what previous speakers have said, that so long as the far more revolutionary proposals of His Majesty's Government are before the country we are not very much moved by their tender concern for our possible lapses into Radical legislation.
Now I wish to deal a little more in detail with sonic of the principal objections raised to the Referendum. I think they are

741
mainly three in number. In the first place it is said that by its adoption the responsibilities of Members of Parliament would be seriously diminished, and, indeed, transferred into the hands of a plébiscite So far from that being the case, my contention is that those responsibilities would be materially augmented. I say that for this reason. Under a Referendum every Bill will have to be introduced into both Houses of Parliament and go through the whole of its stages in both houses—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report, and so on, and the votes of every Member will be very keenly watched and criticised by his constituents. He will vote under the knowledge, if the Bill be one that is to be submitted to a Referendum, that his constituents will have an early opportunity of expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the way in which he has acted. Therefore I certainly do not think that he will escape any responsibility by the adoption of the Referendum. Then a second complaint is that the electors will be bemused and puzzled by a number of catch questions which it is supposed will be put to there, or by a confusion of the issues upon which they are called to vote. As I understand it: there will be no catch questions of any sort or kind. The elector will have the Bill presented to him, and he will be asked, "you, or do you riot, wish this Bill to become law?" I cannot conceive that any simpler question can possibly be put to an elector, and it must anyhow be a simpler matter than the multitude of questions upon all possible subjects of foreign and domestic policy upon which at a General Election he is at present supposed to be amply qualified to express an opinion. Then there is the third objection, the question of cost. It is possible to spend money upon anything, but I do not see that there need be any very great difficulty in materially limiting the cost of the taking of a Referendum. In the first place, it would be perfectly easy to pass some amending Act of the nature of the Corrupt Practices Act by which expenditure upon bill-posting, pictures, and so forth 'should be prohibited; and, in the second place, I think that the common sense of the people would preclude the expenditure of a great deal of money. When a General Election takes place, A. and B. are candidates for seat. They have a very keen and direct ersonal interest as to who shall occupy
742
that seat, and they spend all the money they legitimately can, and I am afraid sometimes a great deal more, in the endeavour to secure the seat. But when it is merely a question of endeavouring to ascertain the views of the electors as to whether a particular Bill shall become law or not, there will be no occasion for anybody to spend any particular money upon it, and I think a poll of the people could be taken without any excessive cost.
The advantages of such a reference to the people and to the Government of the day are manifest. So far as the Ministry of the day are concerned, let me take such cases as those of the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill, both of which the present Government failed to pass through Parliament. I am bound to assume that they very keenly regretted the loss of those two Bills. At the same time they did not consider that their loss was sufficient to warrant them in putting the country to the cost and trouble of a General Election, and consequently the two Bills had to go. But had a Referendum been adopted. it would have been possible to put those two measures to the country, and if approved they could have been passed into law. The advantage to the electors would, I think, be equally great. Take the case of a constituency or a body of electors who are well satisfied with tile general fiscal and domestic policy of their Government, who have no particular wish to change the Ministers, but who object, let us say as an instance, to the Declaration of London. They do not wish to turn out the Ministry, but they do wish to say that on this particular question the opinion of the majority of the electors is not represented. They could do so by means of the Referendum. Ministers would then know that in that particular direction the country did not go with them, and they could proceed with tie other portions of their policy with regard to which they might still retain the confidence of their supporters. If I may venture upon a very domestic parallel I would say that the position is very much like that of one of your Lordships who may have occasion to reprove a servant but may not consider his offence serious enough to justify giving him a month's notice.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition when expressing approval of the general principle of the Bill said that

743
he was glad that it was not the intention of Lord Balfour to press the measure to a Division or attempt to carry it through Committee. I entertain precisely the same view. I agree with the principle of the Bill, but I consider that there are very serious drawbacks to this measure. As was said by the noble Earl who resumed the debate, the first clause of the Bill does not make sufficient distinction between rejected and amended Bills. The Government of the day would be perfectly justified in referring to the country the text of their original Bill which was rejected en bloc by this House; but in the case where the Commons do not agree to Amendments made in this House and the Bill is to go to the country, I think opportunity should be given to the people to say whether they prefer the original Bill or the Bill as amended. I take objection also to Clause 2. I consider that the theory of Parliament is that the House of Commons represents the immediate views of the electors; it is in closer and more immediate contact than this Chamber can possibly be with the electorate, and can be taken as representing their views on any question at the immediate moment. On the other hand, this House, not having the fear of constituencies before its eyes, is at liberty to give rather calmer consideration to hasty legislation than the Lower House, and to delay, and refer if need be to the people, any measures upon which they may think that the House of Commons does not truly represent the feeling of the country. But when we have a case in which both Houses—the directly representative House and the more deliberative Assembly—are of opinion that a measure is good, I think we must take it that that represents the deliberate judgment of the country for the time being. Therefore I am entirely averse to giving any minority, whether 200 or any other number, the power of inflicting frequent Referenda upon the country by appeals against a decision arrived at by both Chambers. Of course, I agree that there is one contingency under which the absence of this provision might possibly act somewhat unfairly to the Party of noble Lords opposite, and that is where possibly reactionary legislation might be imposed against the will of the country in the event of a Conservative or Unionist majority in both Houses.
