Sitting of 2 August 1912

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DEATH OF EMPEROR OF JAPAN.

  ROYAL MESSAGE.
  The Treasurer of the Household (Captain Guest) reported His Majesty's answer to the Address of the 31st day of July last, as followeth:—
  I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
  I join most sincerely in your expression of deep regret at the melancholy tidings of the death of My illustrious ally and friend His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and I shall without fail communicate to His Majesty the present Emperor your message of profound sympathy with the Imperial Family and the Government and people of Japan in the loss which they have sustained.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], (by Order),
  Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords]
  Read the first time; to be read a secnd time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords], with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

  MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Report of the Malta Royal Commission (Appendix B), Documents laid before the Royal Commission [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of the Report of the Malta Royal Commission (Minutes of Evidence) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1912, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical Purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the Borough of West Ham redividing the West Ham and Plaistow Wards of the Borough into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next.—[Master of Elibank.]
  MORTALITY OF GOVERNMENT LIFE ANNUITANTS.
  Copy ordered "of Report of the Actuary of the National Debt Office, dated the 12th day of October, 1910, on the Mortality of Government Life Annuitants, together with the Appendix."—[Mr. Masterman.]

  COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911.
  Copy ordered "of Regulations made by the Board of Trade under Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1911, and of an Agreement made between the National Library

  2497
  of Wales and the Publishers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland with regard to the delivery of books to the National Library of Wales."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Northern Masai.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has received a complaint on behalf of the Northern Masai that they object to being moved to the new Southern Reserve; that the new Reserve is very badly watered and full of malaria; and that in many parts of it cattle sickness is prevalent; and (2) whether he has been approached by a legal representative of the Northern Masai with a statement in which they challenge the legality of the agreement under which they are now being moved, and state that the signatures to it were obtained by threats; what action he is taking in the matter; and whether, in the meantime, he will stop any further movement of the Masai from Laikipia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have received a letter to the effect indicated in my hon. Friend's questions from a local barrister, who appears to be acting on behalf of Legalishu, one of the chiefs of the Northern Masai, and his followers. As this letter was not sent to me through the local authorities in accordance with the prescribed practice, it has been necessary to refer the letter to them for a report. The allegations contained in the letter are not supported by the information in my possession, and I see no good ground for stopping the movement of the Masai.

  Income Tax (Personal Property).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the value of personal property as assessed for the payment of Income Tax, including income from trades, professions, and employments, in England and Wales for the year 1910–11?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The gross income reviewed in England and Wales for 1910–11 under the Schedules of the Income Tax, which include income from personal property, amounted to £558,407,025.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on the Finance Bill be not interrupted this day at Five or Half-past Five of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 191.

  Division No. 189.]

  AYES.

  [12.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hackett, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crooks, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hancock, John George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Alden, Percy

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Armitage, Robert

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Delany, William

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Bentham, G. J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Hinds, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brace, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hogge, James Myles

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Field, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  George, Rt Hon. D. Lloyd

  John, Edward Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Carr-Gomm, H. w.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Jones, . Haydn (Merioneth)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Joyce, Michael

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J,

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Keating, Matthew

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Kilbride, Denis

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Neilson, Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pemboke)

  Lansbury, George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Leach, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, Rt. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  McGhee, Richard

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thmoas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Maclean, Donald

  O'Shee, James John

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacVaegh, Jeremiah

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  McCallum, Sir John M.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, William (West, Ham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Molloy, Michael

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Radford, George Heynes

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morison, Hector

  Reddy, M.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Munro, Robert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Clive, Capt. Percy Archer

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick Geoge

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hills, John Waller

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hohler, G. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Houston, Robert paterson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Bennet-Goldney, Francis

  Fell, Arthur

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. sir Robert

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Boyton, James

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gastell, Major W. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Cassel, Felix

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Cator, John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Grant, James Augustus

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Cave, George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Chambers, James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  2516

  2517

  Moore, William

  Royds, Edmund

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Winterton, Earl

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stanier, Beville

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Perkins, Waiter Frank

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sykes, Mark (Hudd, Central)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Touche, George Alexander

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Ordered, That Mr. Carr-Gomm, Mr. Greene, and Mr. Trevelyan be Members of the Select Committee.—[Master of Elibank.]

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In consequence of the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday, I ask leave to move an Amendment in the Preamble. The Preamble states:—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, towards making good the Supply which we have cheerfully granted to Your Majesty."
    I wish to insert after the word "cheerfully" the words "lent and," so that it may read, "lent and granted to Your Majesty." I wish especially to ask the opinion of the Law Officers on this. As I understand the view of the Government is that under this Bill we are no longer making Grants to the King, and that the Statute which says we have granted money to the King, is waste paper, and that in fact what does control the Treasury, the Sovereign, and all the Estates of the Realm is some piece of dirty paper in the portfolio of the Secretary to the Treasury, which he says apart altogether from the Statute overrule the Statutes of this House, control the Treasury, control the King, and that what we are doing here now in saying we have cheerfully granted
    2518
    these sums to His Majesty, is a pure and absolute farce.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is in order to take an Amendment to the Preamble of this Bill now, or whether the Preamble should be taken after the Clauses?
    The CHAIRMAN: There really is no Preamble and no separate question is put in regard to the Preamble. I find the hon. Member himself who was then the hon. Member for North Louth raised this point on the 21st March, 1900, and the reply given to him then I am obliged to give him now:—
    "The enacting words of a Money Bill are different from other Bills. Any alteration in this form would have to be considered by the House. The Committee on a particular Bill has no authority to revise it, and no question is put to the Committee thereon."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Was that not before the old Motion? There was an old formula which used to be put at the commencement of every Bill the moment the Chair was taken. That formula has been en-entirely abolished, and therefore I would suggest if this be the enacting part, and if the Treasury will not obey the enactment and treat these Grants as loans that is my point.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Clause 1—
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to know whether you have effectively put the question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." I could not hear what was your ruling, and I wish to move an Amendment to that question.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was in process of putting the question that Clause 1 stand part when the hon. Member for North-East Cork rose.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to know whether it is necessary to take power to raise money at so high a rate of interest as 5 per cent. Surely, in these times His Majesty's credit is such that we can raise money at a less interest than that.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will put this matter in order. The question before the Committee now is, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £92,847,343 out of the Consolidated Fund.)
    The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and apply towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, the sum of ninety-two million eight hundred and forty-seven thousand three hundred and forty-three pounds.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether it is the Statutes of the Realm that govern the practice of the Treasury or some Minutes of their own which they are pleased to lay before the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury yesterday stated that in spite of the Statutes to which he referred me, and in spite of the fact that these Statutes have received the Royal Assent and we are declaring by these Statutes that we have granted the money, these Grants are not Grants, and the right hon. Gentleman at the Treasury can imprint upon these Grants the character of loans because of some antecedent Minutes which have been before this House. If that is the view of the law, it seems to me to be a defiance of the Statutes. The matter is of considerable importance, having regard to the practice of the Treasury on Budget nights. That practice is that the moment they get a Resolution of the House of Commons, they enforce it at the ports and elsewhere. I have nothing to say against that practice, and I know the present Government are not responsible for it, because it has gone on over a series of years. These Resolutions were taken on Budget night, and they are invariably confirmed by Statute, so that all the Treasury does in that case is that they anticipate the Statute and treat it
    2520
    afterwards as practically an Indemnity Act. This is inverting the whole procedure. It is not merely putting the cart before the horse, but providing that, though your Statute says that these Grants are Grants only, you will defy the Statute and treat them as loans.
    As regards the particular £500,000 to which I take exception, you have not any Resolution in Ways and Means to support it. My recollection is that what happened was that the Ways and Means Resolution never touched this £500,000 for East Africa at all. What happened was that the Government came down on the Report stage and said, "We will amend the Ways and Means Resolution on Report," as the procedure then suggested was only putting £5,000,000 into the Sinking Fund instead of £6,500,000, and the odd £1,500,000 will be provided for by special Resolution. This £500,000 has no Ways and Means Resolution to support it. It is simply a Resolution in Supply, and that gives a certain amount of validation to it. If you consider the Standing Orders, there is no Resolution of Ways and Means to authorise the procedure we are adopting to-day. Does it not follow that it is a piece of unexampled audacity on the part of the Treasury to say that, having got this in the form of Statute, they will declare by some secret document which they have at the Treasury, a litte Memorandum which has never received the authority of the King, Lords, or Commons, we will govern and override the Statute? Even James II. never did anything of that sort. It is all very well to say that it has been done before. Some of these provisions are dated the 1st of August, and then you put them in your Finance Bill five days afterwards. If this House is to be treated in this way by slipping things through and dodging things through, then all our control over finance is gone. The Government have never before stated in terms they would override the Statute law, and I respectfully put this to the learned Attorney-General. Here is a sum of £500,000 which the Treasury say is Grant money, and which the Statute says is Grant money. What position is the King in? Are you going to advise him against the Statute, which says he has got this money granted? I maintain, as far as His Majesty is concerned, when this Act is passed, he could spend this money on a racecourse. [HON.

    2521
    MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I maintain it. Let me read to the Committee the only granting part.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am trying to find the hon. Member's point, but I am afraid what he is proposing is really out of order. This first Clause deals with a sum of money that has been voted by the House first in Committee of Supply and then in Committee of Ways and Means, and the Resolution has been agreed to by the House. It is not competent for this Committee either to add to or reduce that sum. It is bound to be the exact sum on which the Bill is based, and which has been dealt with in that manner. Therefore, at this stage, it is not competent to raise this question. I understand the hon. Member raised it in the House, which is the proper place. As far as this Bill is concerned, it is bound to be pari passu with the Resolution on which it is founded.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I follow your observations, but you have stated this Bill is founded not merely on Committee of Supply, but also on Committee of Ways and Means. My point is it is not. There is no Ways and Means Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must take that point from Mr. Speaker. It is not a point to be dealt with at this stage.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: On the point of Order. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing the Question that "Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." I submit it is an argument against the Clause standing part of the Bill if the Clause contains a misstatement on the face of it. His point, as I understand it, is that, as a matter of fact, Supply has not been granted to His Majesty as stated in the Clause, but has been in part lent to His Majesty. I apprehend, therefore, it is in order for the hon. and learned Member to argue that the Clause contains an inaccuracy as an argument for voting against the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. The Clause conforms exactly to the Resolution of the House on which the Bill is founded, and, as far as this Committee is concerned, that is an end of it. The hon. and learned Member, as I understand, is raising a point as to the competency, first of all, of the Ways and Means Resolution, and, as far as we are concerned, this Clause is bound to conform with that Resolution.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite understand it is impossible to amend the Clause, as it is absolutely governed by the Resolution on which it is founded. The question is not whether we can amend it, but whether we shall have it at all, and it does seem to me relevant to that question whether the Clause contains a misstatement or not, and that it would be perfectly proper to strike out the Clause if it is in fact incorrect.
    The CHAIRMAN: That really is hardly so. After all, the discussion on the Clause must be relevant to something that can be done.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I shall give my reason for opposing the Clause. It is because, in fact, we are told by the Government that the Clause they are passing into law will not be treated by them as the law. Although they have stated they will obtain the Royal Assent to this Statute, they have declared they will disobey it because, although we have granted, and are granting, and cheerfully granting to His Majesty this Clause, they tell us that in fact they will treat the Clause not as a Grant but as a loan. For the first time, they will put His Majesty in this position: Without giving him any directions as to the way in which this £500,000 is to be spent.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On the point of Order. This is not the first time on which a discussion on the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill has been attempted, but, if it is allowed now, it will be a very serious precedent, and I should like your ruling upon it. My hon. Friend is attempting to raise a discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think he has done so many times in the past.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am following your example.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, and up to the present we have always failed. I do not believe there has ever been an occasion on which a discussion of the merits of any particular Vote or the method in which it is going to be spent has been permitted in Committee. I understand my hon. Friend's argument is that the Government have expressed their intention in a different way from that which is included in the Bill, and that the money is going to be spent in a different way. That, I submit, is not a question to be discussed

    2523
    in Committee on the Appropriation Bill, but is one which can be discussed on a subsequent stage if the Government have overriden the Statute. If the money appropriated for a specific purpose was used for a different purpose, that could be discussed at the proper stage, but not at this stage.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Let me illustrate the ground of my remarks. There is in this Bill, without any Resolution either in Ways and Means or in Supply, a Vote of £300,000 for our salaries. Is it to be suggested we could not on this Clause or on another Clause raise, as we did last year, the whole question of the salaries of Members of Parliament? Is this the position: That, so far as the Committee is concerned, the granting to the Government of £150,000,000 of money is a farce?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite correct. It is not competent on the Committee of the Bill to raise any question of policy or as to the method the money has been granted in Supply or in Committee of Ways and Means. The hon. Member, of course, can vote against the Clause. There is one further observation I must make. It is not quite correct to say no discussion can take place. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) on Clause 2 is one previously allowed, and I shall allow it on this occasion.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This, with great deference, is not a question of moving an Amendment. Am I not entitled to give my reasons for being opposed to this Clause? Do you rule that speech is forbidden on this Clause, because that is the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely there are plenty of weapons in the armoury of the Government for shutting us out. Let them move the Closure, but until you tell me to sit down I will go on speaking.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member, I am sure, will take it from me that he is not entitled to discuss policy, or whether this should or should not be this sum or any particular amount. I do not know whether there is anything else he can find to say apart from that. My ruling follows previous precedents that it would not be competent to discuss policy.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will not discuss any policy. I will give my reasons for voting against the Clause if I can get
    2524
    anybody to support me, and as soon as you rule me out of order, I will approach another topic. I stated my objections to the methods of the Government, and I was met by the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that the methods of the Government followed the lines of previous Governments. I respectfully say, if that be the case, it is time this Government and all Governments adopted a new method of procedure in respect of this Appropriation Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now doing exactly what I ruled he could not do; he is discussing the policy included in the Vote. The proper time to discuss that was when the Vote was in Committee, and not now.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: If you say no discussion is to be allowed, I am not going to enter into any contest with the Chair; I have too much respect for the Chair; but I do wish to have some definite ruling from the Chair. For instance, I want to know from you whether it would be out of order at this stage to discuss any of the Votes included in this Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: May I quote to the hon. Member a passage from Sir Erskine May:—
    "The conduct of the official or of the Department which has received a Supply Grant cannot be challenged in Committee on the Bill."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be quite in order to discuss whether the Clause is properly and correctly drafted, and truly expresses the intention of the Bill or the Resolution on which the Bill is founded? I take it it is in order to discuss any point of drafting, but it is not in order to discuss any point on the merits of the Grant.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, the Clause follows strictly the Resolution of the House in Ways and Means on which the Bill is founded.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYI will not discuss the conduct of any of the Departments in reference to this Bill or the merits of any Grant, but I will discuss the enormous difficulty in which this would place His Majesty the King.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member said he would bow to the considered judgment of the Chair.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Very well; I will not carry the matter further.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 165.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES.

    [12.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Alden, Percy

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Armitage, Robert

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

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

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

    Bentham, G. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Birrell. Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hinds, John

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brace, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Parker, James (Hatifax)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Cawley, Sir Fraderick (Prestwich)

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields))

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    King, Joseph

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lansbury, George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Crooks, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roche, Walter F.

    Cullinan, John

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Leach, Charles

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Seely, Rt. Mon. Col. J. E. B.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sheehy, David

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Donelan, Captain A,

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Duffy, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutherland, John E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ffrench, Peter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Meagher, Michael

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Molloy, Michael

    Wardle, George J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mooney, John J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morrell, Philip

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

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

    Morison, Hector

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Munro, Robert

    Hancock, J. G.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Baird, J. L.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barnston, H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pollock, E. M.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Bird, Alfred

    Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rolleston, Sir J.

    Boyton, James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Clavell

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Col, Thomas E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hills, Sir Clement L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cator, John

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanler, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Ceci, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chambers, James

    Jackson, Sir John

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    M-Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Winterton, Earl

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fell, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newman, John R. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Hills.

    Fleming, Valentine

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power for the Treasury to Borrow.)
    (1) The Treasury may borrow from any person, by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole ninety-two million eight hundred and forty-seven thousand three hundred and forty-three pounds.
    (2) The date of payment of any Treasury Bills issued under this Section shall be a date not later than the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, and Section six of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877 (which relates to the renewal of bills), shall not apply with respect to those bills.
    (3) Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with interest not exceeding five pounds percent. per annum, out of the growing pro-
    2528
    duce of the Consolidated Fund, at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed.
    (4) Any money borrowed under this Section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "five" ["five pounds per cent."], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
    1.0 P.M.
    I know it is the custom in Appropriation Bills for the Treasury to take power to borrow at 5 per cent., but I would ask why it is necessary to put in so high a figure. I quite understand that for a short period of time it might not be possible to get money at 5

    2529
    per cent., or even at 10 per cent., but when you insert figures in any Bill of this kind you ought to put in the figure of a likely rate; otherwise the Treasury might very easily be led into acts of improper borrowing. To put in a figure as high as 5 per cent, does tend to encourage the Treasury to borrow at a higher rate than may be necessary. We have heard a good deal about the depreciation of credit recently, and we ought not to put in a figure of this kind in this Bill to encourage the notion that 5 per cent, should be regarded in any way the normal figure at which the Government of this country may borrow.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is the figure which has been inserted in every Appropriation Bill for some generations. I cannot give the exact number. It is quite necessary that the Government should take that power. I think that during the American bank crisis, when the Unionist Government was in power, the Bank rate was 7½, entirely due to that crisis, and the Government had to borrow at 4½. That shows that the margin is a very reasonable working margin when there is a great crisis of that kind, which sends up the Bank rate. I do not think it would be safe for us to alter the figure. As a matter of fact the Government always borrow at about that rate.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The only remark I would make in answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that if he intends to provide against a possible crisis, he ought not to put in a maximum figure of 5 per cent. He says that at the time of one crisis they had to borrow at 4½, but on some other occasion they might find it necessary to pay more than 5. His argument shows that we ought not to put in any maximum. If we put in a maximum for ordinary purposes it should be 4 per cent., but if he contemplates a great crisis, then he ought not to put in any maximum.

    CLAUSE 3—(Appropriation of Sums Voted for Supply Services.)
    All sums granted by this Act and the other Act mentioned in Schedule (A) annexed to this Act out of the said Consolidated Fund towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, amounting, as appears by the said Schedule, in
    2530
    the aggregate, to the sum of one hundred and fifty-two million one hundred and sixty thousand five hundred and sixty pounds, are appropriated, and shall be deemed to have been appropriated as from the date of the passing of the Acts mentioned in the said Schedule (A), for the services and purposes expressed in Schedule (B) annexed hereto.
    The abstract of Schedules and Schedules annexed hereto, with the notes (if any) to such Schedules, shall be deemed to be part of this Act in the same manner as if they had been contained in the body thereof.
    In addition to the sums hereby granted out of the Consolidated Fund, there may be applied out of any money directed under Section 2 of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, to be applied as appropriations in aid of the Grants for the services and purposes specified in Schedule (B) annexed hereto, the sums respectively set forth in the last column of the said Schedule.
    Mr. FELL: The sum of £152,160,560 includes the sum for the payment of Members of this House. I had proposed to move a reduction of the sum by £362,000. Shall I be in order in doing so?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will it be possible? for me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the nine Members of the House who have declined—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must do that, if he wants to, at Question Time.
    Mr. FELL: I did not hear the reason why I could not move my Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had been in the House earlier, he would have heard it.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I understood that we had a promise from the Government that we should be allowed to discuss this year and every year—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter which can be discussed on this Bill. The hon. Member must take the proper opportunity for that.
    Sir W. P. BYLES: Is it possible to avoid a discussion by slipping this into the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I could not allow an answer to that question, and obviously, therefore, I cannot allow the question.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask why no Vote in Supply has been made the foundation for this present amount? My recollection is that there was not a Vote in Supply for Members' salaries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There was.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
    Mr. FELL: I asked the Prime Minister when we could discuss this question, and he replied, "On the Appropriation Bill." I quite agree it should properly have come when it was moved in Supply, and I was prepared then to do so, but it was closured.
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be raised on the Third Reading.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would it make a difference in your ruling if you were made aware that the Government had promised facilities for discussion on this topic, and that it was guillotined?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of policy.
    Mr. FELL: Will the only opportunity be on the Third Reading?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes. On that stage any matter which comes up in Supply is open for discussion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: If we cannot discuss it now I presume we shall be perfectly in order to vote against the Clause or against Schedule B in order to emphasise our disapproval of the course the Government has taken?
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are certainly at liberty to vote against the Clause or the Schedule.
    Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7, and Schedule A agreed to.
    Question put, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    Viscount HELMSLEY (seated and covered): Are you going to put Schedule (B), Part I. and Part II. separately?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: May I point out that they are quite separate questions?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot put the two parts of the Schedule separately.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next (5th August).

    FINANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee. [Progress, 1st August.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    NEW CLAUSE.— [Substituted Site Value, Extension of Benefit.)
    It is hereby declared that where a person, who was entitled to the benefits of a substituted site value under Section two, Sub-section (3), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by Section two of the Revenue Act, 1911, has died before the provisional valuation in respect of which such substituted site value could have been claimed has been finally settled, the personal representative or executor of such person shall be entitled to such substituted site value, and it is further declared that where the original site value has been finally settled an application may be made 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. ROYDS: I beg to move, that the Clause be read a second time.
    I think this Clause will be considered quite uncontroversial. Its object is merely to remove an inequality which exists in respect to claims for substituted site value by executors of a deceased owner. That inequality arises very largely from the necessary delay in making the land valuations. I recently addressed a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I asked him—
    "Whether—he is aware that it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to refuse an application

    2533
    under Section 2 of the Revenue Act. 1911, for substituted site value when made by the executors of a deceased owner who was not himself in a position to make the claim during his lifetime in consequence of the delay of the Commissioners in making the valuation required by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910: and whether he will give instructions for such applications to be considered as if made by the owner within the meaning of the Section?
    The answer I got was:—
    "I am aware of the practice, which is in accordance with the law; and I will consider what can be done to obviate any inequality such as that indicated by the hon. Member."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1912, col.2044, Vol.XXXIII.]
    The position seems to be this. Section 2 of the Finance Act of 1910 empowers any owner to claim substituted site value in respect to sales made within twenty years of 30th April, 1909, and application for such substituted site value may be made by the owner, whether he was the actual purchaser of the land or not. Any owner for the time being may make the application. That Section was amended by Section 2 of the Revenue Act, 1911, which removed the time-limit of twenty years in the case of an owner who was the actual purchaser, and he must, under that Section, personally apply for substituted site value within three months of the passing of the Revenue Act, in the case of a valuation which has already been made, and within three months after the final valuation as regards any future valuation after the passing of the Revenue Act. This is the difficulty that arises now: If the owner died after the passing of the Finance Act of 1910, and before he had had an opportunity of claiming the substituted site value under the Revenue Act of 1911, the Inland Revenue Commissioners hold that his representatives could not exercise the right which had accrued to the deceased in his lifetime. That right undoubtedly had accrued to the owner, and the only reason he could not exercise the right was because the valuation had not been made. I am not finding any fault that the valuation had not been completed, because there has not been time to make it, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that the owner had not had an opportunity during his lifetime of exercising his privilege under Section 2 of the Revenue Act of 1911. He might have died within three months after the final valuation. The Act gives him three months within which to make the application. Of course, if he dies within the three months without having made it, the time not being sufficient, that right should accrue to his personal representatives. It is to remove that in-
    2534
    equality that I move this Clause. I should say that I am not quite satisfied with the Clause as drafted, and I have drafted another in these terms:—
    "It is hereby declared that an application under Sub-section (3) of Section two of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by Section two of the Revenue Act, 1911, may be made by the legal personal representatives of a deceased person who, but for his death, could have made an application under the above Sections.
    Any application under this Section may be made within three months after the date of the passing of this Act, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) with regard to alteration of the original site value and the repayment of duty shall apply to an application made under this Section."
    That is a shorter Clause which covers the point, and I think it is better than the one I have moved. I only mention that because I thought the Government might be willing to accept it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon Gentleman has accurately stated the position in regard to this matter. He called my attention to this inequality some time ago, and, having considered it, I confess that I think his case is made out. Personally, I think we ought to try to find some way of dealing with the point, and in doing so we should consider whether an alteration cannot be effected within the four corners of the existing law without an Amendment of this Bill. I am advised that it can be done, and I have given instructions accordingly. What the hon. Member proposes to effect by this new Clause is the practice at the present moment. I forget when he called my attention to the matter.
    Mr. ROYDS: It was on 22nd May last.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A very few days after that the present practice was established, and therefore this Amendment is quite unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman admits that the Amendment he has moved is capable of improvement for the purpose of carrying out his idea. The inclusion of the Amendment in the Bill might conceivably—although I express no opinion on the subject—take the Bill out of the category of Money Bills. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with the statement I have made.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by taking it out of the category of Money Bills? Does he mean that might happen under the wretched Parliament Act? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why 'wretched'?"] I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw the Amendment. I think it is desirable that it should be passed. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I agree that a grievance exists."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Well, he says, "I agree it did exist." It does not exist now because the autocratic Chancellor does not insist upon enforcing the law as it stands. I protest against that system of revenue legislation. I know that the Treasury is fond of it, but it is grossly unjust. What they are fond of doing is to take extreme power, which gives them a large reserve of power in the background which they can use to oppress an individual who may cause them trouble, or to raise additional revenue on a special occasion. It runs right through the whole of the taxes. I do not pretend to be familiar with this particular inequality. It is the Chancellor's answer that seems to me to make it absolutely essential that some such new Clause as that proposed should be put in the Bill. If he is not satisfied with the drafting, let him draft another. As to the other ground of objection, if it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to preserve to the Treasury the power to exercise on an emergency the right which the Statute gives them, I maintain that that is a most portentious proposal. As to the suggestion that the inclusion of the Amendment in the Bill might prevent it being regarded as a Money Bill, I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Amendment put in on the proposal of the Secretary to the Treasury has not removed it out of the category of Money Bills already. But that is not a matter for us to consider. It is for us to say what is just and proper. If that is the only objection the Government have to the Amendment, I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    Mr. CASSEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that as a matter of fact the law as it exists actually caused a grievance until he altered the practice in relation to its administration. I submit that the alteration of the practice was without any justification in law. He was perfectly right when he stated in his answer on 22nd May that the only person
    2536
    who could claim exemption was the owner at the time of the application. It was of the essence of the case in claiming the substituted site value that it should be done in accordance with the terms of the Statute, and that a person who had had a transfer made to him could not claim. That really excluded the executors of a deceased person from making an application. That was an omission in the drafting of the original Statute. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to remedy that error not by an Amendment, but by an illegal practice on the part of the Inland Revenue Commisioners. They have no right to do it. It may be the proper course to take, but I submit it is a dangerous doctrine that the Inland Revenue Commissioners should administer the law as they think fit, and not in accordance with the Statutes framed by this House. What is the reason they give for it? They say, "We are afraid, if we amend the law, this would bring the Finance Bill of the year outside the scope of the Parliament Act." They claim to themselves in their administration to dispense justice as they think fit, merely because they do not wish to run the risk of taking the Finance Bill outside the purview of the Parliament Act. That itself is a curious admission. Whether Mr. Speaker would rule that the Bill, if this Amendment were introduced, was not a Money Bill, nobody can tell. If an Amendment of the Valuation Clauses in the original Bill is not a proper matter for a Finance Bill, it is perfectly clear that the original Clauses were not proper matters for a Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now afraid that the whole of the Valuation Clauses in the Bill of 1909–10 were improperly put into that measure, and on that ground he resists this Amendment. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he himself stated? He said himself, "I quite recognise in dealing with the land system in this country I am dealing with an intricate and complicated matter, and from time to time if questions may come before me which have never arisen I will always give attention to them and rectify them." In this case he refuses to rectify it in the only proper way by legislation, but proposes to do it by mere administration.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I wish to ask the Solicitor-General does he say that the law at present allows this claim to be made by executors or not? That is really the whole question. If the law does not allow

    2537
    the claim to be made by the executors, it is quite improper that the Treasury should do anything inconsistent with Statute law, and in those circumstances, apart from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, with which I do not wish to find any fault, it is absolutely necessary that if not the very words at least the substance of this Amendment should be adopted.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): Nobody can say that in these matters a lawyer's opinion is beyond challenge, and I claim no such inspiration. But it does appear to the Attorney-General
    and myself that when one considers the joint effect of the relative Sections in the Finance Act of 1909–10 and the Revenue Act of 1911 it would be a very strained and artificial construction to say in reference to an estate that the continued existence in life of the owner should be essential in order that this relief should really be available to an estate. We take the view that that is a construction so strained that we could not adopt it.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 206.

    Division No. 191.]

    AYES.

    [1.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gibbs, Arthur Abraham

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Grant, J. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barrie, H. T

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glous., E.)

    Gretton, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, John Waller

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cator, John

    Jackson, Sir John

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cave, George

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Chambers, James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, James Avon

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Winterton, Earl

    Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Yate, Col. C. E.

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

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newman, John R. P.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Viscount Helmsley.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Armitage, Robert

    Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Alden, Percy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bentham, George J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brace, William B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shee, James John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Suillvan, Timothy

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Radford, G. H.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cullinan, John

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, T.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, C. H. (Lincoln)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roberts, George (Norwich)

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

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

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Field, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Shortt, Edward

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mooney, John J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Morison, Hector

    Wadsworth, John

    Hackett, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Hall, F. (Yorks Normanton)

    Muldoon, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hancock, John George

    Munro, Robert

    wardle, G. J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Neilson, Francis

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Hinds, John

    O'Dowd, John

    NEW CLAUSE.—(To Extend Rebate on Motor Spirits to Veterinary Surgeons.)
    (1) As from the passing of this Act, Part I. (4) of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be read as though the words "or veterinary surgeon" were inserted therein after the words "medical practitioner," and Part I. of the said Schedule and Section eighty-five of the said Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. PETO: This new Clause, and the others which stand in my name on the Paper, raise a comparatively small point, but I think exactly one of those points which merits the most careful consideration of those who are responsible for the imposition of taxation in this House. I think it is evident from the Finance Act,

    2541
    in which first the Petrol Duty was imposed, that it was never intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a very heavy impost upon the profits of trade and industry, and still less was it intended to be, what it really becomes, proportionally, a gigantic charge on very small professional incomes. In the Finance Act of 1910 provision is made for a remission of the duty where the motor spirit is used for the purposes of trade; and there is a provision that where doctors have to employ motor cars in the pursuit of their profession they are to get a remission of half the duty on the spirit consumed. It is a very cumbrous process getting back this remission to which they are entitled; at the same time, this law is laid down perfectly clearly in the Finance Act of 1910, and all I want to do by this new Clause is to include a class of doctors who are omitted, a class of doctors who have to work quite as hard, if not harder than those who attend men, women, and children—I refer to the veterinary surgeons. Veterinary surgeons, as a rule, have to travel over larger areas of the country, and have to traverse by-lanes in order to meet their clients, farmers, small holders, and others—even the small man engaged in the smallest kind of agricultural industry—and in doing that, in the course of the last two or three years, even since the passing of the Act, all the conditions have changed. Motors began by being a rare luxury of the few; they then became more or less of a necessity in larger businesses and the better paid professions, and now you find throughout the country their use becoming more and more general. Veterinary surgeons find that it has become absolutely necessary, in order to carry on their profession, that they should be equipped with some sort of car, if only a motor-bicycle or a tri-car, or a two-seated runabout, to cover the large areas they have to get over.
    Sometimes we have a little doubt as to the soundness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's head, but I do not think anybody on either side of this House can have the slightest doubt about his heart being right in the matter of the imposition of taxes upon those who can least well afford to pay them; and one could not imagine for a moment that it could possibly be his intention in framing the Budget to put an enormous burden on a very deserving class of people. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a simple illustration of how the tax works out in the case of a veterinary surgeon. The gentleman to whom I refer
    2542
    has a business extending over an area of at least fifteen miles radius, and occasionally he has to go to further points still. He travels in his little motor car over 22,000 miles a year. Giving him 300 days in the year—I know of my personal knowledge that there are no Sunday holidays in the veterinary surgeon's profession, and I think I am understating the figures—it works out at seventy-three miles a day. Assume that he uses three gallons of petrol—which is an exceptionally low allowance, but I am purposely understating the figures—the tax, quite part from the cost of the petrol, works out at £11 5s. a year. I do not know exactly what the income of that particular veterinary surgeon is, but I am certain that I am well within the mark in saying that there is a vast number of veterinary surgeons doing good business in the agricultural districts of this country who would be very well pleased if they could show an average income of £225 a year. The tax of £11 5s. on an income of £225 amounts to an Income Tax of 1s. in the £—double the Super-tax. All I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do, in the administration of this Act, which is intended to put a tax upon a luxury, is not to charge the veterinary surgeons at a higher rate than 6d. in the £ upon an income of £200 a year in respect of this petrol tax. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make. The remission of half the Petrol Duty is already made in the case of doctors. I would remind the Chancellor of the Duchy that all the doctors of this country do not work on contract work at 6s. a year. There are doctors who would not look at contract work at the post office price with selected patients at 8s. 6d. a year. There are a great many doctors in this country whose professional income must amount to above the Super-tax level, yet these are the people for whom provision is made in the Act in order that they shall have a remission of half the duty on petrol used in their motor car, motor landaulette, or whatever it may be, in which they visit their patients, whether in the West End of London or anywhere else.
    Why leave out these men who are struggling to do what is absolutely necessary work? If agriculture is to be kept up even at its present level, it is absolutely essential that you should have these veterinary surgeons scattered throughout the whole length and breadth of the country. If farmers and others had not their assistance it might

    2543
    almost spell ruin. The prompt attendance of the veterinary surgeon often saves them from sustaining a heavy loss, and the veterinary surgeon should have the means of getting to a case in the quickest time possible in order to render his assistance effective. There is one other question I desire to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. A large number of hon. Members in this House take a very great interest in the question of the provision of horses for the Cavalry of the Regular Army and for the Territorial Force. This subject has occupied a good deal of time during the present Parliament, and very rightly so. It is one of the most important and most burning questions in connection with our military defence. What sort of encouragement do you give to agriculturists for the breeding of horses throughout the country, if you put this heavy duty on petrol, originally intended as a tax upon a luxury, so that the veterinary surgeon has to pay what is equivalent to an Income Tax of 1s. in the £ on his small income, while at the same time you are seeking to give encouragement to horse breeding in this country, in connection with which it is absolutely essential that you should have the services of good veterinary surgeons. On the ground that it is absolutely an injustice as it is worked at present, that it is an overdue remission, and that we have a class practically of doctors of our animals instead of doctors of ourselves who are left out, and probably accidentally left out, on those grounds I make my final appeal, and also on the ground that it is of the utmost importance that you should do nothing to discourage, but everything possible to encourage not only a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons, but to encourage them to equip themselves with the means of getting quickly to the cases where there may be hundreds of pounds of loss, as there is sometimes in the case of horse breeding. I hope we shall be able to find that the Clause which I propose will meet with no opposition from the Treasury Bench, but rather that they will be grateful to me for having pointed out to them this obvious omission in the remissions they have arranged for in the Petrol Duty.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to associate myself with this Clause, which, in my opinion, is one which it is very difficult for the Government to answer, on the footing that it presents a very fair case, since you admit a special concession
    2544
    under the Finance Act to another branch of the medical profession. My hon. Friend has not referred to the humanitarian standpoint, but there are a very large number of cases of serious accidents to animals, and particularly to horses, which involve an enormous amount of pain which might be avoided if only that pain were not so prolonged in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining veterinary assistance and treatment. I wish to support this Clause mainly for two and somewhat different reasons. In the first place, there are serious diseases of which we hear from time to time amongst our farm stock. One of them is rampant, I am sorry to say, in the country to-day, and there is the necessity, above all, of promptitude in attending to them if they are not to become national scourges. We all know that as regards foot-and-mouth disease, and the same applies to pleuro-pneumonia and cattle plague, that promptitude is of the very essence of success in stamping out those extremely contagious diseases. As regards the veterinary profession, it is common knowledge that we do not get the best men coming into the veterinary profession owing to the very little encouragement which they receive from the Government, either by way of suitable education or by way of facilities to help them in carrying on their practice under favourable conditions at the least possible expense. The result is that we have, taking the profession generally, a comparatively incompetent body of men attending to the maladies of our animals. Another matter which is not generally realised is that the bulk of the smaller farmers in the country simply cannot afford to pay the fees which the veterinary surgeons have to charge if they are going to make a living out of their profession, and the result is they would rather allow their animals to die than send for veterinary surgeons to treat them. It comes to this, that this is essentially a case where you ought to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to bring relief to those who are least able to afford to pay high fees.
    There is another reason why I should like to impress the importance of this Clause upon the Committee, and it is that a very large number of these animal diseases are fatal to human beings, such as anthrax, glanders, or even tuberculosis. There are many cases, particularly of anthrax, where, if you had a veterinary surgeon at the earliest possible moment, the whole danger of the disease spreading, not merely among farm animals, but of