In this democratic age anything in the nature of serious reactionary legislation
744
is in the very highest degree improbable, and I do honestly believe that the advantages the Government of the day would derive from the adoption of the Referendum would be more than an equivalent for any risk they might run under the contingency I have alluded to. I must also remind your Lordships of an additional advantage which the Ministry would have—namely, that it would be only the Ministry of the day who could decide whether the Referendum was to be applied or not, because they would always have the alternative of putting up with the rejection of a Bill if they did not see fit to consult the country upon it. In those circumstances, my Lords, I can only express my gratification with the main portions of the Bill that my noble friend Lord Balfour has introduced, and my confident hope that sooner or later its main principle, a principle which has already been adopted and approved by many foreign countries and by some of our own Colonies, will become a permanent portion of the legislative machinery of this country.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, this debate, initiated as it has been by the introduction of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has, in consequence of the attitude of noble Lords opposite, and I think of the admissions of the noble Lord himself, degenerated into rather an academic discussion of the principle of the Referendum. I therefore desire to intervene at this stage in order to give utterance to the belief of a growing section of advanced Liberal opinion that the introduction of the Referendum in a limited form in connection with the settlement of our Constitutional difficulties would be to the advantage and for the protection of the democracy. That is the standpoint from which I desire to discuss this question.
I regret that, holding the opinions I do, I should, so far as my side of the House is concerned, have had occasion to listen only to speeches presenting adamantine opposition to the principle of the Referendum. There was the speech on the First Reading of the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, whose absence we all deeply deplore; there was the speech of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack—and, if he will allow me to say so, my Radical friend of former days in the House of Commons; and there was the speech of the noble Viscount who spoke with such effect yesterday upon this question. But, happily, I am somewhat

745
comforted, because I know that the Prime Minister has not shown quite that pertinacious opposition which has been manifested by his colleagues who have spoken in this House. He has confessed that at an earlier stage—I do not quite know when—he had a flirtation with the Referendum, and, what is very unusual, I think, with my right hon. friend, he has abandoned his early love, and all he is content to say is that he will not bar and bolt the door against the introduction of this principle, in a limited form, perhaps, on some future occasion.
My Lords, I will now deal with some of the objections which have been raised by my noble friends on this side of the House to the Referendum on any terms whatever. The first objection, and it appears to me the most important, is that the Referendum is destructive of representative government. The Lord Chancellor said that it would be fatal to representative government, and the words of Lord Morley were that it would do a great deal to abolish the representative system. I should like to ask not only noble Lords in this House but everybody concerned in this grave Constitutional crisis whether at this moment we really enjoy representative Government. I have been long in political life, and I have had the advantage denied to sonic of the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate of sitting for many years in the House of Commons. I have had, perhaps, not quite so long an experience as some, but I have had an experience of eight contested elections on behalf of Liberal principles, and I can remember the time, before the introduction of the caucus into our Party system, when the House of Commons offered a reasonable field for the exercise of independent judgment. I am not quarrelling with the caucus; it was, perhaps, a necessary introduction into our political system; it came to us from America, and I believe it was introduced by a right hon. gentleman who has not been particularly successful in his importations, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. But having been introduced, what has been its effect?
We all know now that a candidate who presents himself has to undergo a most searching examination on the part of the Party caucus, and sometimes a competitive examination. He then has to submit to an endless variety of questions and give a number of pledges before being accepted, and
746
after he has been accepted as the candidate the same process is gone through with all sorts of outside associations, with the result that by the time he reaches the House of Commons and takes his seat in that Assembly he is almost as much tied and bound as a modern lady in a bobble skirt. That is the situation. I listened with some astonishment to my noble friend Lord Carrington last night when he accused me of sharing in the dreams of Rousseau, and threw cold water, as did the noble Viscount, on the statements of a Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Snowden, who takes the same view as I have ventured to lay before your Lordships as to the present position of private Members. When bound and pledged, his independence half gone, a man reaches the House of Commons he finds all kinds of restrictions placed upon his actions. They have the gag, they have the guillotine, they have the persistent demands of the Government of the day—and one Government is just as bad as another—upon the time of private Members, and I venture to state that there is not one single Member of the House of Commons to-day outside the actual or presumptive officials who will not bear me out in saying that his boasted independence is gone, and consequently he has become in a great majority of instances a mere machine who has to do as he is told. We heard something also last night of the utterances of a former respected Whip, my noble colleague Lord Marchamley. I am sure Lord Marchamley's experiences are those of every other gentleman who has been in his position. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that if a Member is recalcitrant, if he ventures to have the slightest independence of view, the Whip has immediately to exercise all the pressure and persuasion possible. What does he do He goes to that Member and says—and very often, I regret to say, he says it with truth—that half or perhaps all his election expenses were paid out of the Party funds, and he must remember that or they would remember it when the next election came round.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: I was a Whip for three years and I do not think I ever said such a thing, and I do not believe any other Whip has ever said such a thing.
LORD WEARDALE: I do not say the noble Lord used Those actual words. What I say is that Party Whips give it to be understood, and it is within my knowledge that they have said

747
it. In the same way it is said that if the hon. Member who is thus addressed will be good enough to support the Government, the Government will think of him, and that there are certain preferments and certain advantages which may be conferred upon him if he will do so. Now, my Lords, I frankly say that a House, for whose great traditions I have profound respect, where so many of its Members are in that position of fettered dependence is not in the true sense of the word a really representative House. It is all tending to one end, and that end is the general strengthening of an official oligarchy called the Cabinet. I am not referring to one Cabinet more than another, but what. I say is that under a system of this kind it is the Cabinet and not Parliament that really governs the country, and it is in order that some sort of check should he placed upon what might prove to be an oligarchy of a most tyrannical character that I want to see a limited form of Referendum introduced which will give some security to the free and independent electors of this country.
We had a speech to-night from my noble friend Lord Sheffield. He will excuse me for referring to that speech, because it represents the frame of mind of a certain class of Liberal. He told us that lie thought it was the duty of a Government to carry such measures as might commend themselves to their judgment, even it they were only acceptable to the minority. He said, "I do not see why any attention should be paid to the ignorant, ill-considered voice of the people." That is the position at which we have now arrived, that it is the view apparently of Liberalism of the official type that the Cabinet is to he empowered, no matter what may be the subject under discussion, to carry into law measures in the interests of a particular minority without any reference to, and in fact in total disregard of, the wishes of the people. I quite agree the noble Lord did not perhaps intend to give expression to such sentiments, but that is the natural and logical outcome of what he said.
I come now to another branch of the question. We talk of representative government. Representative government no doubt in principle existed at the time when there were only two political Parties in the State. But what have we to-day? First we saw the growth of a Third Party, the Irish Party, in the days of Mr. Butt—a small one which afterwards grew to be a
748
large and important Party under the leadership of Mr. Parnell. And side by side with that Party we have seen, happily I think, the growth of the Labour Party; and if, as I hope, we are near the day when Home Rule will be granted not only to Ireland but to other parts of the country under the scheme of Home Rule all round, we shall also have a Scottish Party and a Welsh Party. Therefore, my Lords, the whole conditions are changed. We have now a Government which is dependent on the support of groups. It is no longer the Party system we have to deal with; it is the group system; and although I for one am exceedingly satisfied that the present Government have been able to come to terms with the Irish Party and the Labour Party, and although I am entirely in sympathy with their views with regard to Home Rule, the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and plural voting, yet, my Lords, I do say that it is perfectly possible, looking into the future, to see how great will be the danger unless you have some kind of safeguard against what I may call immoral grouping to the prejudice of the real interests of the country as a whole. Therefore it is that I am in favour of the principle of the Referendum on a limited scale, surrounded by the greatest safeguards, and operating only in the rarest instances.