    2545
    being disseminated amongst human beings and resulting possibly in death, might be avoided. My hon. Friend has pointed out that, unlike doctors, veterinary surgeons cover in their practice very large areas of territory. It really means that the bulk of them without a motor car cannot attend promptly to serious cases arising at any great distance from the town in which they may happen to live. I know from my own experience and from what veterinary surgeons have told me that many of them would extend their practice and reduce their charges if only it were possible to them, instead of having the usual trap or gig, to obtain a motor car, if they could pay the maintenance expenses without so large a drain on their pockets. For this, amongst many other reasons, I desire to support this Clause, and I venture to think that the small amount which the Treasury, I was going to say would lose, but as there would likely be more motors employed for this purpose there would probably be a gain, but even assuming that they were to lose by this proposal, what they lost would be out of all proportion to the enormous gain, both to animals and to human beings, that would result from the concession.
    Mr. BARNSTON: I desire to support this Clause. I do not suggest that the profession of veterinary surgeons is in any way equal to the profession of an ordinary doctor, but I do at the same time say that a veterinary surgeon's profession is a very noble profession—that of healing and mitigating the pain of poor dumb animals. They lead a very strenuous life; they have got immense distances to go in our country districts, and, as a rule, they make comparatively very small incomes, however scientific or however clever they may be. I do not suppose there is really any class of men who have been so injured by the advent of the motor car as veterinary surgeons. In days gone by humble country people, like myself, who probably kept two, three, or four carriage horses, have now entirely done away with the horses, and do all their carriage work by motor car. I do not say that the veterinary surgeons are ruined by that, but the practice must have been materially decreased by the advent of the motor car all over the country. It is not only on behalf of the veterinary surgeons that I support the Clause of my hon. Friend, I urge it quite as much on behalf of the farmers of the country and the animals they have to treat, because it must be of the greatest advantage that in cases of sickness and in cases of disease the veterinary surgeon
    2546
    should be able to get to the spot quickly. Surely many diseases amongst animals, if they were attended to quickly, might be cured, while, if there is delay, the animal dies. The matter is in very small compass, but it is important to the farmers and to the veterinary surgeons, and on behalf of the farmers and veterinary surgeons I support the Clause.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): A proposal similar to this was made in connection with the Finance Act of 1909–10, and was then discussed at great length. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while expressing his sympathy with the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), pointed out with great force that the moment you began to make remissions of this sort to one class of persons engaged in trade and industry, the pressure from all other similar classes engaged in travelling about the country would become quite irresistible. Everyone who has been in any way responsible for the conduct of the financial business of the country must agree in principle with that proposition. At first sight the argument of the hon. Member excites some sympathy. If you decrease the cast of the motive power you make possible an increase of the speed at which a man will travel, because he can afford to use more motor spirit. But, as a matter of fact, I am not quite sure whether in the interests of veterinary surgeons themselves the proposed change would do much good. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) rather suggested that very little loss would be incurred by the Treasury if this remission were made, because it would probably lead to an increased use of motor cars. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Barnston) pointed out that nothing had done the veterinary surgeons of this country so much harm as the introduction of motor cars.
    Mr. BARNSTON: Indirectly.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think directly, because the use of motor vehicles has reduced the number of horses used as a means of getting about the country, and the veterinary surgeon's business is to look after horses and not after motor cars.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: At any rate their own motor cars would do them no harm.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not quite sure about that. It would be setting a bad example from their point of view. I think that the argument of the hon. Member for

    2547
    Eddisbury is a sound one, and that the use of motor cars by individual tradesmen has really dealt a serious blow at the practice of veterinary surgeons. It is argued that the loss to the Treasury would not be a serious one. From one point of view it might be, but if the loss to the Treasury is small the burden inflicted upon the individual is not great, and therefore the remission—
    Mr. PETO: The whole point of my argument was that the loss to the individual was enormous in proportion to the income he was able to make, but that the amount from the Treasury point of view was a mere bagatelle, because there are not a large number of veterinary surgeons, and they employ only one motor car apiece at the outside.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I heard all that, but I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that to grant a remission to one comparatively small class of traders, however excellent may be the trade or profession in which they are engaged, would at once lead to a similar demand from classes like commercial travellers and local tradesmen, who are every year more and more using motor cars, and from farmers themselves who employ veterinary surgeons, and whose payments to veterinary surgeons will not be lowered because the duty paid by them is less, until eventually you would get a whole class of interests rising against the continued full imposition of the tax on motor spirit, and so far from the loss being small there would be a very large gap in the Revenue so far as this particular tax is concerned. For these reasons, and for those urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the matter was first raised, I regret that I am not able to accept the proposed new Clause.
    2.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the reasons against the new Clause have been fully stated by the right hon. Gentleman, I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to press his proposal to a Division, for a weaker defence I have never heard in support of a Government position. At the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and for some time after I thought he had got hold of the wrong notes, and was discussing a new Clause lower on the Paper. What showed me that he was dealing with the question of veterinary surgeons was the delightfully ingenuous suggestion that it was inexpe-
    2548
    dient to lessen the rate of duty on motor spirit so far as veterinary surgeons are concerned lest they should be tempted to give up their own horses and keep motor cars. Since the historical report in which it was stated that certain people lived by taking in each other's washing, I have never known a more peculiar idea than that of a veterinary surgeon who expects to make an income out of attending his own horse. What did the right hon. Gentleman say on the merits of the new Clause? He said, and this is true, that it is always difficult to draw the line when you begin to make exceptions from a general rule, that wherever you draw the line there is bound to be some case excluded which more or less approximates to those which are included, and gradually the line is thrust further and further out until the tax is whittled away altogether. That is a good argument for making no exceptions if you can avoid them, but it is no reason for making your distinction in an entirely illogical fashion. The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that in the case of doctors this exemption or abatement is already allowed. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would talk of doctors as traders, probably not. He would call them professional men. Surely veterinary surgeons should also be classed as professional men, rather than as traders. But in the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly described them as traders; he likened them to commercial travellers, and compared the motor-cars they employ in pursuance of their profession to the vans which the big stores send out from a large town twenty or thirty miles into the country delivering goods all along the road.
    Mr. PETO: The big van that a trader would send out into the country is already given a remission of half the Petrol Duty.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact. What then comes of the right hon. Gentleman's defence?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman is putting into my mouth an argument which I did not use. I never spoke of the great stores sending out big vans; I spoke of local tradesmen.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of commercial travellers?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Travelling, I presume, on behalf of big houses as well as little local firms. What the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, attempted to do was to draw a distinction between the exemption made for the doctors attending human patients on the ground that they are professional men and the proposal to make an exemption on behalf of veterinary surgeons on the ground that they were classed as traders. I say the veterinary surgeon is much more comparable to a doctor who attends on human patients than he is to a
    trader. I cannot agree that he is not a professional man; but even if you class the veterinary surgeon as a trader, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as I was reminded by my hon. Friend a moment or two ago, that the big traders have already a rebate in respect of their trade motor cars, and that is what we are asking for in the case of the veterinary surgeon.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 207.

    Division No. 192.]

    AYES.

    [2.10 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Grant, J. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, A.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, J.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanler, Beville

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cator, John

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, H. S.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Jackson, Sir John

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thyne, Lord Alexander

    Chambers, J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Warde, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson. Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Middlemore, J. T.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peto and Mr. C. Bathurst.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brace, William

    Alden, Percy

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Brady, P. J.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Armitage, R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Malley, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kellaway, Friderick George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Delany, William

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Dillon, John

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Essex, Richard Walter

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Falconer, J.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Wacpherson, James Ian

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Field, William

    McCallum, Sir John M.

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. [Leics.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sheehy, David

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gulland, John William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hackett, J.

    Molloy, M.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Thorne, wiliam (West Ham)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Munro, R.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wardle, George J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Down, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Grady, James

    NEW CLAUSE.—(To Extend Rebate of the Whole of the Motor Spirit Duty to an Omnibus.)
    (1) As from the passing of this Act the persons entitled under Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to the repayment or allowance of the whole of the duty paid in respect of motor spirit under that Act shall, in addition to the persons therein mentioned, be deemed to include any person using motor spirit for the purpose of supplying motive power for a motor omnibus while it is standing or plying for hire, and Section eighty-five of the said Act shall be construed accordingly.
    (2) Nothing contained in this Section shall operate to entitle any person to the repayment or allowance of any duty under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of motor spirit used by him prior to the date of the passing of this Act.
    (3) The provisions of Section eighty-five of and Part I. (2) and (3) of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, so far as they entitle a person using motor spirit for the purpose of supplying motive power to a motor omnibus standing or plying for hire to a return of one-half the amount of the duty paid under the said Act shall cease to have effect.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    I base my claim that motor omnibuses should be entirely free from the Petrol Tax on two main grounds. The first is, I maintain, the principle that underlies this tax was that it was never intended it should be a tax upon trade; it was intended for altogether different purposes. The second is that in this Motor Spirit Tax you are taxing the motive power—that, I think, is the proper word to use in this connection—of a particular trade, and that it is obviously extremely unfair to select one particular competitor in a competitive trade for the transport and conveyance of the public for taxation and to leave absolutely untouched the motive power of other competitors in that trade. What justification can there be for a tax upon spirit consumed by motor onmibuses, while you do not think it right to tax coal in the electric stations which supplies the power for working the underground railways? You are interfering by administering the tax, as it is at present administered, with one competitor in a particular branch of industry and not with others, and you are handicapping to an enormous extent one particular competitor.
    The next ground of objection on broad principle is that the tax was intended to be a tax upon motor cars for the conveyance of people who can afford the luxury of individual motor cars. It is true that half the tax is remitted in the case of taxicabs and motor vehicles that ply for power, but even so, is there any justification for putting on a tax which must inevitably tend to keep up fares on the poorest of the travelling public and to cut down the wages of drivers and conductors who attend those motor omnibuses? There is no question that if you put a heavy tax upon an industry you tend to put that charge upon the on-cost of the industry, and you keep down the pay of all those who are employed in it. You cannot do it without squeezing wages or without increasing the cost of conveyance to the public. The charge that can be made for the conveyance of the public is regulated by close competition between the various parties, one of whom has to pay the Motor Spirit Tax and the others of whom have not to pay any corresponding tax. Then, again, the cost of collecting this tax is excessive and the cost of recovering the part which is remitted is still more excessive. When you come to charge a duty of 3d. per gallon, and
    2554
    then return half by way of remission in favour of a certain number of consumers, and when you have to collect the whole tax, and then when the payers of the tax have again to collect the half which is remitted, you have about as cumbersome a form of collecting taxation as could be devised. What does this half of the extra tax amount to? I have here a report of a conference on motor-car taxation held last year, representative of the mtor-cab trade and motor-omnibus trade, and I have the minutes particularly as affecting the London General Omnibus Company, in which the following information is set forth:—
    "The cost to the company on the basis of the consumption of petrol during the year ending the 30th September, 1910—"
    I have not the figures for last year, but they are, no doubt, increased—
    was £32,700, or £14 per omnibus."
    What are the other taxes which the company are already charged? They are £2 for police licences, £3 3s. under the Motor Car Act, and 15s. under the Inland Revenue Act of 1888, making £5 18s. in all per omnibus, and in addition £l per omnibus in one year to the London County Council for registration. Distributing the £l over ten years you have a yearly payment in taxes of this kind of £6 making the total up to £50 per omnibus. What is this tax levied for? The proceeds of the tax go to the Development Fund. It is specially allocated to that and the justification given for the tax was the increased charge for the maintenance and upkeep of main roads owing to the heavy motor traffic. But none of the motor omnibuses ever get off the London streets at all; neither their drivers or conductors ever see these roads for the upkeep of which they pay this enormous tax. I have here a resolution which so entirely covers the whole of the case that it is worth reading:—
    "The imposition of a Petrol Tax upon motor omnibuses without a corresponding tax on the forage used by horses, or the coal used by railways and tramcars exposes the omnibus companies to unfair competition from their trade rivals where they have to compete with horse omnibuses, tramways, railways, and tubes."
    Its abolition was recommended on the ground that
    "it is contrary to all our principles of taxation to penalise one trade."
    It will also be observed from the reports of the Motor Omnibus Company that the tax is so severe as to deprive the shareholders of a return for the money they have invested. That resolution was passed at a meeting of the Royal Automobile Club. It was a meeting of every one

    2555
    interested in the motor-car industry. I will sum up the grounds I have put forward for the complete remission of this duty. It operates unfairly between one branch of the same trade and another branch. It is a tax on the motive power, which is more important than a tax upon the raw material of an industry. That is a form of tax I do not believe anybody on either side of this House would justify under any finance scheme or system which is ever likely to be proposed. The motor omnibus is in fact the poor man's car, and it was never intended to place a tax on the conveyance of people to and from their work, to whom cheap transport facilities are of the utmost importance. If you put this great charge upon this industry it is bound to diminish the wages of those employed in it. If we remit this tax it would liberate a very large sum of money in the case of the London General Omnibus Company, who now pays under this duty £32,700 a year.
    Therefore it is not a trifling matter, but it is one of considerable importance, and if you liberate that sum undoubtedly it will tend to reduce the fares and leave a larger sum available for increased wages [An HON. MEMBER: "For increased dividends to the shareholders."] That is a matter of opinion. I do not, however, put it forward from that point of view. If you have an industry in which there is no profit you may be very certain that there will be no funds from which the employés can obtain any advance in wages. On the other hand, if the industry is successful the employés do not suffer in that way. I think we can trust hon. Members below the Gangway to see that labour gets its fair share every time there is anything to share out. The only trouble we have is that sometimes these claims are put forward when it is impossible for them to succeed consistent with the success of the industry. Undoubtedly there is a large sum of money involved, and that sum forms part of a fund which goes especially to the upkeep of the main roads of the country, and these omnibuses have nothing whatever to do with the main roads and gain no benefit from them. Nevertheless they are made to contribute a very large fraction of the total amount of the revenue derived from the Petrol Tax. That is practically the whole of my case, so far as I am able to state it to the Committee, and I ask for the very serious consideration of these points by the Chancellor of the Duchy. As he was unable to
    2556
    accept my last little Amendment, which would have removed an obvious injustice, I ask him to deal with this Amendment in a more sympathetic spirit. It should be remembered that I am pleading for the collection of the tax from the people originally intended to pay it, and I am asking him not to interfere, as some hon. Members think we should interfere, with trade if we introduced the change we have suggested in our fiscal system; I ask him as a Free Trader not to interfere by a tax which operates unfairly between one competitor and another in the same trade.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Clause has based a great deal of his argument upon the financial position of motor companies, and he made a special reference to the London General Omnibus Company. No example could have been less well adapted to his case. I remember that the London General Omnibus Company and those interested in it coming to me during the passage of this Bill and representing to me the desperate financial state of the company, and asserting that this tax would certainly kill not only the company but the motor industry, and that the whole of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan district would be put to the most dreadful and terrible inconvenience if this trade disappeared. What has happened since this tax was imposed upon this company? At that time their shares stood at £27 per £100. I know this company has since amalgamated with the Underground Railway, but before that amalgamation took place those shares were selling at £300, or ten times their original value. I am not suggesting that this tax caused that increase, but undoubtedly it did not interfere with the prosperity of the company. Let me point out that the imposition of this tax, as the hon. Gentleman fears, is not the cause of this company paying lower wages, because not only has the price of their shares increased tenfold, but instead of paying no dividend at all, as they did before the tax, they are now paying something like 10 per cent, or 15 per cent., with a bonus in addition. So that if it be true, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that they are only able to pay very low wages to their employés in consequence of the tax, let me assure him that they have an ample margin from which they could improve the position of those people who work for them.
    The hon. Member made another astounding statement. He stated that the London

    2557
    omnibuses never went off the Metropolitan streets. Surely the hon. Member cannot be acquainted with the destination of most of those omnibuses. He only needs to look at the names which are conspicuously placed upon them and he will see that they go out as far as Sidcup on the South-East route, and as far as Barnet on the North. The fact of the matter is that these companies are enjoying the use not merely of the Metropolitan streets, but also of the roads without contributing one halfpenny to the upkeep of those roads apart from this tax which is placed upon them so that they shall contribute something. Although they are paying a sum of £32,000 annually this company get it back many times over by using the roads and streets in the vicinity of the Metropolis, the excellent condition of which enables their omnibuses to run at a high speed, and in this way they are enabled to make those large dividends from which the shareholders derive advantage. It is not only this case. We have to look at the incidence of the tax, and at the results which the tax has contributed to bring about. No one on either side of the House will question the extraordinary improvement in the condition of the roads all over the country since the Road Improvement Board came into existence, or the substantial contribution to the fund which this tax makes to the great convenience of all travellers in every part of the country. The hon. Gentleman, in moving this Motion, said they and they alone were the persons taxed and that other companies who were their competitors did not have to pay the tax. He took the case of the tramways. The tramways not only have to contribute, through the rates, to the upkeep of the roads, but in nearly every instance I know of tramways operating along the highway they have actually to maintain the whole of the space on which the tramways travel. They contribute through their rates towards the maintenance of that portion which the public use, and they have to pay for the maintenance of the whole of that part on which the tramway travels. Not only therefore is the statement inaccurate that the omnibus company is unable to pay this tax, and that they and they alone contribute to this taxation, and their competitors are free, but, as a matter of fact, they are actually making use of that part of the roads the sole upkeep of which rests on their competitors. For these reasons the Government are unable to accept the proposal.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have always disliked this tax, and I believe it rests on a thoroughly unsound fiscal basis. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the great prosperity of the London General Omnibus Company. I know nothing at all about the affairs of that company, and I will take it from him they are prosperous, but he seems to forget that if they are prosperous it is because they are discharging a duty of the greatest possible good to the people of the Metropolis, and discharging it well. If they are unduly prosperous, I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman making that a subject of complaint against them.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I made no complaint. On the contrary, I congratulated them on their prosperity; but that is no reason why they should escape taxation.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly not. It has nothing to do with it whether they are prosperous or not. The point is whether the tax is a good one and is likely to be of advantage to the public. It is perfectly irrelevant whether one particular company is prosperous or not. This affects an immense number of companies all over the country, and it certainly has nothing to do with the merits of the tax that one particular company in London is so ably discharging its duties that it is making a large profit. There is, as a matter of fact, another consideration. If they are making this large profit, they will shortly no doubt in a country where there is free competition have competitors who will deprive them of a certain proportion of their profit. Otherwise, there is no justification for the industrial system under which we live.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to remind the Committee that I only referred to the London General Omnibus Company for one reason. It was only from their figures I could tell the Committee what was the amount of this tax per year. There was nothing in my argument as to whether they were prosperous or unprosperous.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I myself do not think it has any great bearing on the issue before us whether this company is prosperous or unprosperous. The only allegation I heard was that of the Chancellor of Duchy, who seemed to think that because they were doing very well that was a justification for the tax. My objection to the tax