The noble Viscount quoted as an instance of the difficulty of passing measures through this House the Irish Church Bill, which no doubt only became law after a good deal of resistance by the Tory Party. But I would suggest to him that the existence of the Referendum in a limited form might serve the cause of progress much better than any scheme which has yet been propounded for dealing with the relations of the two Houses. Suppose, on the other hand, that during the last Conservative Parliament there had been, as the Bill proposes and as I entirely approve, the power of an imposing minority to refer a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament to the judgment of the people, what would have happened with the last Education Bill passed by the Tory Government? Everybody knows that the passage of that Bill raised a storm of resentment throughout the country; its evil effects are apparent still to-day; the country teems with passive resisters; and yet we have been unable to redress the evil. If the Referendum had been in existence, that Bill might have

749
been referred to the people and the whole matter left open to a wider and happier solution.
I pass from that branch of the question to one or two others. First of all, I should like to make a few observations upon the objections that have been raised, and rightly raised, with reference to the stability of Government. It is said that supposing a Government referred to the people a Bill which they were unable to pass through the Upper House, and that the country refused its approbation of that Bill, it would immediately involve the resignation of the Government. I dissent front that view. I do not believe that it would involve the resignation of the Government. It might conceivably involve the resignation of the Minister principally concerned; it might also possibly mean the reconstruction of the Government itself; but I do not for one moment believe that in the great majority of instances it would mean the resignation of the Government. But, more than that, if the Bill were really a Bill which met with the firm resistance of the country when referred to it, is it not right and proper that the Ministry should resign? surely the moment they find that they have lost the confidence of the country it is desirable that they should give place to others.
I know that objections have been raised to the principle of the Referendum by various friends of mine representing different classes of opinion. In the first place, it is strongly resisted by the Irish Party. I believe myself that the Irish Party would have nothing to fear front the establishment of the Referendum. My own opinion is that a Home Rule Bill drawn on fair lines safe-guarding the Imperial interests of this country would not fail to receive the acceptance of both Houses of Parliament, and, if it did not it would certainly be accepted by the country at large upon a Referendum. My own impression is that the country is beginning to be sick of the controversy over the Irish question and is only too anxious for a settlement. Then there is another large body of opinion that I would refer to—that of the Labour Party. My friend Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, for whom I have the highest respect, has spoken disparagingly of the Referendum, but I would remind him and those who agree with hint that the Labour world—not the Labour Party in Parliament—has already accepted the principle of the Referendum in all its
750
local concerns. It has accepted the ballot, and I would point oat that the value of the ballot from the Labour point of view has been manifested extraordinarily during the last few months. In the West of England only a few days ago strikingly so, when the advice of the most respected Labour leaders was rejected by the men by enormous majorities. The truth is, my Lords, that deep down in the minds of the people there is a distinct desire to preserve their right to say the last word on all matters that affect their welfare and their destiny. It is not enough to tell thorn that they have their representative in Parliament. It is not enough to tell them t hat a measure has been sufficiently discussed in Parliament.
And, my Lords, we see that in other countries the same sentiment is growing on all hands. It. is growing in America; it is growing, although the signs may not be so apparent to-day, on the Continent both in Belgium and in France. In Belgium particularly there is a movement on foot for the establishment of the Referendum for precisely the same reasons that I argue in its favour to-day. It is really the due protection and the fair protection, as I conceive, of democratic progress that all these partisan combinations which sometimes unfortunately distort our representative institutions should have some restriction placed upon t hem, so that the wishes of the people should really prevail in the settlement of the affairs of the nation. I regret to have had to intervene in this debate, and to give expression to certain views which are not, perhaps, sympathised in by many of my noble friends; but I conceive it to be the duty of every member of this House—as I conceived it to he my duty when I sat for so many years in the House of Commons—to speak his mind with sincerity and courage. I did so, my Lords, in the midst of much heated controversy at the time of the South African War, when many of my right hon. friends deserted us, I regret to say, in the hour of distress. I have done so to-night, and I shall ever be prepared to give utterance to the opinions I hold without any fear of what the consequences may be.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot help wondering what kind of reception the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down would have met with had it been delivered in another place. As the noble Lord truly observed, a good deal of the importance of this debate has diminished

751
in consequence of the very broad hint which was given by the noble Marquess to my noble friend who introduced this Bill, recommending him not to press it to a Division; and although the noble Marquess with his habitual modesty, disclaimed any special control over the actions of this House, I have always observed that the hints of the noble Marquess exercise pretty much the same effect upon the Benches on this side of the House as the nod of Jove exercised upon the denizens of Olympus. My Lords, although we shall not conclude this debate with the excitement of a Division, the debate has at all events been productive of considerable interest. The main interest, so far as I am concerned, consists in the fact that it has displayed a. most curious inversion of political principles. I learn, I confess somewhat to my surprise, that we on these Benches are the only true representatives of the democracy. Noble Lords opposite apparently do not represent the genuine article. I hope I am not using an offensive expression when I say that they are apparently, in the opinion of some of the supporters of the Bill, a kind of political hybrids who at one moment are revolutionary single-Chamber men and at another moment little better than rusty reactionaries.
This Bill is recommended to us as the legitimate outcome of a democratic principle, and I am not ashamed to confess that so far as I am concerned that recommendation does not carry very much weight. I do not profess to he a democrat. It would not be any use trying to make people believe that I was one, and I am afraid that I entertain a profound conviction that if the country really wants democratic measures it would be more inclined to go to the Party represented by noble Lords opposite than to apply for them to this side of this House. My noble friend Lord Balfour puts forward this Bill as a sort of panacea, a modest panacea I admit, for all the political diseases front which we are suffering at the present moment. In the first place, this Bill is going to solve the Constitutional deadlock. Upon that point I own that I am in considerable agreement with the noble Lord, and I think that any impartial person will at once admit that his proposal is so far much the most practical that has hitherto been advanced. But this is not the only benefit which is going to be conferred by this Bill if it ever passes into law. It is going to restore the idea of our Con-
752
stitution—that the people should govern. It is going to make the House of Commons more careful as to what Bills it passes; it is going to be a check upon extremists; it is going to constitute a premium on moderation; it is going to establish fair dealing between the two Parties; it is going to prevent people being taken by surprise, and it is going to imbue Members of Parliament with a greater sense of responsibility. The multifarious benefits which are attributed to this Bill remind me of an implement which my noble friend Lord Wemyss, whom I am sorry not to see present, was always associated with in my mind. That implement was at once a spade, a knife, a saw, a razor, a chest protector, and a utensil upon which you could cook your dinner. The reception accorded by the War Office to my noble friend's invention was certainly not more sympathetic than that now accorded by the Government to Lord Balfour's Bill. When I consider the multifarous benefits which this Bill is going to confer upon the people of this country, I feel inclined to ask why it was not proposed long ago.
With regard to the history of the Referendum so far as it concerns British politics, the first mention of this nostrum occurred, if I am not mistaken, in that despised Report of what is known as the Rosebery Committee. The proposal of the Referendum occurred in one of the final paragraphs of that Report, somewhat in the nature of a lady's postscript to a letter. After that it disappeared from view, except in the columns of the Spectator and organs of that kind, in which its advantages and disadvantages were discussed at interminable length by professors and dons and people of that kind. It reappeared on the threshold of the last election, and now it emerges under the œgis of my noble friend as a full-grown article in the programme of the Unionist Party, and it is recommended by my noble friend and by countless speakers upon public platforms as being not only a solution of the Constitutional deadlock but practically of everything else. I must confess, and I confess it very reluctantly, that I have been considerably impressed by the arguments of noble Lords opposite. There is one argument, however, which they made use of which did not impress me in the very least—namely, that the Referendum if adopted in this country would sap the independence of the Member of Parliament. According to the fancy picture which is

753
habitually drawn of a Member of Parliament by noble Lords opposite—not, I admit, by my noble friend Lord Weardale—the ideal Member of Parliament is a proud, fearless, and untrammelled being, who is practically as free as air. I am not going to say anything half so uncomplimentary about Members of the House of Commons as has been said by my noble friend opposite, but I think I may say without any offence that this is an entire misconception of the ordinary Member of Parliament. Instead of being this proud and fearless and untrammelled being, he is, in many instances at all events, a well disciplined gentleman who is at the beck and call of the Party Whip, and who passes a not inconsiderable portion of his time in tramping the Lobbies and voting the salaries of gentlemen whom he does not believe to be any cleverer than himself, and to whose speeches he has perforce to listen in discontented silence. Further if he ventures to show any independence at all he very soon finds, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the House of Commons is no place for him, and unless he is lucky enough to find a University to offer him hospitality he has to seek a more retired form of existence. Therefore the less talk there is about "loss of the independence and dignity of a Member of Parliament" under a proposal of this kind, the better. I maintain that he would not lose any independence or dignity under a proposal of the kind, but I think he would lose a good deal of something else.