    2559
    is that it rests on the theory that you can separate your fiscal system into watertight compartments, that you can have a tax on petrol which is to be applied to the upkeep of roads, and that in that way you are taxing a source of revenue which would not be open to you if you put the tax on some other commodity. I believe that to be altogether untrue. I do not think you gain anything by making it a tax upon petrol. It comes to be paid by the population of the country wherever you put it on in the first instance. Take this particular case. I always think it an extremely good illustration. You put a tax on petrol, and the result is that pro tanto you raise the fares or diminish the wages, or the other working expenses. I do not think in this particular case it has the effect of diminishing wages, but I do think it raises the fares. Anyone who has had, as I have had, the opportunity of comparing the services of the motor omnibuses and the tramways will be quite well aware that one of the great allegations made by their rivals is that the fares of motor omnibuses are too high for them to be of service or of sufficient service to the poorer classes of the country. There is no doubt an element of truth in that, and one of the things which contributes to keep up the fares is undoubtedly this tax. Anyone who has any knowledge of economics must, of course, admit that.
    You have a general tax on the motor omnibuses of the country, and unquestionably that keeps up the fares to some extent. You are taxing the people—and that is the thing you have to recollect—who travel by motor omnibuses, or else you are preventing them from travelling by them, which is the same thing as taxing them. Therefore instead of taxing a bloated company which the Government persistently thinks it is capable of doing, it is really taxing the working men, as always happens with all their taxation. You may single out a particular company which is prosperous, and which has not put any part of the tax on the working man, but that company is in competition with all the other companies, and the thing which really settles the rate of fare is the least prosperous companies. You must therefore consider what the effect of the tax will be on the least prosperous company to see what is the economic effect of the tax. I believe it is a most unsound form of taxation, for this reason. It really discourages locomotion, and locomo-
    2560
    tion is the real and only solution in my judgment of the housing problem in great towns. I believe there has been a great mistake made in all our legislation in penalising too much railways, tramways, and other forms of locomotion coming into the great towns. Ail that legislation which is so dear to hon. Gentlemen opposite providing for the re-erection of houses for the displaced working-classes I believe to be a pure delusion. It has done no good whatever to the working classes. It has been a fetter on locomotive enterprise, and it has handicapped the housing problem in the Metropolis. I object to this tax because, in my judgment, as far as motor omnibuses are concerned, it is really a tax on locomotion, and that, I believe, to be a thoroughly unsound subject for taxation in our existing form of civilisation. I believe you ought to do everything you can to promote the free passage of a member of the community from one part of it to another, and, for that reason, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall support him.
    Question, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(To Extend Right to Rebate of Half Motor Spirit Duty to Cabs which do not ply for Hire.)
    (1) The right to a repayment or allowance of one-half of the duty on motor spirit under the Finance Act (1909–10) Act, 1910, conferred by Section eighty-five of the said Act upon any person using motor spirit for the purposes of supplying motive power to the vehicles specified in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act shall extend to any person using motor spirit for the purpose of supplying motive power to any of such vehicles while it is let on hire for a period not exceeding one month, and whether it is standing or plying for hire or not.
    (2) Section eighty-five and Sub-section (2) of Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance Act (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be construed and have effect as though the words "or while it is let on hire for a period not exceeding one month "were inserted at the end of such Sub-section, and Section eighty-five of the said Act and Sub-section (3) of Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act shall be construed and have effect as though the words "or let on hire for a period not exceeding one month" were inserted at the end of such Sub-section.
    (3) Nothing contained in this Section shall operate to entitle any person to the repayment or allowance of any duty under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of motor spirit used by him prior to the passing of this Act.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    This proposal is one in regard to which I need only trouble the Committee with a few words. It deals with such a simple question, and with such an obvious injustice, that I am rather surprised not to have received an intimation that it is the purpose of the Government to accept it. It is an Amendment of the law which has a peculiar interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is, undoubtedly, in favour of allowing a remission of Petrol Duty to cars or other forms of petrol engine propelled machines which do not ply or stand for hire, and which are used exclusively in trade. It refers more especially to those cars and other similar vehicles which are owned and used in Scotland. The reason I particularly mention this aspect of the case first is that the hon. Member for Orkney is not here, and is therefore unable to support the Amendment, although, without doubt, he would have done so had he been present. The whole point is this. Under the Act of 1883 there is a definition of hackney carriages which I will read to the Committee:—
    "A hackney carriage means any carriage standing or plying for hire, and includes any carriage let for hire by a coachmaker or other person whose trade or business it is to sell carriages or let carriages for hire, provided that such carriage is not let for a period amounting to three months or more."
    That definition is carried on in Schedule 5 of the Act of 1910, in a Sub-section which says what forms of vehicle may claim remission of half the Petrol Duty:—
    "A motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle, being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section (4) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, while standing or plying for hire."
    I have read the definition within the meaning of Section (4) of the Act of 1888, and I will now put shortly to the Committee how the case stands. The intention is to allow remission of half the duty on hackney carriages, as defined in the Act of
    2562
    1888, where owned by a coachbuilder or person whose business it is to manufacture and let these carriages, provided that they are not let for a period of more than three months. But there are other words added to provide that they shall stand or ply for hire. I ask the Committee to consider how monstrously unfair that rule is in its operation. These carriages, owned by Scottish hotel keepers, absolutely replace the old charabanc, or wagonette, or machine as it is called there, with which hon. Members who have been in Scotland are perfectly familiar, and with which I hope many of us will be familiar again in ten days' time. These motor vehicles replace the old machine which was exempt as a hackney carriage under that Clause of the Act of 1888, but this special remission of Petrol Duty, which corresponds to the old remission of the Carriage Tax, is expressly stated to be only for those hackney carriages which stand or ply for hire. How can they "stand" if there is no place for them to stand at; how can they "ply" if there is nobody to ply for?
    These vehicles owned by hotels in Scotland and by public houses and hotels throughout every part of the country are absolutely part of the business of these people. They are not private luxuries at all, they are as much part of the trade as that of the hackney carriage keeper who happens to be in the neighbourhood of a town. Let me give one illustration. Take the case of an ordinary hotel in any English country constituency. In a great many places there is no cab stand at all. I have a case in mind where an hotel proprietor thought that this remission must be intended for him. He could not believe otherwise. He had kept half a dozen or more cabs to accommodate the public demands for years, he had supplied them at considerable cost, and because he was a wise man who wished to push his business, he had also gone in for one or two small motor cars to do exactly the same kind of work, station work, to accommodate his customers and to take commercial travellers about their business. He naturally asked for a remission of Petrol Duty. He was told, however, "No, your cars do not stand or ply for hire; they therefore do not come within the Act." He suggested to the Excise officer, "Will it do if I send them to the railway station, as that is the only place in the town which in the least corresponds to a cab stand?" He was told, however, that that was not, strickly speaking, standing or plying for

    2563
    hire, and that his vehicles could not be included as hackney carriages. I want to put in at the end of the definition, which is in the Schedule of the Act of 1910, (he words "or while it is let on hire for a period not exceeding one month." Under the Act of 1888 it was a period of three months, which precluded a person from claiming that the carriage which was part of his business was a hackney carriage. If it was let for three months it was considered to be more or less in the nature of a jobbing business and a carriage that was, to all intents and purposes, a private conveyance.
    Since the Act was passed, the practice of going into the motor-car hiring business, apart from the hotel business, has grown. I know at least three persons in my own Constituency, one of them being my strongest political opponent, who have gone in for keeping a small car in order to cover a large part of a scattered area, which the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, knowing that they can do a business by letting this car. The only reason they are excluded from the remission of half the Petrol Tax is that there does not happen to be a cab-stand where the cars can be sent to stand. It is therefore mere accident which decides whether a man is entitled to a remission of the Petrol Duty or whether he has to pay the whole tax. There is no justification for continuing the tax upon that basis, where it is absolutely accidental in its incidence. One person can get off because there is a paved road in his neighbourhood with a cab-stand. He can comply with the Act, although it is not part of his regular business, by sending his car to stand there every now and then in order to satisfy the Excise officer. But other people over practically the whole of Scotland, except in the large towns, have no chance of complying with the terms of the present Act. It is obviously unjust and contrary to public policy to create these feelings of injustice. Where a man has been in the habit for years of getting a remission because his vehicles were part of his business, he finds himself suddenly precluded because he happens to be carrying on a trade in a rural district, with a short season, where it is essential, in order to get any business, that he should replace the old-fashioned vehicle with the modern vehicle. He finds the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down upon him and saying that because he carries on his business in one locality and not in another,
    2564
    therefore he will be charged the whole duty, although it is a trade vehicle, as if it were a private motor car of forty horsepower. I shall be delighted if any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee would support my Clause and enable me to go to a Division, as I certainly shall if I have the opportunity.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The intention of the Clause, as I understand it, is that where a carriage is now practically a private carriage, and where it is occasionally let on hire, if it is let for a period of less than one month—
    Mr. PETO: Never let for more than a period of one month.
    3.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It shall be entitled to the rebate which it does not now obtain. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this Section was adopted in 1910, was that there should be a clear distinction drawn between the carriage kept by an innkeeper for the convenience of people staying at his inn, or which was occasionally taken out by residents in the locality for a short time, and the vehicle which daily stands on a cabstand or plies for hire. The hon. Gentleman seeks to take away that distinction by saying that if this same private carriage is lent for a period of less than one month the owner shall get the rebate. That period of less than a month would be renewed and renewed again, at the moment the contract came to an end, and the result of those renewals would be that some private carriage which is expressly excluded by the Act from the benefit of the rebate would get it. That is the whole pith of the matter. I am not going to argue the whole case, because it was argued very fully when the Act was passed. It is sufficient to state what the practical effect of the proposal would be for the Committee not to accept it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I have no recollection of the original Debates on the subject in connection with the Budget of 1909, but I do not think that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman disposes of the case of my hon. Friend. Let me say at once that against an abuse of any concession which might be made such as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, I think precautions ought to be taken, and that it ought not to be possible to have a car practically under private contract the whole of the year yet claiming the exemption because it was let under a series of successive contracts,

    2565
    not one of which extended beyond a month. I imagine that it does not pass the wit of man to prevent an abuse of that kind taking place. If there were any difficulty in providing against it by Statute the difficulty must have already arisen. My hon. Friend has mentioned that he based his proposal upon a provision in a previous Act, where a similar limit, but for three months, was imposed. It is clearly much easier to make four successive contracts of three months each than twelve successive contracts of one month each. If sufficient precautions can be taken to prevent abuse under the first, surely they can be taken to prevent abuse under the second. Therefore the Clause cannot be disposed of on that ground. What is the strength of the case my hon. Friend has put before the Committee? I think it is two-fold. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman touched upon them at all. I conceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in imposing the Petrol Tax, intended upon the whole to maintain the same distinctions as were previously maintained between carriages before motor traction came in. I think that was the general line he pursued and which governed him in other concessions that were made. The first point made by my hon. Friend is that this introduces a new distinction, namely, that a man who was entitled to a rebate of taxation when he did a certain trade with a horse-drawn vehicle is not entitled to an analogous rebate of taxation if he now-a-days, in the age of motor vehicles, does his trade with a motor car. I do not believe it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the House in 1909 to uproot the distinctions which then existed in regard to the taxation and exemption of different kinds of vehicles inter se except in so far as that is necessarily the result of imposing a tax on motor spirit. The second point my hon. Friend made was also wholly untouched by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is a very serious one. My hon. Friend said that whether you get this rebate under the present law or not depends upon the conditions of the locality. That is not justice. I take the statement from him, observing only that the Government have not attempted to answer or to dispute it; but if it be true that a man who happens to have a cab stand in his neighbourhood would get this rebate at present whilst another man situated in a town or a country village where there is not a cabstand cannot get the rebate, though his
    2566
    trade is of exactly a similar kind, surely none of us would defend that or desire to continue it. I hope we may have some specific answer from the Government on these two points—what is the justification for refusing to continue the old distinction drawn under the old Act in the days of horse traction between vehicles doing different kinds of trade; and, in the second place, what is the justification under the new Act for drawing a distinction between two similar vehicles not only on the ground of their different use, but for the simple reason that there is a cab stand in one locality and there is no corresponding public stand for hackney carriages in the other locality.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The rebate is at present allowed by the Inland Revenue in any case in which it is clearly shown that the motor car in question is let out at all times for the general accommodation of the public upon fixed definite charges, and although not actually on a cabstand it is generally engaged in plying for hire.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long that has been in force and have any communications been made to people owning these vehicles acquainting them with the present administration of the Act which is quite unknown to them?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think it is the obligation of the Revenue Department to communicate this to all persons. It is for persons who think they have a good case to obtain a rebate to put that forward. Upon the other point there must be a very great number of places in this country where, if there be any demand for the kind of vehicle which is wanted for the conveyance of the public at all times, it is not a narrow question of whether it stands on so many definite feet of the roadway which may or may not be called a cabstand, but whether a person hires a vehicle at a particular spot on the road where it is accustomed to stand.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Suppose he finds it in a stable or a garage.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: On that point I must confess myself not clear for the moment. I will make inquiries. The real fact is the immediate readiness of the vehicle to take up, at fixed, definite charges, the public, and convey them to the destination to which they want to go. That is really the distinction which the Inland Revenue

    2567
    draws between the semi-private carriage, which I gather the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to exempt, and the regular public conveyance.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear up to a certain point What I am still not clear about, and I think he is not, is whether there is ground for the belief of my hon Friend, on the information supplied to him, that a man who is ready to ply for hire when there is hire, cannot get this rebate unless he can find somewhere to stand outside his premises. Take the case given, of the man who applied for it. It was refused to him, not on the ground that he did not ply merely, but that he did not stand to ply. He can only ply of course when there is a passenger who will engage him, and passengers may be few at many times of the year, but the essential thing is that there should be a public carriage available when a passenger comes along. Then my hon. Friend says his informant told him he actually proposed that he should send his vehicle to the station in order to qualify, and he was told that was not sufficient. What more is there? There is no stand in that locality. If the right hon. Gentleman says in that case the man will be entitled to the rebate, I think he cannot establish it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are always two accounts of any transaction the nature of which has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman and repeated by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not challenge in any way the good faith of the hon. Member, but if the facts are as he asserts it would appear to me primâ facie that this friend has a good cause of complaint, and inquiries shall be made in that particular case. I understand the practice of the Inland Revenue to be that if a car is available at all times for the conveyance of the public at fixed charges, the owner of it is entitled to rebate.
    Mr. PETO: I make no secret at all of the place I was referring to. I am speaking of Devizes, and I got my information from there simply because information is more readily accessible in places which one knows. I say, without hesitation, I never heard this new explanation the right hon. Gentleman refers to, and a year ago it was not in force. The facts were exactly as stated. I am not dealing with the case of cars occasionally used for some other private purpose, but I am dealing
    2568
    with the case of cars which are never used for anything except regular letting out in the course of trade, and hitherto, certainly in those cases I have investigated, unless the owner could say that he complied with these definite words, "stand and ply for hire," he could not get a rebate of the Petrol Tax. Even what the right hon. Gentleman said shows that they have entirely altered the definition of what constituted a hackney carriage. The definition in the Act of 1888 is perfectly clear and was only limited by the words that the carriage was not to be let for a period of three months. Now there are altogether new conditions imposed in order to qualify for a rebate.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Excise Duty on Motor Spirit.)
    (1) As from the day of the passing of this Act the Excise Duty payable under Sub-section (2) of Section eighty-four of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on motor spirit manufactured in Great Britain or Ireland shall be reduced to three halfpence per gallon.

    (2) This Section shall be construed with Section eighty-four of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."

    Mr. PETO: I beg to move "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    This is of greater importance than any of the new Clauses I have put forward. It deals with a large question and with a national question of the utmost urgency, and I believe it will meet with a very sympathetic reception from the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his well-known record in these matters. It is really a question of the first moment from the Cabinet point of view. I do not want it to be understood for a moment that it is a proposal to reduce the Petrol Tax as such. I agree with almost all that the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) said on the question of the specific tax, but that is not my argument at all. If it were within the rules of order I should be perfectly willing to propose that the Petrol Duty on imported spirit should be increased to 4d. and again diminished on that distilled in the United Kingdom to 2d., so that the net result would be nothing to the Exchequer either way. I only mention that to indicate that I am not moving this with any desire to reduce the tax, but I have the strongest and most urgent reasons for pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is

    2569
    essential that there should be a large remission of the tax in the present circumstances on motor spirits distilled within the United Kingdom. May I ask the Committee to consider what is our present position in the world in respect to the question of distilled motor spirit? About 60 per cent, of the supply of Europe is under the control of the Royal Dutch Shell Combine. In the matter of petroleum and of the products of crude oil we have not, being a Free Trade country, escaped, or made any effort to escape, from the entire control of these products being in the hands of the two strongest combines that exist in the world, in any trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed this duty of threepence per gallon at the time when it represented a duty of, roughly speaking, 25 per cent, on the value. That was apparently his intention. He was extraordinarily fortunate, because the imposition of the duty almost synchronised with the war which was going on between the Standard Oil Company and the Royal Dutch Company, which reduced the price of oil by an amount equal to the whole of the tax put upon it. Therefore everybody bore the tax with the utmost complacency, because they believed that in some mysterious way it did not make any material difference, the price remaining at about the same figure as it was before. As a matter of fact, this is one of those duties which are carefully calculated to fall entirely upon the consumer. I do not think anybody will object to that statement. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that that was an excellent thing. He and his Friends will say, "We pay it all ourselves, and we never give anybody else a chance of paying any part of it." That is, in their opinion, the true and virtuous view to take in regard to taxation. But with regard to the question of what is the rate of duty upon motor spirit. It was calculated at something approaching 25 per cent., but if we were anything near the competitive selling price of motor spirit, then the tax of threepence per gallon would be at least 50 per cent. I say so because what is called naptha-benzoline, which is used for exactly the same purposes in the United States, usually costs ten or twelve cents a gallon. That is one of the things which in this country, under our present system of taxation, we do not get cheaper, and for which we pay more than double the price paid in the United States.
    2570
    I do not wish to frighten the Committee with the idea that the great corporations, in view of the entire control which they hold over this commodity, are the least likely to raise the price of motor spirits to a prohibitive level. After the cost of distillation, it is all extra profit. It represents a material which was entirely waste, or was used with the rest of the crude burning oil even as lately as twelve or fifteen years ago. What would be the effect of the alteration in the duty which I advocate? There are no doubt many people, several of whom I have consulted myself, who think that if there was this differentiation between home spirit and motor spirit imported, the great companies or combines, who now control the supply, would be obliged, in order to reap the profit which would be theirs by doing so, to establish great oil refineries at the ports in this country. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this. Supposing the process by which this commodity is produced was a patented process, under the right hon. Gentleman's own Act and by another means, namely, the arbitrary compulsion of his Patents Act, the result would be achieved of compelling people to manufacture what is in this particular case a distilled product within this country. But it is not a patented process. It is a process free to the world.
    I want to put before the Committee one or two reasons why it is of such urgent importance that we should have this industry in this country at the present time, or as soon as possible. The first is this: We have a great lack of employment in our ports of simple occupations that practically any able-bodied man can do. There is no doubt about that on either side of the House. The work in an oil refinery is done by practically the same kind of labour as would be engaged in general dock work. That is one of the minor reasons why we should have this industry. Then hon. Members who are interested in the question—and I believe we all are—of finding sufficient employment, whether for free labour or union labour—and who know the want of employment at our ports, should bear in mind that the introduction of a great oil refining industry in this country is a thing that would go hand in hand with all our other dock employment, and would go a long way to solve the whole question of lack of employment. The main reason why we should have this industry is undoubtedly—there is no question about it—