I cannot help feeling convinced in my own mind that if this proposal ever took place it would have a very unpleasant and possibly disastrous effect upon political life. Projecting my mind into the future, and assuming, as one ought to do, the worst—assuming, for instance, that the Parliament Bill becomes law and, that the Referendum prevails in this country—what will be the future of the Member of Parliament? He will, in the first place, have everybody in his division of the male sex over the age of twenty-one years with a vote, and in addition to that he will, in all probability, have a lot of females who will have a vote too, and much of his time will be passed in trying, probably without any success, to explain to these people how thoroughly he has earned the salary which they are good enough to pay him, and then he will have to face the contingency of several miniature General Elections during every session. It certainly appears to me from my experience
754
of political life that conditions of this kind will deter what we are fond of calling the best class of men from entering politics, whilst the voter, gorged and satiated with continual political discussion, will in all probability only be brought to the poll in the course of time by force, and it will be necessary probably before long to inflict upon him those penalties which are already imposed in other countries when the voter fails to take advantage of his power of voting.
When this Bill was introduced the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that if both parties were agreed the Referendum might he taken at any moment on any question. There is only one question upon which I can conceive that there would be any agreement between the various political Parties as to the taking of the Referendum. That question. I need hardly say, is the question of female suffrage. I can very well believe that the various Parties in the House of Commons might combine to demand a Referendum for the purpose of jockeying women out of the vote, but I cannot conceive there being any agreement between the various Parties for any other purpose. My Lords, our great difficulty—when I say "our" I mean the Unionist Party—is that we have not got reasonable people to deal with in the shape of the present Government. If we had reasonable people to deal with something might be done under the proposals of my noble friend. If the Government, for instance, really wanted to settle the Constitutional question instead of settling this House, which is, of course, their object, the Referendum would gladly be accepted as a means of escape from the Constitutional deadlock. I am entirely in sympathy with my noble friend as far as regards this particular portion of his Bill. As a final resort for the purpose of settling disputes between the two Houses it seems to me a perfectly fair and logical solution, and I fail to see where the unfairness to either side comes in. But beyond this very limited point I, personally, am not prepared to go. I cannot get it out of my mind—noble Lords on this side of the House may say what they like—that the Referendum, applied as is suggested by my noble friend, is nothing but a sort of glorified version of that local option which we were always taught to believe one of the most pernicious proposals that ever was made; and when I hear noble Lords expatiating eloquently on the beauty of the

755
system and upon the benefits which it will confer upon this country and how admirably it will work, I cannot help also bearing in mind speeches made by gentlemen holding very different political opinions, who also contend that, worked properly, nothing would suit their purpose better. On these grounds I certainly am not prepared to commit myself without much further consideration to a measure of this kind, which may have very different results from those anticipated by its supporters.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, as a new member of your Lordships' House I must ask for special indulgence on this occasion because it so happens that I cannot see eve to eye with the noble Marquess who leads this side, and I fear that if the Bill were taken to a Division I should be compelled to vote against it. I must confess that in coming into the atmosphere of this Chamber there is great relief in the feeling that there is no longer any Party force or Party Whip to whip you into the Lobby, and that there is freedom of speech. It is held by some noble Lords that because something may be said in favour of a principle, even if the details are bad, you should vote for the principle. I entirely differ from that view. Take as an instance the case of Home Rule for Ireland. I may be quite convinced that the idea of Irishmen managing their own affairs is in principle excellent, but if the Bill to carry that out is in detail full of things of which I could not possibly approve, then I hold that it is better to sacrifice the principle. As to the Bill introduced by Lord Balfour, I am bound to say that I have not found a single detail to which I am not absolutely opposed.
Opinion on the Referendum has grown at a most alarming rate, and it is interesting to review the commencement and the present position of this question. As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, the principle of the Referendum was not adopted as part of their programme until the Albert Hall meeting. Mr. Balfour then announced that the Referendum was the means he would suggest for getting over differences of opinion between the two Houses and for settling deadlocks. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the Referendum being used on those occasions. But it was pointed out, and rightly pointed out, that it would work unfairly for the Liberal Party, that as soon
756
as they were in office there would be perpetual Referendums, but that when the Conservative Party held office there would be no Referendum whatever. Mr. Asquith challenged Mr. Balfour to say whether he would subject Tariff Reform to a Referendum, and the reply given, I believe, was that he would do so if the Liberals would permit Home Rule to be similarly treated. The controversy did not go much further than that at the election.