    2571
    that there is a strong proability that we shall be forced, whether we like it or not, as regards our naval engines to follow the course which apparently is going to be the future development, and, either for internal combustion or the ordinary combustion of the old kind of crude oil, to use oil in one form or another in our Navy. What have other countries done in this matter? Nearly every one has taken some steps. Even Germany, though a small producer of crude oil, produces within its own territory 1,000,000 tons of crude oil annually. We cannot ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wave his magic wand in this matter, as he has so often done with respect to others, and to say that we are going to find oil wells in this country for producing our own supplies, but we can ask him to do what Japan has done. That country, with no home production of its own, realises that this is a serious question from the point of view of national defence. They have got a very large duty upon all forms of manufactured oil; they have got practically no duty upon crude oil. The consequence is that they have got very large refineries of oil, foreign oil in every case, which they get into their country in order not only to have the business there, but to make sure that there is always oil in the ordinary course of things in large quantities in storage in the country. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to consider a few sentences from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 18th of March last, which was one of the most important points in a most important pronouncement on our naval policy:—
    "The adoption and supply of oil as a motive power raises anxious and perplexing problems. In fact, I think they are among the most difficult with which the Admiralty has ever been confronted. Oil as a fuel offers enormous advantages to ships of all kinds, and particularly to the smallest kind. In speed, convenience, cleanliness, economy, and in the reduction of personnel, oil is incontestably superior to coal, and if internal combustion engines of sufficient power to drive warships could be perfected, as may be hoped for within a very reasonable time, all these advantages of oil will be multiplied, and some of them will be multiplied three or four times over. But, on the other hand, can we make sure of obtaining full supplies of oil at reasonable prices in time of peace and without restriction or interference in time of war? Can we accumulate and store a sufficient reserve of oil to meet our ever-growing requirements, and can we make that reserve properly protected against attack, either by aeroplanes or sabotage? All these matters are receiving continuous attention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l8th March, 1912, col. 1560, Vol. XXXV.
    Since then a Royal Commission has been appointed to inquire into this very question. The terms of reference are—
    2572
    "to report on the means of supply and storage of liquid fuel in peace and war and its application to warship engines, whether indirect or by equipment for internal combustion."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be doing an enormous national service, quite apart from the employment of labour and from the establishment of a new industry in this country. He would be assisting in the most material manner the investigations of the Royal Commission by this simple differentiation between the duty which he has already got upon refined motor spirit, manufactured in this country, and that which is imported from abroad. He would automatically make sure that in the ordinary course of things we should at our ports have an immense storage of oil going through the refineries from one end to the other, without incurring the expense and the risk of special storage places for oil for the purposes of the Navy alone. Once you introduce the industry of oil refinery in this country at our ports you have got a great supply to go upon, which would be almost as effective as to introduce, if that were possible, the production of oil itself. I say that it is in our hands, and it is no use having a Royal Commission to investigate how best to attain a thing if we do not avail of the obvious means, by a simple fiscal proposal such as this, of making sure of the desired result, without paying anything, but, on the contrary, gaining enormously, as I will show in the revenue, in spite of the diminution at the time. And not only that, but you will also have automatically, without any direct interference in the matter, a constant supply of crude oil, refined petroleum, and motor spirit in this country. But is there any question of any loss of revenue? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer does he suppose for a moment that he lost revenue by passing the Patents Act? Did he not rather enlarge the area from which he collected revenue in this country?
    Is it possible to erect a single factory of any sort, whether an oil refinery or anything else, without having additional profits to pay Income Tax, and additional employment for the working classes, who will be making their contributions in their tobacco and their beer? Of course, it is perfectly obvious, though he might lose a little of the l½d. per gallon at first, the introduction of these industries will compensate for that, and I ask him to make his own independent investigations from people who know the oil trade thoroughly, and he will find that what I say is con-

    2573
    firmed, that the simple alteration of his tax in the method which I suggest will introduce into this country a great industry and pay back to him probably five or tenfold any money which he could possibly lose on the 1½d. per gallon that he will not collect on the petrol refined in this country. Therefore from the point of view of employment and trade in this country, and still more from the urgent necessity which we have of finding some means of getting a constant supply of crude oil, to provide for possible developments of our Navy which is absolutely essential, he should take the immediate steps which is available to his hand, for which he has made a precedent himself by passing this Patents Act, and take such steps as are necessary to ensure the introduction of this industry, and the erection of great oil refineries by foreign capital coming into this country, for the employment of our people and for the use of our Navy, instead of the reverse of the proposition that is at present going on.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that I cannot enter into the very wide considerations which the hon. Gentleman has opened upon this Amendment. To follow all the questions which he has raised, I should have to discuss the question of oil in the Navy, which in itself is a matter considered sufficiently important to be the subject of a Royal Commission that will
    probably take a considerable time before making its report. We have also to consider the question of the very thorny tangle of the Tariff Reform and Free Trade controversy, and I do not think that the Motion now made could really dispose of either of those questions. It is necessary to get this revenue, not for the benefit of the Treasury, but for the benefit of the local authorities, for the improvement of the roads of the country, and there is no doubt that one effect of this would be to diminish the sum available for the purpose of improving the roads of the country, and I really doubt very much whether the local authorities would thank the hon. Gentleman if he succeeded in incorporating his Motion in the four corners of the Finance Bill. The more successful he is the less would be the revenue for the purpose of the roads, and though he said we would get some other indirect advantages which would more than compensate, those advantages do not include the advantage of improving the roads. I think it is far safer for us to take the actual revenue which we have got and not to embark on the question of the very speculative industries which the hon. Gentleman wants to establish.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be now read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 217.
    Mr. NEWMAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horner) has been unfortunately obliged to go to Ireland, and he has asked me to move for him the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper. I wish to know whether I shall be in order in doing so.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): It is not competent for the hon. Member to move a new Clause standing in the name of another hon. Member.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it not competent for one Member to take up the Amendment of another in Committee?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would be a new procedure in the case of new Clauses, and would enable an hon. Member to unfairly take precedence of other hon. Members.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether that rule is one which applies to Committee? Is it not a rule that applies to the Report stage, and in the case of Committee whether it is an Amendment or a new Clause, has it not always been the practice that one hon. Member can move an Amendment or a Clause for another Member?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The practice is that an hon. Member cannot move a new Clause of another hon. Member, because that would enable him to cut in, and take precedence of other hon. Members.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does not that only apply when a Closure Resolution is in force, and that when there is no Closure Resolution it does not matter? I can understand when there is a Closure Resolution that the moving by one Member of the Amendment of another would give him precedence.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I point out that last year there was a Clause down in my name, and an hon. Friend of mine was not given the chance to move it in my absence?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask, Sir, under what Standing Order your ruling was given?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was not under a Standing Order, but in accordance with the practice of the House.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal from Decision of Commissioners of Customs and Excise in Questions of Value of Licensed Premises.)
    Any decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise upon any question of the value of licensed premises to be determined by them in connection with Excise Liquor Licence Duties shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section twenty of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, is subject under that Act, with the substitution as respects Scotland of the Judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Land (Scotland) Acts, and as respects Ireland of the High Court of Justice of Ireland for the High Court, and the costs on any such appeal shall be in the discretion of that Court.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The effect of this Clause, if carried, would be to give an appeal in certain cases from the decisions of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise when they determine the annual licensing value. By Section 44 of the Finance Act of 1910 the Commissioners were empowered to determine the annual licensing value of which, of course, the tax is levied. When that Clause was in Committee of the House it was pointed out that it was not right when a tax was being levied that a Government Department should determine without appeal the value upon which the tax was to be raised. Obviously the effect might be that the value might be put too high, with the consequence that a higher tax would be levied. That point having been raised, the Committee determined to give in such cases the right of appeal to the High Court, and the same right which is given against the decisions of the Commissioners under the Licensing Act of 1904. That power of appeal was under Section 44 of

    2579
    the Act of 1910. That Section was a good deal debated, and especially after what is known as the Wiggles-worth case, in which the Section was found to have some very serious effects, and to work a great deal of injustice. As the effect of that decision, the Government last year introduced a Clause into the Revenue Act, 1911, Clause 8, by which it was provided that the annual licence value should be determined in a different way. In many cases it follows the Inhabited House Duty, and when that does not apply it follows the operation under Schedule A, and where neither of those apply it is fixed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is an extraordinary thing that although in that Section power was given to the Commissioners to fix the annual licence value as they thought right, no power of appeal was given against the decision in that Section; so that the strange effect was this, that whereas, under the Act of 1910 a right of appeal was given against the decision of the Commissioners, under the amending Section of last year the Commissioners have absolute power, and there is no appeal against their decision. That at all events is as I read the Statute. I submit that the right of appeal ought to be given against decisions under the Act of 1911. If an appeal was right in 1910 it is surely so in 1911, and I cannot conceive how the Government can defend the refusal of the right of appeal in one case when they conceded it in the other. Therefore on that ground alone I think this Amendment would be fully jusified.
    I desire to add a few words of a more general character. I think the practice is growing, and we have all noticed it even in the last five or six years, of giving to Government Departments the right to determine, and to determine without redress, matters affecting the subject. More and more in the Statutes passed at the instance of this Government we find ourselves put into the hands of the Government Departments. In matters of administration, of course, it is clearly so, and in matters of taxation it is so too, and there especially I think the tendency is a very vicious one indeed. We all have to submit to taxation and to be taxed on the value of our property, but to give a Government official, who has an interest and might be encouraged to increase the annual value and so add to the amount of taxation, the right to fix the annual value upon which the tax is levied without any
    2580
    kind of redress or appeal, is, I think, the height of injustice. I do not wonder that, those who are affected by the particular tax upon licensed houses do complain of this provision. I think they have reason for complaint, and I cannot see any reason why the right of appeal which I am asking for should not be given. The Courts have heard a certain number of appeals under the old Section 44, and I do not think anybody will deny that their decisions have tended to justice. They have been extremely important; they have not been numerous because each appeal has been held to apply to a number of cases. They have been very important and have put right obvious injustices in several cases. I am quite sure I am right in asking that in all cases where the licensing value is fixed by the Commissioners, the right of appeal given by the Act of 1910 should be given. I am sure this is a strong case, and I press the Government to accept the Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The circumstances which are now mentioned arise out of a question raised with reference to the Finance Act of 1909–10. There has been no real complaint with regard to the way in which the Commissioners have decided these questions so far as I know. There is no real dispute. The matter that comes before them is entirely a question of fact; they deal with it as they are best able on the material before them, and in the same way as they have done ever since 1825. There really does not seem to me to be any reason to change a practice which has continued for so long, and which, as far as I can gather, has given rise to no dissatisfaction. If a question arises that the Commissioners of Excise and Customs are not properly administering the law or that they are acting in defiance of the law and not in accordance with the Statutes, those questions are all open at the present day either by certiorari or mandamus, and you do not require an appeal in such cases. The only effect of giving an appeal would be that in all these cases where the Commissioners have to decide upon the facts what is the annual value, if there is not a true rent stated, it would be an appeal upon the facts. I suppose that is what the hon. and learned Member means. Surely that could not be desirable. If the hon. and learned Member were able to show that the Commissioners of Excise had dealt unsatisfactorily with numbers of cases which had come before them I could better

    2581
    understand the point. The Commissioners are merely continuing a practice which has been in existence since 1825, and I really cannot see that there is any need to insert an appeal, certainly not on the facts as stated by the hon. and learned Member.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is no doubt a good deal of truth in what the Attorney-General has said with regard to this having been the practice for a long period of years. There is a certain difference in Scotland, where we have Government assessors whose judgment in these matters can be appealed from. As a general rule the Somerset House people have accepted the decision in those cases, and have not tried to override it; but there are cases in which they have used their powers. It does not seem desirable that in these days, when we require to be protected against bureaucracy, there should not be an appeal in this as in other cases. There have been great complaints. When the section was introduced into the Revenue Act of 1911 I argued this point with the Attorney-General, who rather pooh-poohed the suggestion that a few words ought to be added giving an appeal, and I was so glad to get the Clause itself that for the moment I did not press the point. I have always thought that in this matter there ought to be an appeal. While as a general rule the Somerset House people are extremely fair in these matters, they are not infallible. They are animated by a natural desire to get as much revenue as possible, and in these days, when the imposition of Licence Duty is so monstrously extreme, it is much more necessary that safeguards should be introduced and the right of licence-holders to have an appeal in these matters is much more important. In former times it made very little difference whether an extra £10 or £15 was added to the rental value, because the scale was a low one, and there were considerable gaps between the steps in the scale; but it is very different now, and licence holders require to be protected against gross overvaluation. On the general principle that the subject ought to be protected by the law in matters of this kind, I think the proposed new Clause should be supported.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the Attorney-General quite met the point of my hon. and learned Friend, who pointed out that there was an appeal in regard to compensation, and contended that there ought also to be an appeal in regard to annual licence value. I should agree with
    2582
    the Attorney-General in one respect, that it might be right to give an appeal in cases of this kind on questions of principle and not on questions merely of fact if the two could be clearly separated, but that very often cannot be done. As a matter of fact, when you come to the question of the annual value of licensed premises you have very difficult questions to solve as regards both principles and methods of valuation. There are few cases at the present moment in which the official valuation made in the first instance is of such great importance to the subject as it is in regard to the annual value of licensed premises. Why, then, should not an appeal be allowed? Apart from the general principle that these matters ought to be, dealt with by the Courts openly and not merely by official valuers, surely if you allow appeals in other cases connected with the Licensing Laws there ought to be an appeal in this, which is probably the most important case of all.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I think there are strong reasons why an appeal should be given. The first is that the duty involved now is much more considerable, and consequently the amount at stake is far greater than it used to be. In these circumstances it certainly seems not right that the final determination should rest with a Government Department. I cannot quite agree with the Attorney-General that it is a pure question of fact. Questions of fact and questions of principle are very often inextricably mixed up, and it would be almost impossible in many of these cases to deal with questions of fact apart from principles of law. While it may be very undesirable that there should be an appeal in every case where questions of mere fact involving no principle of law were concerned, I put it to the Attorney-General that it is eminently desirable that there should be some means of bringing before a Court cases involving principles which would govern a great many other cases. That is the spirit of the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision.
    Mr. G. FABER: It is rather audacious on my part to intervene in this battle of the lawyers, but there is a point which I think has not been sufficiently elaborated. In his Budget speech of 1909 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he intended in the near future, "within a few

    2583
    months," to base the valuation on the annual licence value. Not only have a few months passed, but three years have elapsed and we have got very little, if at all, nearer to this new basis. Let me quote the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is essential, in order to ensure fair treatment between one publican and another, that there should be a valuation based upon principles on which publicans for the time being receive compensation, and therefore generally accepted by the trade as an equitable basis for appraising the value of their monopoly. This assessment, when it is complete, will be translated into terms of annual value, and the licence will be levied accordingly."
    There are some remarks which do not affect the point. Then the Chancellor goes on to say:—
    "In that case [that is, if the valuation on the new basis is higher than the valuation on the old basis], we undertake, when the valuation is complete, to reconsider the whole scale in the light of the more accurate and scientific figures which will have been secured by the operation of this new assessment. This new valuation will, however, take some months to complete. Meanwhile we propose to levy our duties upon the basis of the valuation upon which the present duties are chargeable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1909, cols. 524–5, Vol. IV.]
    When the right hon. Gentleman made that speech it was evidently his intention, or the intention of the Government, to introduce an entirely new scheme of valuation. Let me point out that if that new scheme had been brought forward there would be an appeal, because the Finance Act of 1909, or rather of 1910, especially provides, as I understand, for an appeal upon the ascertainment of the annual licence value. Surely the trade is labouring under an injustice. It was held out that attached to this new scheme of valuation there would be a right of appeal. You have gone on for three years with the old valuation, the old valuation based upon annual value, and you give those concerned no appeal. Why you refuse to give the appeal now asked for, I really see no adequate reason for. Surely if you were willing to do justice in the other case, it is only tardy justice to do it now after three years. Although it is late in the day, for the fiat has gone forth, I suppose, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said what he did, so long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said the final word, and has not dropped the knife upon this new Clause, I do hope, in the light of what I have said, that there may be some reason for consideration.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am surprised at the interruption of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke. If I did not know him I would have thought he wanted to get away for a holiday.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I was not interrupting the hon. Gentleman; I was really cheering him.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Member has his own peculiar way of cheering. I want to put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should send for the Postmaster-General, because if the Postmaster-General was here he would appreciate the point of my hon. Friend. He was in charge of the Licensing Bill of 1908, and he laid very great stress upon this new valuation. He said: "the present basis will operate unjustly; it is not the proper basis." He always said: "Wait till the new valuation." Continually throughout the course of the discussion, which I remember as being a bearing upon this present Amendment, it was said that the new valuation provided an appeal. I quite agree it is a matter of very great difficulty to prepare this new valuation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot promise it at once, but why on earth should he refuse to give this very small boon of appeal which he can give immediately, and which will be given if the promises then held out by the Postmaster-General are carried out? The argument of the Attorney-General is that things have rubbed on very well since 1825. Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that to other matters in politics. Some may say the Upper House rubbed along very well since 1825. I am bound to say there is a difference since 1825. The power of bureaucracy has arisen, the spirit of Emson and Dudley has come to life again; there is reason why the subject should be protected which did not exist in 1825. But really it is a small thing that is asked for, and without any loss of dignity or surrender of principle it very easily might be given by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 214.

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES.

    [3.36 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Chambers, James

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Barnston, Harry

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Barrie, H. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hunter, Sir Charles R. (Bath)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Becket, Hon. Gervase

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

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Fell, Arthur

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Kerry, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Boles, Leiut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Gastreit, Major W. Houghton

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Campion, W. R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Cator, John

    Grant, J. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine')

    Cave, George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Royds, Edmund

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen

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

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Winterton, Earl

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stewart, Gershom

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr. Peto and Mr. Hills.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Touche, George Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Alden, Percy

    Glanville, Harold James

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Greenwood, Glanville, G. (Peterborough)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Armitage, Robert

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Meagher, Michael

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Gulland, John William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hackett, John

    Molloy, Michael

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mooney, John J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morrell, Philip

    Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morison, Hector

    Bentham, George J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Muldoon, John

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Munro, Robert

    Boland, John Pius

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Brace, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Dowd, John

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Grady, James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Clougn, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Malley, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Shee, James John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Crooks, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Parker, James Halifax

    Cullinan, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pointer, Joseph

    De Forest, Baron

    Kelly, Edward

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Devlin, Joseph

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dillon, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Field, William

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    2576

    2577

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Sheehy, David

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Wadsworth, John

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wardle, G. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Division No. 194.]

    AYES.

    [4.10 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tyntt

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newman, John R. P.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Pease, Herbert (Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Brgot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Grant, J. A.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bennet-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Royds, Edmund

    Bigland, Alfred

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Salter, Arthur Slavell

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hills, J. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cator, John

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chambers, J.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, Ripon)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Winterton, Earl

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Denniss,E. R. B.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Ripon)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Fell, Arthu

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Field, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Clough, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Alden, Percy

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gill, A. H.

    Armitage, R.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Clanville, Harold James

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Crooks, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greig, Colonel, J. W.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Gulland, John W.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hackett, J.

    Bentham, George J.

    Delany, William

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hancock, John George

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Boland, John Plus

    Dillon, John

    Harcourt, Robert C. (Montrose)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bracey, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Brady, P. J.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Falconer, J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    2586

    2587

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Hinds, John

    Molloy, M.

    Richardson, Thomas Whitehaven)

    Hodge, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Mooney, John J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morison, Hector

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Muldoon, John

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

    Illingworth, Percy H,

    Munro, Robert

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridegton)

    Jones, Rt. Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shortt, Edward

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Keating, M.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Dowd, John

    Snowden, P.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Grady, James

    Sutherland, John E.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Leach, Charles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lundon, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burkhs)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    McGhee, Richard

    Pointer, Joseph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Reddy, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Substituted Site Value, Extension of Benefit.)
    It is hereby declared that the words "date of this Act" be substituted for the words "thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine," in Section two, Subsection three, line six, of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and further that Section two of the Revenue Act, 1911, shall be amended by the substitution of the words "date of the principal Act" for the words "thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time.
    The Clause I propose raises a very curious point, but one of very great hardship, which I only need to state in order that the whole Committee will recognise that it is a hardship. It affects a great many transactions, in fact it affects all the transactions which took place between 30th April, 1909, and 10th April, 1910. Now 1910 is the datum line at which the Increment Duty starts, and all the land in the country is valued as from 30th April,
    2588
    1909. The Finance Act, 1909, came into operation on 10th April, 1910, and the period between these two dates is what I wish to deal with. During that period no Increment Duty was payable, because the Act was not in force. The result is that in the case of any man who bought during that period the vendor had to pay no Increment Duty, but if that same purchaser sells he has to pay on the profit which the other man made. I will assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer purchased a piece of land in May, 1909, and that he resold it to me in December, 1909, at a profit of £2,000. In that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to pay no Increment Duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I will tell the hon. Member why not. It is because the Act was not in force then. Assuming that I now resell at precisely the same price, although that land has not changed in value I should have to pay a duty on the profit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made. That is precisely the result of the Act as it stands, and it applies to all the transactions which took place between those two dates, and the person who

    2589
    bought between those two dates and resold after the Act has to pay from 30th April, 1909, in respect of a profit which arose before he was a purchaser.
    The same thing applies in the case of leases. Supposing there was a lease of fourteen years which showed a profit, the same principle would apply and it is manifestly unjust. I do not suggest that this is otherwise than a mere slip. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were complicated matters to deal with and that cases of injustice, if brought to his notice, would be considered. I think this is a monstrous hardship which any reasonable man only needs to have stated to him in order to recognise it. The effect of the Amendment I propose is that where a man bought during that period, his increment should commence as from the date he bought, and he should only have to pay from the profit which he made. I agree that the wording of the Amendment is not quite correct. Instead of substituting "the date of this Act" I think it ought to be, "It is hereby declared that the words from the date of this Act'" be added after the words "thirtieth of April, 1909." It must be an alternative and not a substitute. There is only one defence to this absolutely unanswerable case I am afraid of, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to tell me that this is the practice of the Inland Revenue. It is a practice contrary to law, and they recognise the injustice of it, but they are, in fact, administering the Act in a manner contrary to the law, which they themselves recognise as an injustice. If that is so, the right way to remedy it is not by illegal administration, but by amendment of the Act. However unjust a case may be, when the case comes up for this House to deal with it, the proper way to meet it is by amending legislation. It is no use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me that he is afraid the Amendment may convert the Finance Bill of the year into something less than a Finance Bill under the Parliament Act. Does he think the House of Lords are going on this ground to throw out the Finance Bill? Is he going to allow an injustice to continue or to meet it by illegal action on the part of the Department? These are the only two alternatives. This is as plain as any case can be, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to do justice.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman has made out a case
    2590
    here for an amendment of the law. But he does not cover the whole ground. There is another case which also has to be considered in connection with it, and that is the case of contracts completed before the commencement of the Act. I will consider between this and Monday whether something cannot be done. But I want to warn the hon. Gentleman with regard to one point. I am not quite sure what view Mr. Speaker may take with regard to this Amendment. Last year I accepted an Amendment and certainly never thought it would turn the Bill into other than a Money Bill. As a matter of fact it did. I should rather like to consult with the authorities of the House. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that the House of Lords is not likely to take advantage of an Amendment which may be accepted in the sense of redressing a grievance. Still I have the position under the Parliament Act to take into account, and I am bound to consider it. Indeed, it would be folly on my part not to consider the question whether the Amendment would convert a Money Bill into a non-Money Bill. This is a question of policy which must guide the Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer at any rate in framing their measures. Of course right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not labour under the same disabilities. I should like to consider these two points between this and next Monday, and, pending that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. I admit there is a grievance, and he is perfectly right in saying that we are not taking advantage of this provision at the present time, although I do not think he is quite right in saying that our action in this respect is illegal. He will be in a position to argue the point on Monday if he withdraws now. If I cannot see my way to put it down on Monday I suggest that he should put it down himself, and I will consider, either upon Committee stage or the Report stage, what we can do.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise to press my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel) not to accept the proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to him that he should withdraw his Clause now, reserving to himself the right to move it again, but I do desire to call attention to the extreme gravity of the position. What is the position? The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that there is a grievance, which has been accidentally created. It is not the result of

    2591
    the intentions of Parliament, but it is the result of our inability to foresee, when passing the Finance Act, 1909, every possible combination of circumstances with which the Act would be called upon to deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits there is a grievance, and that he cannot justify the position as it stands. My hon. and learned Friend asserts, with the knowledge of a lawyer, that there are only two ways by which you can meet the grievance: one is by exercising a dispensing power for which there is no legal authority, and the other is by changing the law. You can only do it in two ways, by legislation or by Executive action for which there is no legal authority—by claiming for the Inland Revenue or the Treasury authorities that dispensing power which is refused to the King. What is the right hon. Gentleman's reply? He does not dispute that proposition, but he says, "I will remedy this, if I can, without changing the character of this Bill, so that it ceases to be a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act." So that in addition to all the inconvenience which we have hitherto foreseen from the Parliament Act, we now have the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately stating that if we cannot remedy an admitted grievance without taking this Bill out of the purview of the Parliament Act, then the grievance must continue.
    Mr. ALDEN: It is not so inconvenient as having the Bill rejected.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That depends upon what the inconvenience is. The inconvenience to the taxpayer who is admittedly unjustly taxed is very great in the one case, and there is no injustice to him in the other.
    Mr. ALDEN: Was there no inconvenience to the taxpayer when the Budget was rejected?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. Some hon. Gentlemen were glad to be able to postpone payment of their taxes. Nobody suffered any real grievance at that time. Does the hon. Member who interrupted suggest that an admitted grievance is to continue, and that redress is to be refused to individuals unjustly taxed, because if you give redress the Bill ceases to be a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliamentary Act? It is a perfectly monstrous proposition. That is the contention of the Government and of the hon. Member, and it is a contention to which I wish
    2592
    to call the attention of the country, because they will see how directly the passing of the Parliament Act tends to prevent redress of an admitted grievance. The right hon. Gentleman can hardly maintain that attitude in view of the admissions he has made. He frankly anticipated the interruption of the hon. Member that he did not think there would be any evil consequences following from the adoption of this Amendment at the present time. An Amendment raising a similar point was adopted last year, and Mr. Speaker, in consequence of it, refused his certificate that the Bill was a Money Bill. It passed through the other House, just as in all probability it will pass this time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not pretend that he has any real danger to fear, but it is a point of pride with the Government, and to save the pride of the Government the taxpayer must pay.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite unconsciously exaggerating the grievance. What is the position? The worst which would happen would be, not that we refused to redress a grievance, but that we should have to revert to the practice of quite recent years, even during the time I have been in Parliament. Most of these things were redressed, not by the Budget, but in Revenue Bills. That used to be the practice under Lord St. Aldwyn. The practice of moving every conceivable Amendment of the law on the Finance Bill is one which has been elaborated during recent years. I have no doubt it began in the days when we were in Opposition; at any rate, we helped it along; but it has never reached the dimensions which it has reached at the present moment. I remember the great all-night sitting we had, but we had nothing like the number of Amendments which are put down here. If we had only exercised our ingenuity we could have moved every conceivable kind of Amendment of the Income Tax Clause. No doubt in another two or three years we should have become quite expert at it, and covered cases like this. But the old practice undoubtedly was to leave points of this kind to Revenue Bills. Revenue Bills were never produced every year. They were produced once every three or five years. Undoubtedly there were grievances in the meantime which were left unredressed, but I wish they were as insignificant and as trifling as they are in this particular case. There has been only one case which has arisen of this kind at all.
    Mr.CASSEL: I could give the right hon. Gentleman some.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been making inquiries of those who administer the Department, and they tell me only one case has arisen at all. The right hon. Gentleman calls it a dispensing power, but he knows as well as I do what happens in these particular cases where there is an obvious grievance which is due to some kind of oversight, perhaps. This is not a practice which I initiated at all. I do not think it is a practice which ought to be too hastily condemned, because it has enabled the Revenue Department, without having to come to Parliament and wait five years for a Revenue Bill, in some cases to redress very harsh grievances which have suddenly arisen, and which no one could have foreseen. I say it is a very serious thing for the tax-payers, and certainly a very serious thing for those who have to administer the taxes. In this case the Revenue Department must look at the circumstances of harsh cases which occur constantly owing to some rigid technical interpretation of the law. This is not a new case. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps that is the best way of putting it. These are things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to know, but undoubtedly they conduce to the smooth working of the Department. That is really what happened in this case. I cannot understand the Opposition making a grievance of this. Their grievance in 1909 was that I had introduced something which was not strictly speaking finance—that I had introduced all kinds of tacking proposals. Undoubtedly under the Parliament Act you have set up machinery which will deprive any Government of the opportunity of making proposals in a Finance Bill which are not strictly finance. You have set up a tribunal which is strictly impartial—the Speaker of the House of Commons. He decided last year that there were Amendments introduced which put the Bill outside the category of Money Bills, and we have been driven into the position that henceforth we run the risk of losing the benefit of the Parliament Act if we introduce any provisions which are not strictly finance. That is certainly not a grievance which the Opposition should state. They may press the
    2594
    Government to introduce a Revenue Bill, but that is another point. I am not complaining of that, but that is not the point of the right hon. Gentleman. It does involve undoubtedly a-return to the old practice of having a Finance Bill and a Revenue Bill, but it also involves the right of the Opposition to ask the Government to introduce Revenue Bills at the intervals at which they were introduced before. I think it was an infinitely better practice. What I say is just as much in the interest of the Opposition when they become responsible for the Government of the country. I am perfectly certain that there would then be simply no end of Amendments proposed in the form of new Clauses. There is no tariff to which you cannot move a thousand new Clauses. I forget who first departed from the old practice. I rather think that Lord St. Aldwyn, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had Finance and Revenue Bills. That is my recollection.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN made a remark which was inaudible.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that the Opposition would be the last quarter in the House to complain of our abiding by the effect of the Parliament Act. Whatever they may say about the Parliament Act, one feature of it which they should be the last to complain of is that it forces us, in order to obtain the full advantage of the Act, to strictly confine ourselves to finance. I am not saying this is not finance. I shall make some inquiry on the point. There is another Amendment on the Paper, and I warn the hon. Gentleman who has got it down that he had better make inquiries on the subject. He is contending that it would not take the measure outside the category of a Finance Bill, and I think it was accepted. It is conceded that this must also be in the same position, otherwise I shall have to consider the question of dealing with it in the next Revenue Bill. Of course, I cannot make any promise with regard to that, because that is a matter for the Leader of the House (the Prime Minister). But that is the position.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to say one word about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Opposition ought not to complain of what has happened in regard to the Finance Bill. Does he really mean that, because what is the history of these proceedings? Against the protests of the Opposition the

    2595
    Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a valuation into the Finance Bill. We complain, and have very good cause to complain, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that because we complain that he introduced it into a Finance Bill we have no right to complain now when he refuses us the right to move an Amendment to the valuation in a subsequent Finance Bill. It is he who introduced the Valuation Clause into the Finance Bill and he must take the consequences. What is his consolation to us? Here we are in August, after discussing it until four o'clock o'clock this morning, now discussing a Finance Bill in the dregs of the Session, and our consolation is that we are to look forward in future to having a Revenue Bill as well as a Finance Bill.
    This is the first Finance Bill which we have had the opportunity of discussing during the last three years. If we cannot get the opportunity of discussing the Finance Bill alone, how are we going to get the opportunity of discussing both a Finance Bill and a Revenue Bill? The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows very well that if we do not take the only opportunity of discussing the ridiculous complications inserted in the Bill on the former occasion, which are nothing less than a scandal in every direction, we shall have no other opportunity. We complain in the first place of his having inserted this valuation into the Finance Bill, and also that having done that he should challenge our right in any sense to deal with that which he has introduced into a subsequent Finance Bill. The real point at issue is simply this. A hardship has arisen. Surely that grievance ought to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment by this House. The grievance is admitted, and it is a most serious position for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his responsibility to say that he admits the grievance; but because the remedy of this grievance might cause the Government some temporary inconvenience or loss of pride, therefore he cannot be quite sure as to what he will do. He will not say that he will not remedy it, but he says that he cannot remedy it now, but will require further time. When my hon. Friend puts down his Amendment again next Monday, I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give only one answer.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I desire to withdraw my Amendment,
    2596
    and shall put it down again. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to give him assistance on this matter as to whether this will bring the Finance Bill outside the scope of a Money Bill under the Parliament Act. I do not know how I am to give that assistance. The only thing that I can say is that if the original valuation Clauses were finance then any Amendments of them must be finance as well. So far as the Revenue Bill is concerned, the special circumstance here is that the valuation is going on. You do not say that you are to have the Revenue Bill every five years. The valuation is to be completed before we have an opportunity of putting forward the Amendment which we wish to submit. I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the special circumstance that the valuation is being made, that there are very complicated tenures, and very complicated provisions appending to it, and that circumstances might arise which necessitated some amendment. I submit it is fair, if there is to be a Revenue Bill every year, that there should be an opportunity of seeing that the circumstances are such as to justify some alteration. I shall be very pleased to withdraw the Amendment and move it again, although I do not know what kind of assistance I can render the right hon. Gentleman.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for Cases where the Original Site Value is Less than Nothing.)
    It is hereby declared that for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, whenever the original site value is less than nothing it shall be deemed to be nothing, and in cases where the original site value is nothing, or deemed to be nothing, on the first occasion for the collection of Increment Value Duty, the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced by an amount equal to 10 per cent, of the site value on such occasion, instead of 10 per cent, of the original site value.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    On the last occasion when I raised this subject I was told I did not know enough about mathematics, and that I ought to study them; but since then this same question has come before the Courts, and the Court of Appeal in Scotland has taken the same view which I then put to the House, and which was greeted with so much derision from the benches opposite. In regard to this matter, if the Govern-

    2597
    ment are going to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal in Scotland as final, of course I shall not say anything further, but if they do not accept it as final I am going to assume that the view which the Government have put forward is correct as to minus quantities. The other day I asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many valuations had turned out as minus quantities from the 1st April last—an appropriate day. By that date he told me that in over 60,000 hereditaments in this country the site value of them had turned out to be minus quantities, and the largest minus quantity arrived at up to that date was minus £17,000. Fancy a man being told that the site value of his land is minus £17,000! This Act is quite as productive of minus quantities as of minus revenue.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then why do you object?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CASSEL: Because I object to the very large sums expended in collecting a minus revenue—large sums spent in connection with valuation not only by the Government, but by owners who have to protect their own interests. Unfortunately in respect of these valuations these people are not in a position to afford to pay for the best advice. Take the case of this man whose land was valued at minus £17,000. Supposing, if he is ever lucky enough to sell it, he sells his title for £5, the duty which he would have to pay would be £3,401. If on the other hand he gave it away there would be no duty at all because a gift is not one of the occasions on which duty is payable. Could anything more ludicrous than that be imagined? As I was attacked about this last year I desire to quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Scotland by Lord Johnston. This is from the judgment:—
    "The clear intention of the Statute is to assess something real and not to assess an algebraic symbol of no real value, and the result of which would be to get a tax from funds derived from other purposes, It is difficult to conceive of the State sharing an increase of something which is worth less than nothing, and such a contention must be established by express enactment or irresistible implication. It is unfortunate that the word 'land' in the Act has seldom the same meaning in two consecutive paragraphs. Section 25 is found unfortunately to be couched in words which conceal rather than disclose its meaning."
    I was not in the House at the time this Clause was passed, but I have carefully look through what happened in the various stages, and I think this arises from an Amendment adopted on the Report stage. If the Bill had passed in the form in which it left Committee I do not think any minus quantity could ever have arisen. That
    2598
    arises from an Amendment on the Report stage which every Member of the House was assured was a mere drafting Amendment which would have no effect whatever in altering the provisions of the Bill. In the same judgment the judge said:—
    "To call a minus quantity an assessable value and subsequently to assess the difference between two such minus quantities, would be to extract revenue not from site value, but from a man's development of the site by the expenditure of labour and capital."
    That was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer always assured us it was not his intention to do. Minus quantities very largely arose from the extraordinary definition of site value in the Act. The definition is arrived at by deduction from the total value and the total value you assume the land is subject to its encumbrances, easements, rights of way, rights of light and restrictive covenants. You deduct from that the difference between two things with reference to which you make an entirely different assumption. In one you assume those encumbrances and easements and in the other you do not. That is, of course, on the face of it absolutely absurd and ludicrous, and that is one of the things which has led to these minus quantities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says how very few appeals there are, but on this one appeal some 60,000 cases depend. If an equal number of cases depend upon every one of the other appeals it would explain the fact that the appeals are not as numerous as one would otherwise have expected. There are in regard to this valuation a large number of primary points which have to be decided before men can safely settle their valuations at all. The unfortunate thing is that the people who cannot afford to take advice on the matter settle their valuation before these points are decided. With regard to minus quantities, are the Government really going to take the unfortunate subject up to the House of Lords and try to enforce this taxation upon minus quantities? I should have thought they might have spared themselves that trouble and inconvenience. It ought to be recognised that if land gives you a minus quantity it means that there is no value in the land. The minus quantity merely means that there is a burden of liability upon the individual, independently of the land, and it must be a personal obligation on the individual. The land itself cannot be a security for anything more than its value, and if its value is nothing it is not a security for anything, and the man who has it simply has

    2599
    a personal liability. How can you tax a man on that personal liability? Why cannot the Government adopt this new Clause, which would simply say that you would start your taxation with the value of the land? If the land is worth nothing you would start with nothing, and you would not begin taxing a man on a minus quantity. That the minus quantity ought not to be taxed is made clear by the fact that in regard to increment value, so far as 10 per cent. is concerned, the subject is let off. How can you give a man the benefit of that 10 per cent. on a minus quantity? I do not know whether two minuses make a plus. Perhaps my algebra again is at fault. I was told of one case where Undeveloped Land Duty has been claimed on a minus quantity. How can Undeveloped Land Duty be applicable to a minus quantity. I ask the Government to recognise that through a change made on the Report stage there has arisen a thorough muddle in connection with the valuation, and the best thing they can do is to put it right as soon as possible.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has thoroughly enjoyed himself, and I do not grudge him the pleasure which he has had and has given to the Opposition in respect of this new Clause. It is not a very difficult matter, if you have the judgment before you, to give vent to these pleasantries. But judgments do not always stand when taken to a Supreme Court. This case is on its way to the House of Lords, in order that the House of Lords may determine whether these valuations are right or wrong. Even if the House of Lords should decide in accordance with the view of the Court of Appeal, it is not going to have anything like the terrible effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks. The whole point of the minus quantity is that it is a point of comparison. There is no great difficulty in the matter, for if you cannot use the minus quantity you can use another quantity to arrive at a standard of comparison. Really, the whole of the amusement derived out of this is, I venture to think, simply from the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will not say does not understand the minus point, but he is shielding himself behind the judgment of Lord Johnston in Scotland. We cannot dispose of these matters in this way in this House; neither is it possible for us to go
    2600
    on to argue a point before a Committee of the House of Commons which we shall have to argue in the House of Lords before a judicial tribunal. It will be quite against precedent. In fact, it would be against the sense of what has been understood to be the right view in this House if this were to be argued.
    Mr. CASSEL: I am assuming that the Government's Bill was right, and in assuming that the Government's Bill was right I asked them to put in this necessary Amendment. I did not discuss the legal aspect.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I really fail to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman means when he says that he assumes that the Government Bill is right. I do not intend to argue the thing at the present moment when there will be an argument in a few months in the House of Lords and a decision will be pronounced upon the matter. All the argument which he addressed to us about the impossibiltiy of dealing with these minus quantities simply arises from the fact that it is not realised that it is not a value but a standard of comparison—that you are dealing with a difference which may increase or decrease. It is not a very inexplicable problem, and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been quite capable of understanding and grappling with it. But all I desire to say is that the way in which this matter stands at the present time makes it impossible to discuss it. We will leave it until the House of Lords decides whether we are right or wrong.
    Mr. CLYDE: I have no intention of developing any argument upon that, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, would be out of place at present in view of the case as to the true construction of the Section. On the other hand, I think it would have been only fair if the right hon. Gentleman himself, instead of taking cover behind that technical objection, had looked the question a little in the face.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I decline to go into the matter.
    Mr. CLYDE: Then, Mr. Whitley, I am going to try, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's objection, to induce him to look in the face, not the legal, but the real question. I do not think we have anything to do with the legal question directly. I do not think it would be any service at the present to put forward any argument,