This Bill, however, will carry us like an avalanche over a precipice, because now we have got a great deal further than that. By the main provision of the Bill—I refer to Clause 2—a Referendum can be granted if it is demanded by a minority of 200 Members in the other Chamber—a most dangerous proposal. I do not know the origin of this Bill, whether it is a trial balloon sent up to see which way the wind is blowing, or whether it is introduced by Lord Balfour of Burleigh as the result of his mature consideration and therefore is practically the Bill of a private Member. If it is the Bill of a private Member I can quite understand that in framing it the noble Lord naturally considered that in order that the Bill should be acceptable as a solution of this great Constitutional question it ought to carry the element of fairness to both Parties. I have no doubt he was confronted with the difficulty of framing a measure which would do this, and I therefore conclude that that is the reason for this clause. Not only was the noble Lord confronted with the enormous difficulty of deciding what Bills should be subjected to the Referendum, but with the equally difficult problem as to the size of the minority of the House of Commons which should be allowed to demand a Referendum. The noble Lord told us that he was not wedded to the number of 200. I think that is lucky, for I feel perfectly certain that if a minority of 200 Members of Parliament were accepted as the number the country would be in a perpetual condition similar to that at General Elections.
The noble Lord who preceded me referred to the question of Local Option and the direct vote, which has been opposed by the Conservative Party in the past. It has certainly adopted that attitude with regard to the liquor laws; and we have all of us appeared on many platforms and said it is a disgraceful

757
tyranny that if one man wants a glass of beer he should be prevented from having it because two other people say he should not have it. And that is still my opinion. If the Referendum is to be put into operation on every single petty Bill when demanded by a minority of 200, we should be living in a state of tyranny in this country which could not be supported by a free people. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said that he did not believe the Referendum would be frequently used, and that the 200 Members who could demand a Referendum would use that privilege very rarely and with great care. But I cannot agree. The moment a Bill is the least unpopular, I believe that enormous pressure will be put upon those 200 Members. It might, of course, be that there was not a minority of 200 in the House of Commons to demand it, but that is a very exceptional circumstance. It occurred but once in a very large number of years after the Conservative Party had suffered such a severe defeat at the polls. But even if the minority in the House of Commons of the regular Opposition was only, as it was then, some 160 Members, it would be certain to lead to log-rolling and to bargains with other Parties in the House of Commons. A Party finding itself in a small minority would certainly make terms with some other Party—perhaps the Irish Nationalist Party or the representatives of the trade unions—to obtain support in demanding the Referendum on reciprocal conditions. Therefore, instead of this privilege being used only on rare and special occasions, I believe that it would become a frequent practice, and be fraught with very great danger to this country.
And now that Peers are able to take part in General Elections and in electioneering, if this Bill passes I believe that every year, from the beginning of July to the middle of August, we should be engaged in something like a General Election, three village meetings a night, explaining to the electors what a disgraceful Bill it was which was being referred to them, or expressing our entire approval of that Bill. That state of things would be perfectly intolerable, and it would tie up all the electors of this country because there would be this frequent disturbance of things upon, in many cases, minor questions. To those who hold the view that this Referendum would not be frequently used, I would ask them to take
758
the question of Church schools. Let it once be known that a Conservative Opposition had allowed a Bill which dealt drastically with Church schools to go through without demanding a Referendum, and I am sure that at every Church door they would be pilloried as traitors to the cause, as having deserted their faith and religion.
I am perfectly certain of this, that if the Referendum is to be worked, it cannot be worked by any such scheme or proposal as that now before your Lordships. When we see the proposals of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the reform of this Chamber and the means for Referendum, it may be found—I hope it will—only to concern those questions and deal with those points where a deadlock has occurred between the two Houses. Although I acknowledge what was said by the noble Lord opposite, that there is less and less independence amongst Members of the House of Commons, vet I do feel that the introduction into our Constitution of the Referendum, to be largely used, would be a very grave danger, and would be altering the whole form of government under which we have lived for past centuries. I do not believe that a permanent solution of this problem can be found—and we all wish to work for a permanent solution—in any drastic or far-extending system of Referendum such as has been placed before us.
The noble Lord who spoke last from the other side of the House was strongly in favour of the Referendum. I rather agree with him from his point of view. I believe that a question such as Home Rule itself would be more likely to be passed under the Referendum than if it were hung up for two or three years, during which time it would be liable to be shot at and to have holes picked in it. I have always felt that if we could be sure that there would be some definite pledge, something written down in our Constitution to the effect that the Parliament Bill, if passed, was not to be altered, some scheme could be found to compromise on those grounds. But as one who was very nearly as long in the House of Commons as the noble Lord who preceded me, my fear arises from the system of curtailment of debate, and allowing measures of taxation to pass through the House of Commons after perhaps one week's discussion. One day you have the First Reading; the Second Reading takes one

759
day; for the Committee stage, one day; one day for Report, and in a week the Bill is law. Beyond that, I say that the Government scheme can be used, and can be made so that it would not be a delusion and a snare to the electors. If the Parliament Bill is fairly used and fairly worked, I, for one, would be more in favour of it than I would be in favour of such a Referendum as is proposed by this Bill. In conclusion, I do hope, when the Opposition Bill is placed before us in this House, that as regards this question of the Referendum it will only deal with those questions where conflicts arise between the two Houses, as I feel certain that if it becomes the common practice of Parliament to refer every petty question to the people at the demand of a small minority in the House of Commons. it will be the end of Party government and the end of freedom in this country, and absolutely destructive of all our preconceived notions of government.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I understand it has been agreed that it would be for the general convenience that the debate should be now adjourned. I beg so to move.