    2601
    learned or unlearned, in reference to this matter, but I should still like to induce the right hon. and learned Gentleman, notwithstanding his unwillingness to look the point in the face, to do so. The recurrence of these minus values and of these minus valuations has happened so far as I know with much greater frequency in Scotland than in England, and the reason why that happens, and the reason why there is a genuine difficulty in the administration of the Act as it exists is because the Statute was made applicable to Scotland without any consideration for the peculiarities of a land tenure, which, when introduced into the question of valuations, really brings the statute to an absurdity. No lengthy explanation is required to make the point quite clear. I would like to do it in the first instance by means of a perfectly concrete case which has nothing to do with minus valuations, and which I happened to see in a Scotch paper in a report of sales of real property. It was a sale of a piece of tenement property, I think in Leith, but I cannot be sure of the locality, under the hammer. It was not a prosperous piece of property; very much the reverse. The annual rental which the building was capable of yielding, and upon which you asked people to buy was £260 a year. It was very much less than the rental that would have been yielded by the property as built if it was fully occupied, but it was not in a good place or doing well, and £260 a year was the rental which it was advertised to yield. The house sold for £100. That seems ridiculous, but it is not a bit more ridiculous than the application of this Act to Scotland. The house on this property with a rental of £260 a year sold for £100. The reason was this. There was on this piece of property a feu duty of £250, and if you deduct £250 the feu duty from £260, the total rental, you get £10 a year, and £10 a year for ten years gives you £100. That is the point I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General to look at.
    The reason why in Scotland these valuations are not only leading to the absurd, but with respect to the Act are leading to confusion in practice, is this. The total value, roughly speaking, that is the ordinary market value, is taken less the fixed charges. Unhappily for the system of the Act in Scotland, the fixed charges in the form of feu duties in nine cases out of ten in building development represent part of the value of the building and are not restricted to the value of the land, and the result of this is that
    2602
    your whole system of valuation intended to arrive at site value is broken to pieces at the beginning, because you start with a deduction from the total value, which covers both the charge representing, it may be, the price of the original site when sold to the builder, which actually represents part and parcel of the actual rental of the property. That is the difficulty, and that difficulty is not met in the very least either by saying that there are legal questions involved, or is it met in the least by saying you choose this only as a datum line. The difficulty is a real one, arising from the facts of the situation. It is not that the point was not put during the Budget discussions, because it was put more than once. I was not thinking of the legal point, but the practical point, which was raised here by myself and many others. I remember at the time my point was met quite cavalierly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that nothing of the kind was possible under the Act, and that nothing of the sort was contemplated. Now that is exactly what has arisen, and that is precisely what has produced all this confusion in Scotland. The reason is that you never get two cases with regard to which you can say that there is the same proportion of building value in regard to the feu duty. It is not enough to say that there is a decision of the quarter sessions, or that the decision may be revised by the House of Lords. This is a question of making this Bill a practical Statute, and if this Amendment were accepted this grave inequality and disparity would cease.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I wish to raise the same objections in regard to England which my hon. and learned Friend has raised with regard to Scotland. I think I can make it clear to the Attorney-General that we are not discussing a matter of law which may go to the House of Lords, but a very different point. What the hon. Member who moved this Amendment pointed out was that you are dealing with total value. In the first instance, you deduct from the valuation certain liabilities which for the moment are attached to the land, just as in the case given by the hon. Member who spoke last, who mentioned the case of the feu duty, which covered not only the value of the land, but a certain amount of the value of the buildings. You cannot possibly get the minus value of land, except in respect of outside or personal, or some

    2603
    other liabilities attached to it. As a matter of fact, the mere possession of land is not capable of being defined as a minus value at all. You can only get the position of a minus value by attaching certain outside liabilities of the nature of the feu duty, or such personal liabilities as were referred to by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. Consider the injustice of that. You, first of all, get the total value of land, then you take away from it in order to get the site value certain deduction in respect of which you do not take into consideration the same liabilities. Apart from any question of legal interpretation, is not that an essential injustice?
    If I might give an illustration, let me assume for a moment that owing to liabilities attached to the land it is worth less than nothing, and has a minus value of £17,000. Supposing that in order to induce someone to take these liabilities off your hands you paid him £l,000. In other words, that land was sold for minus £1,000. In addition to giving someone £1,000 to take those liabilities off your hands you would have to pay £3,000 in taxes for the difference between the minus value or £17,000 and the minus value of £1,000. Is that not absolutely absurd when dealing with valuation and taxation as regards land and the Finance Bill? I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I went all through the discussion which took place upon the Budget, but did the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever really contemplate getting the minus value as regards the site value of land, because he took into consideration the outside liabilities attached to it? Did he ever really mean, if land was sold either for a minus quantity of for £5, that a person on the sale of his land should have to pay a tax to the extent of several thousand pounds. It is so manifestly unjust that I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer could never have had an illustration of that kind in his mind. It may be it is a mere legal proposition that you will have absurd results of that kind, but that it not what we are discussing. Let us assume for a moment the Government are right and that the Scotch Courts were wrong. It is all the more necessary under those conditions to admit the Amendment because, if the Government are right and you are to have these minus quantities, you produce these absurd injustices.
    2604
    I should like again to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can possibly assume a case where land per se and apart from outside liabilities attaching to it can really give a minus quantity. The lowest possible position to which it can come is that the land is worth nothing and you abandon it. You cannot come to a condition in which the value of land, or at least you ought not in any case to come to a condition in which the value of land per se is a minus quantity. If you are going to attach these outside liabilities it is a gross infringement of the whole principle of the Finance Act, which was to differentiate land and separate it from these other liabilities and all other questions in order that we might get at the value of the land apart from all outside considerations. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apart from any question of the case going to the House of Lords, to answer the question put by my hon. and learned Friend, and say whether he thinks or whether he ever intended, in arriving at site values and dealing with land alone, you could possibly arrive at a minus valuation, and whether a minus valuation is not the necessary consequence of taking into consideration outside matters which again and again he stated in this House ought not to be taken into consideration if you are really to ascertain the true site value of land. On those grounds I shall certainly most heartily support the Amendment if we are to go to a division.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I do not know whether I rightly understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say it did not matter dealing with minus quantities because you are only using them for the purpose of comparison. He went on to say it is quite reasonable on one occasion to take a minus quantity of £1,000, and on the next occasion £900, and deal with that as an increment of £100. Surely that is an extraordinary position to take up when you consider these quantities are the basis of taxation. Taxation is generally based upon something real, and not upon a purely imaginary quantity. Is there not a good deal of similarity in these two cases? To charge Increment Duty on the difference between these minus quantities seems to me very much the same sort of thing as charging Death Duties in the case of a man who dies bankrupt on the difference between his liabilities and his assets. You are charging there a duty on something which does not exist at all. Of course, the whole difficulty

    2605
    arises, and these minus quantities arise from the extraordinary processes through which you go in order to arrive at the various quantities with which you have to deal and to get at the assessable value. In arriving at your gross value, on the one hand and your total value on the other, you take two totally different kinds of deductions, and then make a comparison, which is not a reasonable one, to work upon.
    The particular point I wish to call attention to is that the Clause proposed by my hon. and learned Friend does not go far enough. He suggests that where the original site value is less than nothing on the first occasion when the collection of Increment Value Duty arises the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced by an amount equal to 10 per cent, of the site value. That still leaves this possibility, that on the first occasion on which the question of increment value arises you are likely to still have a minus quantity. If there is a minus quantity on the original valuation on the first occasion on which the question of increment arises, although the minus quantity may not be so great as on the original occasion, still there is likely to be a minus quantity. Take the very ordinary case in which, in the first place, in order to arrive at the assessable value, you have deducted from the difference between the gross and the net value certain amounts for redemption of land tax, enfranchisement, etc. We will assume that, in a particular case, the result is a minus quantity of £50 on the first occasion on which the increment question arises. It is possible that after making like deductions for enfranchisement, etc., you will get somewhat lower figures. The result may be a minus figure of £40 instead of £50. So long as you have a minus quantity you never get the 10 per cent., and, therefore, I suggest that the 10 per cent, should be allowed on the first occasion on which you get the plus value.
    For that purpose it will be necessary to insert in this new Clause, if it be read a second time, after the word "first" the words "or any subsequent occasion." On the first occasion on which you get into that position yon should then allow the 10 per cent, deduction which, as the law now stands, is only to be allowed if originally deducted from the original value. The original valuation having been a minus quantity, it is obviously impossible to deduct it, and it is therefore only just unless you have the intention of having two totally different sets of figures that you
    2606
    should allow the 10 per cent deduction to be made on the first occasion, which may not necessarily be the first occasion, on which you get a plus value. In order to make that clear I shall at the proper time move to amend this new Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to add anything to the case so admirably made on behalf of this Clause, but there is one particular point in regard to it which has not so far been stated, and that is the use of the site value for any subsequent purpose. The effect of these minus valuations and the methods in which they are calculated is to totally destroy any kind of uniformity in the valuation. I believe this actually occurs in practice. In Lancashire towns there are two systems on which building takes place. One is the system of what are called cheap rents, where there is a permanent annual charge; and the other is a system of long leases for 999 years, which are not technically fixed charges under this Act. The consequence is that you have on two sides of the same street houses facing each other of exactly similar character and similar value, those on the one side built on the cheap rent system and those on the other side built on the 999 lease system; and under the system of valuation adopted by the Government, although the cheap rent houses and the ground rent houses are identical in value, the houses on the one side are brought out at a minus valuation, while those on the other side are brought out at a considerable plus valuation.
    That is the great uniform valuation which is to be entered in Domesday Book, and on which rates and taxes are to be levied in future. I suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to get any approximation to uniformity he is bound to accept this Clause or, if he cannot do so, to undertake to introduce words which will secure uniformity in site value. We have a right, if he tells us that he is going to use this site value for some future purpose, to watch and, if possible, save the great waste of money that is going on in regard to these valuations. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he had spent £686,000 on this valuation. By this time it is a great deal more, yet this valuation is not uniform, and it is absolutely useless for any future purpose of any sort. It is neither just, uniform, nor practical. As to the absurdity which will arise out of the valuation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that the hon. Member for one of

    2607
    the Divisions of Belfast stated that with regard to his own house, just outside Belfast, he was served with a valuation containing a minus £1,000 agricultural value and a minus £5,000 site value. As the Undeveloped Land Duty is to be charged on the difference between agricultural value and site value, and as two minuses make a plus, he would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty on £6,000. That is the kind of absurdity which is likely to bring these valuations into disrepute. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Clause or substitute for it some different form of words.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The reply that we have had from the Attorney-General was that he declined to go into the merits of the new Clause because there was a case of appeal pending in the Scottish Courts. Those of us who took part in the discussions on the Budget in 1909 with regard to these valuations have been watching these cases very carefully, and anyone who has studied the case in the Scottish Courts must have realised that the point has nothing on earth to do with the merits of this Clause. Therefore it is no answer on the part of the Government to say, "We will not discuss the case at all and we will not discuss your new Clause because the subject is sub judice. Whichever way that case is decided when it comes on appeal to the House of Lords, will not affect the question that it is exceedingly desirable, to got rid of these anomalies and difficulties with regard to minus values. In Lancashire we are frequently met with the case of a minus value. I had one myself the other day when the leave of the Court of Chancery was obtained to transfer a mill, subject to a chief rent, to a pauper in a workhouse. The necessity for such a proceeding sounds rather absurd, but in winding tip an estate under the direction of the Court, where you have a chief rent more than the value of the property as it stands, the practice is to get leave to transfer a hereditament to a pauper. That is the case of a minus value. It is quite true that these anomalies and difficulties have principally arisen in Scotland, but they are arising more or less seriously—less seriously probably than in Scotland, but they are arising all over the country. Valuations are proceeding to-day at great expense under the Act of 1909, and the very earliest opportunity should be taken of putting these valuations upon a reasonable
    2608
    and a sensible basis, and this Clause is an effort to cure this particular piece of absurdity, which is only one of, I should say, over 100 similar pieces of absurdity arising out the valuations under the 1909 Act. It was pointed out in the discussion of this particular Clause that these difficulties would arise.
    Look at the absurdity in which we are placed if the Clause is not passed. At the present moment numerous pieces of land are being valued at a minus quantity. On occasions when the Increment Duty arises there is a reduction allowed of 10 per cent, of the original site value. Supposing the original site value was minus £1,700, it means that on every subsequent occasion there is to be a deduction of minus £1,700. That means that £1,700 has to be added to the duty. Anything more ridiculous than the state of affairs arising out of the Clause it would be almost impossible to imagine. This Clause is very much more important than we might be led to expect from the observations of the Attorney-General. I do not coincide with the observation which has been made in the way of criticism on this Clause, because the Clause distinctly refers to the first occasion upon which Increment Duty is payable, and Increment Duty would not be payable at all unless there was something to be paid on. Of course, the difficulty is that if the answer is what the Attorney-General says, that this is merely a datum line, and that for the purpose of the duty you have to take the difference between two sums, if you deduct one minus quantity from another, and the second minus quantity is a bigger one, you add the first quantity, but if the second minus quantity is a smaller one you have still a minus quantity, and so the difficulty would go on. Every time the Increment Duty had to be assessed the margin would become worse. In the attempt to assess increment duty on property originally valued at a minus quantity, and where that valuation had been raised at one time and reduced at another, the confusion would be exceedingly great. What is the very sensible proposal we have now before us? It is that for the purposes of Increment Duty, if you have a minus quantity, at all events start with nothing. Call it nothing, and later on if there is Increment Duty, that will be payable when the property has become worth something over zero. Then you can allow 10 per cent, for the increase. I think this is the most sensible proposition that has been made. Of course, the whole proposition in regard to this valuation is

    2609
    the most stupid and illusory that ever emanated from any Government, but we have got it in an Act of Parliament which was forced down our throats. The Clause before us is the first sensible suggestion that has been made with the view of meeting one of the stupidities arising out of the Act.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to ask the Attorney-General what he meant by the words "standard of comparison." He said it did not matter what the original value was, and that it was the standard of comparison that did matter. You may call the temperature 32 degrees Fahrenheit or no degree centigrade. That might be true in considering Increment Duty, but for the purpose of a true valuation what
    does the Attorney-General mean by saying that this is only a standard of comparison with something that arises afterwards. I think the purpose of the Act was to get a true and accurate valuation. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) used to say that the valuation is the thing and that enormous results would follow. If the statement of the Attorney-General is right, it really does not matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman knocks the whole bottom out of the case as it was put by him. Let the hon. Member from the Potteries see to it.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 195.]

    AYES.

    [5.45 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Ashley, W W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington).

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pole-Carew, sir R.

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)>

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bird, A.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boscawen, sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stanier, Beville

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Starkey, John R.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, John Waller

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chambers, James

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clyde, James Avon

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanee)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Larmer, Sir J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Winterton, Earl of

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    De Cros, Arthur Philip

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Younger, Sir George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Fell, Arthur

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Cassel and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boland, John Plus

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Alden, Percy

    Brace, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Crooks, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Cullinan, John

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanary)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Clough, William

    Delany, William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shee, James John

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dillon, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lansbury, George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pointer, Joseph

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Falconer, J.

    Lundon, T.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, Michael

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Glanville, H. J.

    MacCallum, Sir John M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Kean, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gulland, John William

    Meagher, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molloy, M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Snowden, Philip

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Haydn, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Munro, R.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hinds, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wardle, George J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hodge, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Dowd, John

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Mally, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Keating, M.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision to Allow Deductions in Respect of Inherently Wasting Assets.)
    For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional Commissioners' claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits,
    2612
    the additional Commissioners in assessing those profits and gains shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable. For the purpose of this Section the term "inherently wasting assets" means assets which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits, provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The object of the Clause is to prevent the Income Tax being collected, as I say it is collected, on a much larger sum than truly represents the profits earned by the investment of capital. I move it after consultation with a great number of business

    2613
    people interested in this question, and who urged me to move it in the interests of most true economy and true and accurate business. I believe that on both sides of the House I shall have a certain amount of support to the Clause which I am moving, because I think only last year the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chancellor of the Duchy, admitted that a strong case was made out for relief in respect of inherently wasting assets, or, as I should prefer to call them, expired capital outlay, if it could be done with proper safeguards to the revenue. The Clause has been very carefully drawn, and follows the model contained in many Income Tax Acts, especially the 1907 Act. It follows the model of the Clause in that Act, under which relief is given in respect of deductions for wear and tear of machinery and plant. I also claim for this Clause that intrinsically and on its face it is a genuine Income Tax Clause, for the reason that no person could possibly understand it at first sight, and I think, when that is the case, obviously it must have something to do with a genuine Income Tax Act. It has been adapted in order that proper safeguards may be given to the revenue.
    This is not a party question, nor is it one in which I have the smallest personal interest; it is only a question of trying to establish a true measure for ascertaining profits; and, from information that has come to me, I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he wishes to have sound finance he will accept this Clause. If he does so, he will certainly earn the thanks of a great number of persons in the City of London. It would not be fair for me to say that I have not received help. I have received assistance from a very great authority on the question of inherently wasting assets, Mr. Leake, whose book is well known to a great number of Members, while the Government wisely rely on the assistance which he can give them in matters of very serious moment at the present time. May I illustrate what the Clause is intended to do. I take the simplest case of wasting assets—a nitrate bed in Chili. You can ascertain by a measurement how much nitrate there is there, and what your return will be when you have spent your labour upon it and obtained the nitrate which you can see, which you can measure, which you can ascertain, and which you know.
    It is quite obvious that in the process of working the nitrate and getting it to
    2614
    market you use a certain amount of the bed. Take an illustration. You pay £20,000 for a bed which it is known would take twenty years to work, and each year you work a twentieth part of it of the value of £1,000. Obviously any company which is prudent and wished to deal honestly in its finances would say that as they eat up a portion of the bed each year they must make provision for the wasting asset. If any directors ventured to declare a dividend or profit without making such provision they would run the risk of being told by any court, or at a meeting of shareholders, that they were improvident, not to use harsher language. When they go to the Inland Revenue authorities what happens? They have to pay Income Tax on the whole gross profit including the £1,000 of expired capital outlay. That might be a very small matter in the old days, but at present the Income Tax brings in a revenue of between forty-four and forty-five million pounds. It has become a very serious matter; so serious that the companies which might come and do their business and be registered over here are ceasing to be registered here.
    6.0 P.M.
    I have been told of companies in the last few months with a capital of from £200,000 to £250,000, which under ordinary circumstances would be registered here, but have declined to come to London because of the immense burden of the Income Tax as at present collected. I have been told by an authority on whom I can rely, and on whom I am sure the Committee would rely if they knew him, that if this Clause had been passed a few months ago a large body of capital which was put into a company to work certain nitrate beds, would have been registered over here, but that in the absence of some change the company decided to be registered in Chili. The result is a considerable loss of revenue in Stamp Duties and in other work in connection with the company, and a considerable loss to the revenue of this country. When I am asking for certain relief in respect of these deductions as to inherently wasting assets, I am also endeavouring to give facilities for business to come to this country which is deterred at present owing to the system by which Income Tax is gathered. I have here the profit and loss accounts of a considerable nitrate company. The gross profit for the year was £19,232. How was that dealt with? To the depreciation account to meet the expired capital outlay which had been made they put £10,474. That clearly shows, as the directors thought, that in