Moved, That the further debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, may I say a word on that Motion? I certainly do not intend to oppose it because I believe it to be the general wish of the House, but I hope it will not be understood that the adjournment of the debate means that the House will not again resume at a more convenient time the discussion of this Bill. It is perfectly reasonable that the House should see the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition before being asked to come to a definite decision about this Bill. I am precluded, of course, from discussing the merits on the question of the adjournment, but I would like to say that I should greatly regret if the House were to be precluded from seeing what Amendments would be made upon this Bill by those who are, in principle, in favour of reference to the people. Of course, the last speaker is an open and declared adversary of the whole scheme, just as some noble Lords opposite are, but I think it is only fair that those who are in favour of the principle of reference to the people as a possible means of solving some of our difficulties, should have an opportunity of discussing in detail the
760
provisions of the Bill and of putting down Amendments in order that we may see what the trend of opinion is. The question is undoubtedly one of the greatest possible complexity, and on that ground it is of importance that we should get to the Committee stage and see what the differences of opinion really are. Therefore though I cordially agree to the proposal to adjourn the debate, I hope it will not be understood that that means that the House will not be asked again at a more convenient stage to resume the debate where it has left off to-night.
On Question, Motion for the adjournment of the debate agreed to, and the further debate adjourned accordingly sine die.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I ask you to give a Second Reading to this Bill because it is to remedy a grievance. There is not sufficient power under the County Councils Act to enable a county council to take over a ferry. I will give your Lordships a distinct instance where there has been great hardship. There are two bridges over the River Trent ten miles apart, and there is a ferry half way between the two bridges which has been in existence for centuries, but at present the ferry has ceased to exist because the riparian owner will not choose to put a boat on it and no deed has been found under which it would be possible for us to compel that riparian owner to take those steps. Neither is there power under the Act to enable the county council in conjunction with other county councils to take over and carry on the ferry. I ought to say that both counties are put to the expense of keeping the county road open to the edge of the river, and although everybody sees a ferry marked on the map, they find, when they get there, only a very little boat, and even that may not always be there. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to admit the principle of this Bill which is that a county council should be enabled either by themselves or in conj unction with a neighbouring county council to take over a ferry and work it, to put on whatever tolls may be necessary, and

761
generally to carry it on for the convenience of the public.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: One word, my Lords, in support of this Bill, which is greatly supported by the county councils in England. I am glad to say that since the Bill appeared in 1905 it has been considerably improved by giving to county councils the power not only of acquiring a ferry but also of freeing it.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I cannot say that I had very much knowledge of this question before the Bill which the noble Viscount has just introduced was brought to the notice of the House. The noble Viscount has given an example of the inconveniences that arise in certain districts owing to perhaps an old-established ferry very often not being in working order, or where the private owner has taken no steps to work it, or has discontinued working it, the machinery and plant having got into bad order. In such a case the local authority have apparently no power to take over the ferry. I think the noble Viscount has certainly made out a prima facie case for the Bill, and the Government have no intention of opposing it, 'and would be glad to support him in
762
carrying out its principle. A similar Bill was, I understand, introduced in 1905 in another place by Mr. Grant Lawson, but it made no progress, although it was supported by the Local Government Board at that time. I believe that that Bill did not propose that the county council should be the local authority for the purposes of the Bill. There does not, however, seem to be any objection to this proposal. But as a ferry is very often of more purely local utility than of general county utility, I think it would probably he sufficient if the urban district council or the rural district council should be the authority; and if a ferry was serving a larger area the several rural district councils or perhaps the county council with the other local authorities concerned should have power to join to contribute towards the expenses incurred. This is a point which might, perhaps, be considered in Committee. As I have said, the Government have no wish to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, they support it, and although it cannot have widespread application it will prove of utility in certain districts, as is shown by the example which the noble Viscount gave us this evening.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.