    2615
    obtaining a profit of £19,232 they had eaten up a portion of their cake representing £10,434, leaving really a profit of £9,000. But when they had dealt with the Income Tax, insurance reserve, and so on, they had a balance of only £3,890. No provident financier or shareholder would have put the profits of this company at a larger sum than £3,890. But what say the Inland Revenue authorities? They say that the company must pay Income Tax on the whole £19,232. Therefore, they claim on more than double the profit that has been made, with the result that the Income Tax of this particular company, instead of being 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the £, runs up to something like 4s. 6d. in the £.
    But it is not every wasting asset that I wish to enjoy this immunity. That would be wrong. There are a great number of assets spoken of as wasting assets, which are not truly wasting assets for the purpose of securing immunity from Income Tax. The matter has been well dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income Tax in the year 1905. The Committee went through various cases of depreciation of wasting assets, and pointed out that there are a certain number of wasting assets which ought not to have immunity. Take, for instance, an ordinary leasehold. A person who buys a lease with, say twenty years to run, knows that every year he must in some way provide to replace the capital which runs off year by year as the lease draws towards its close. From the point of view of the Income Tax authorities it would be quite unfair to suggest that that was an inherently wasting asset. A man who buys a lease buys the right to hold a house during a limited term of years. During those years, if he had been the owner, he would have been subject to Income Tax. What the purchaser does is to put down a lump sum in return for something which per se is subject to Income Tax year by year. If you were to render leaseholds immune from Income Tax you would by a transfer enable particular persons to avoid payment of Income Tax. That is not what we seek to do. As Mr. Leake says:—
    "If that were done. British Income Tax could be largely evaded by the simple process of selling to another person the right to the future income, thereby enabling not only the original owner to secure the future income free of tax in advance of the years in which it, will arise and become normally chargeable with British Income Tax, but also enabling the present owner to secure it free of tax, for he would be entitled
    2616
    to set off his expired capital outlay against the actual profits received in each year."
    I put these two illustrations because I want to make my point clear to the Committee. I do not claim immunity for all kinds of what are commonly called wasting assets. I confine this Clause to such wasting assets as inherently waste in the process of seeking profits. The Clause therefore I am tasking attention to is modelled on the Act of 1907. It will be remembered that gradually immunity has been granted, or rather, relief has been granted, both for repairs and with respect to deductions for wear and tear of plant and machinery, and now relief is granted in the case of ships. Under the Act of 1894 there is one-sixth reduction allowed in respect of repairs to buildings from a rack rent. In the case of plant and machinery, 5 per cent, is allowed off under the Act of 1878; while under the Act of 1907 ships are allowed to have a life of twenty-five years, and 4 per cent, reduction is commonly allowed in respect of them. I am claiming that a case has been made out, and rightly made out, in respect of these inherently wasting assets. What is the answer? The answer is: "Oh, well; Income Tax is a Statutory Tax, and must be collected; we must get revenue somehow, and inasmuch as we have gone on collecting it in the past we will go on collecting it in the future." That is not an answer. It is not necessary that you should go on continuing what is really an injustice and an outrage on true finance. Surely when you have got to a point when Income Tax is so heavy that by reason of the way you collect it you are deterring people from coming to this country, and bringing their businesses here, you should pause and consider. It may be very well to say, "We have Statutory rights." But there is really something better and higher than that. You really ought to encourage people to keep their finance and the practice of their businesses in that prudent and right manner which is consistent with the views of right thinking people. May I quote a few words from a judgment of one of the judges who had to deal with one of these particular nitrate cases. He said:—
    "Any prudent person who carries on a business or gets an income from something in which capital is necessarily wasted by reason of the use of that material which he starts as part of his capital will provide for such a case by a sinking fund. Although that is a prudent course to adopt, no deduction in respect is now permitted by the Income Tax Act."
    All one can say is that that is very unfortunate. Let me come to the particular Clause, which has been drawn, if I may say so, with very great care. I hope the

    2617
    Chancellor of the Exchequer will understand that I am not endeavouring to make an unfair inroad into the revenue that he collects. I am not endeavouring to give an opportunity for persons to escape from paying. All I am intending to do is to bring about a system of the collection of Income Tax in which there is care and prudent finance, and on what I may call business principles. First of all the Clause enables a deduction from revenue receipts to be allowed by the additional Commissioners. Under the 1907 Income Tax Act the additional Commissioners have got the right—and that right remains in them, it is not taken away—to allow such claims as have been included in the annual statement with respect to deduction for the wear and tear of machinery, and I do not wish to take away that power from the additional Commissioners.
    I desire to allow them authority to allow what is just and reasonable—the purpose of allowing deductions on claims included in the annual statement of the accounts of any trade or manufacture, adventure or concern, and so on, where there has been a deduction made in respect of inherently wasting assets, not merely shown in one balance-sheet, where it may be possibly hidden away so that it might be subsequently used as a profit, but where it is done as part of the system, as in the nitrate companies, over a period of years, and where it is so done so "as to prevent the same being available as profits in any subsequent year." Where you have got that class of wasting assets the additional Commissioners shall make such allowance as they think just and reasonable. Therefore if there is any case of unfair deduction so that the money is not properly used or is likely to be brought out again in the balance-sheet to pay dividends, then they can refuse to remit the amounts, but where the system is adopted in pursuance of a policy and where that policy is finally adhered to, there the Commissioners are empowered to make such deductions as they think just and reasonable. Of course, that is necessary for the purpose of those continually and definitely inherently wasting assets, because I do not want the result of granting exemption to be extended to any case in which it is not really agreed by any competent business man that exemption ought to be allowed. Therefore I define these wasting assets in the strictest possible way and in the way in which Mr.
    2618
    Leake has drawn it in his interesting book on "Wasting Assets." I add a proviso to prevent any other exemption being introduced by saying:—
    "Provided always that such wasting assets are not of the value of transfered rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made."
    In that way I eliminate leaseholds, patents, and copyrights and other things not truly entitled to immunity, because by transfer and sale it would be possible in these cases to avoid paying revenue which ought to be paid. That is the scheme of the Clause, which has been drawn with a very great deal of care. It is in the hope that it may be a contribution towards getting over what is really an injustice, and has been admitted from the Front Bench opposite more than once to be an injustice, in connection with which I think all sides of the House will be glad to see a way out, and so that we may have Income Tax collected in a manner which would increase prudent finance and which would cease to deter capital being invested in companies over here that I move this Clause. I hope I have been able to make my meaning clear. All I can say is that it is a difficult and intricate subject, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it from me that my desire is not to create chaos in the system of Income Tax, but to try and get immunity for those cases where it ought to be granted, and to prevent any escape in those cases where immunity ought not to be granted. I have left the Assistant Commissioners masters of the situation, therefore the matter will really be in the hands of the revenue authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to grant a Clause of this kind I feel sure he will earn the thanks, and I know he will get them, of a large portion of the business community who are constantly finding these difficulties in the way of carrying on their business as they ought to do, and as they wish to do.
    Mr. PETO: I wish to add a few words to what my hon. Friend has said. The Clause as drawn covers the ground which I wanted to cover with one of my proposals, which was ruled out of order last night. Although I could not compete with the lucid manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has put his point of view, I think it would be to the advantage

    2619
    of the Committee that a word or two should be said from the strictly business point of view. The whole of the definition of the rules on which the Income Tax is now collected dates from the Act of 1842. I would remind the Committee that 1842 was before the dawn of really scientific accountancy in this country. It was before any of the Limited Companies Acts had been passed, and when the whole condition of trade and industry in this country was entirely different from what it is to-day. Beyond that it is well worth remembering that the Act of 1842 imposed an Income Tax Duty on the profits of trades, profession, offices and emoluments of 7d. in the £ for three years only. The first remission for wasting assets was granted in 1878 when the Income Tax was 5d., and it was not then anticipated that the Income Tax would continue to be a regular tax in the country. We now have an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £ as a permanent tax. In this respect I could quote a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a very short time ago in another connection to the effect that if you are going to have a heavy duty of this kind of at least 6 per cent, on all profits, it is of the first importance that you should make sure you are levying that tax on the profits of the business as understood by chartered accountants to-day. If you only give spasmodic, casual relief here and there, in the matter of these wasting assets, that will not meet the case. First of all by that process you discourage proper business management. The thing we have to recollect in this country is that the size of the scrap heap is a very good measure of progressive business management in any industrial affair. If you do not allow full relief or proper depreciation for machinery you distinctly discourage proper business management on progressive lines. If you do not do that you encourage bad accounts, and you encourage people to evade the taxes, because you are charging them on an unjust basis. I would like to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a simple illustration from my own personal experience. The hon. and learned Member referred to nitrate deposits. I have never had anything to do with nitrate deposits, but I have had to do with the mining of a mineral of a wholly different character. There was a lot of development work to be done at considerable expense before we came upon something worth mining. The proper accountancy was to say: "Here is a capital expenditure of
    2620
    £800 to be spent in sinking a shaft. We estimate we shall get £1,000 worth of mineral, and we shall do it in three years. The profit is the difference between the development work required to get at the mineral and the realisable sum of the mineral." In this simple case the true profit of the industry which ought to be taxed is £200. What happens? When you go to the Income Tax Commissioner, and ask him to make some allowance by way of depreciation on this work of development you will be very fortunate if you get 5 per cent. You say the whole work will only last three years, but he brushes that aside and you do not get relief. You pay on £1,000, with a very small reduction,, whereas you ought only to pay on £200. You, therefore, have got to say this is not capital expenditure, it is revenue expenditure; you are forced to bad accountancy in order to evade the injustice of a tax levied, not on profits as was originally intended, but on something far beyond the profits of the industry. May I read to the Committee a brief definition of this question given by Mr. Leake, whom the hon. and learned Member has already quoted, and than whom there could not possibly be a better authority:—
    "No annual profit arises until the inevitable annual wastage in the assets in which the capital was originally invested has been fully provided for out of gross receipts,"
    If you go upon that principle you will, actually be collecting your tax on the lines laid down by the Act of 1842. Practically the whole trouble has arisen from, the interpretations of learned judges, in various cases, of what is stated in the Third Clause of Schedule D of the Act of 1842. In estimating the balance of profits and gains chargeable under Schedule D certain things may not be deducted, and this is one of them:—
    "Nor on account of any capital withdrawn therefrom."
    There is the basis of the whole trouble. It has always been held that anything of this kind which is claimed is a withdrawal, of capital. It is a wholly erroneous idea that it is a withdrawal of capital at all. If you have a mine and sell a portion of a mineral deposit, or if, in another wasting asset you put aside an annual depreciation, you transfer from one form of capital to another certain of your assets. The minerals you were getting as soon as they were marketable became capital in liquid form—book debts or cash—It is not a withdrawal of capital from the business. What was the intention in passing the Act of 1842 under those primitive condi-

    2621
    tions of industry which I have indicated. They wanted to stop all possible leakage. They knew they were imposing an unpopular tax. Industries were carried on by individual management spread much more widely and generally over the country, and everybody would try to find some means of escaping payment. The one simple and most obvious means would have been when money was taken out of the business for the man engaged in the business to tell the tax collector that it was not really a withdrawal of profit, but that it was really a withdrawal of capital; and in the primitive method in which accounts were kept in those days it could not have been very difficult on these grounds to evade the imposition of the tax. Consequently the withdrawal of capital was specifically named as one of the things for which the deduction was not to be claimed. Yet on these simple words the whole of this case has been built up—a case which twists and distorts the intentions of the original Act; which causes a monstrous injustice, and which handicaps trade all over the country. It drives capital away which would otherwise be invested here; it discourages ability; it encourages unsound finance, and it discourages the expenditure necessary to maintain the efficiency of the plant on which so much depends in this country.
    Therefore I wanted to put in my word from the business point of view in support of this Amendment. We have reached a point at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be obliged, under the new conditions under which the Income Tax is now levied, to seriously consider whether it is a fair or just basis for the collection of the tax, keeping at 1s. 2d. in £1, and collecting it from one man, while another man gets off to a certain extent. It would be better if necessary to raise the rate to 1s. 3d. and collect it on a fair basis. If it is necessary to do that, in order to make good the unjust operation of the tax, it would be a better way and one which would injure the trade of the country less than by collecting Income Tax on hypothetical profits of industry, and in many cases on gross profits which are never realised at all. I want to add my entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member as to the things which have to be left out of consideration under this Clause. He did not mention all of them. Practically, we would say that any form of property, even if it is apparently a wasting asset, in which there is a free market where it could be disposed of, and in which
    2622
    it is perfectly clearly understood by the purchaser what are the terms on which he purchases, namely, that the property is subject to an annual deduction for Income Tax, should not be brought under this, Clause. This would include patent rights, goodwill, copyright, and leaseholds and all things which can be bought and sold in the open market where, what my learned Friend would call, the doctrine of caveat emptor comes in. It would be fair to say, "It is your own look out." But if you did not exempt these things you would be altering the whole basis of Income Tax collection. In any such transaction what happens is this: The purchaser says, "I estimate I shall get so much profit for so many years, and I will give so much as a lump sum for these anticipated profits." In estimating these profits he is bound to take into account the consideration that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will charge him 1s. 2d. in the £ upon the gross profits. It is perfectly easy, therefore, for him to make a calculation in advance. The things that we want specially to betaken into account in the interest of the trade and industry of the country are machinery, office furniture, buildings, or other structures erected simply for the purpose of trade, and all those things which have a depreciating annual value, making full allowance for obsolescence. These should be allowed at the discretion of the Income Tax Commissioners. I am certain that if a clear guiding line is given by the passage of this Clause into law, we shall not have any difficulty in getting them to agree as to what constitutes a true profit, and what is the proper and legitimate deduction to be made in accordance with the principles of correct accounts.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As those who have taken part in the discussions on the Finance Bill during the last few years must be aware, this is a hardy annual. It is one of those problems which have embarrassed and perplexed every Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, on the face of it, there is a case to be met. In fact I go? beyond that and say that there is a real case that has got to be dealt with. That case was presented fully by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock). I fully recognise that this Clause is a better Amendment than that which was moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto) on the same subject some time ago. It is more moderate, and it is presented in form much mote difficult to resist. But

    2623
    the effect of this Clause is rather underestimated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is much more far-reaching than he seemed to imply in his speech, although I acknowledge that it is more restricted in its operation than the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. This Clause will involve a loss to the Revenue of at least £2,000,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think he could confine it to foreign minerals. He could not. Every principle he lays down here would have to be applied to the British mineral field, and the result would be that it would involve a loss to the revenue of something like £2,000,000. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peto) very courageously is willing to meet that by saying "put up the Income Tax over the rest of the taxpayers of this country." That is a very serious proposition.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has really observed in the Clause the very restricted power we give. In the case of coalfields over here, is that practice adopted? I think it is only adopted in cases where there is obviously a limited life to the concern, but if he is advised that it is adopted as a matter of practice over periods of years I shall be glad to be corrected.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am only advised by those who are responsible for the collection of Income Tax that the principle laid down here would involve a very considerable measure of loss in covering all the Income Tax in the mineral fields in Great Britain, and their estimate is that the total loss on the foreign and British interests would come to something like £2,000,000 a year. I received a very important deputation from leading business men on the subject two or three years ago, and I should like to point out why it is almost impossible to do it without a complete readjustment of the whole machinery of the Income Tax and without complicating that machinery to an extent which might even be fatal to its success. The hon. Member has given the case of ships, which are wasting assets, and says there you have made arrangements. It is much more easy to do with regard to ships. You can there lay down a general rule. But take the case given by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) and the case given by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock). How are you to deal with mines in this country and mines in India? You
    2624
    cannot lay down a rule of general application which would cover those cases. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman would apply the same rule to any two mines.
    I am perfectly certain you could not apply the same rule to two mines with different minerals. You are entirely in the hands of those who prepare the account. The hon. Gentleman calls it scientific bookkeeping. That costs a good deal of revenue, and I think scientific bookkeeping is just the risk you have to guard against in the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, and unless I am mistaken, if we accepted this, it would be so scientific that there would be no Income Tax left, and therefore you have to to proceed upon a principle which may be a crude one, but which is the only principle which is possible of application in the case of a tax. In a tax you ought to make the machinery as simple as is compatible, at any rate, with fairness and with the collection of revenue. It would be quite impossible to do it if we accepted the principle laid down here. There is no Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am certain, who, in dealing with this problem would not like to be able to redress the inequalities which are caused by such instances as he has submitted to the House with such great force; but I am equally certain that every Chancellor of the Exchequer ends as he begins by feeling practically that it is almost impossible to redress the grievance without having a complete reconstruction of the Income Tax—such a reconstruction as would involve a great loss of revenue, especially in regard to these foreign mines. It would be entirely in the hands of those who are preparing the accounts. Under these circumstances, however much I sympathise with the general objects of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall have to give the same answer that every Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up to the present. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I hope I have made it quite plain that I was not in the least wedded to these particular words. I have only endeavoured, and I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, to try to get a step forward on the lines on which something could be safely done. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this would involve the reorganisation of the Income Tax, I reply that I have been trying to get some organisation out of the chaos which at present exists. It would

    2625
    be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman could get the Income Tax reorganised, because it is high time that the methods under which the tax is imposed and collected were put on a better basis. We ought to have far simpler methods adopted. I do not think that what I would call the Departmental answer given by the right hon. Gentleman meets the case. I did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that he would endeavour to have the Clause remodelled in some way which would meet the difficulty. Having officials of experience and ability at his command, I hoped that he would be able to say that he would bring up a Clause to meet the difficulty.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite realised, or that he has had any official reports made to him, as to what
    the revenue is he is losing to-day owing to registration abroad. In consequence very largely of the difficulty which this Clause is intended to meet, a large and increasing proportion of companies registered in London to-day are being registered in South Africa, Newfoundland, the United States, and the Colonies, as well as in foreign countries—Russia very largely, and also Belgium. I think from what I can see that it is very likely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is losing more money to the revenue, both in Income Tax and in other ways, by refusing to redress this simple grievance than he is gaining by insisting upon an unfair exaction in regard to this alleged income which is not income at all.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 172.

    Division No. 196.]

    AYES.

    [6.45 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Ashley, W. W.

    Goulding, E. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Grant, James Augustus

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Gretton, John

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barnston, H.

    Guinness, Hon. Robert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barrie, H. T.

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Spear, Sir John

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Stanier, Beville

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, G. F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chambers, James

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Faber, George D.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Younger, Sir George

    Fell, Arthur

    Malcolm, Ian

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Peto.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Duffy, William J.

    Acland, Francis Duke

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Alden, Percy

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Clough, William

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Arnold, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Falconer, J.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Barnes, George H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Field, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Cullinan, John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Delany, William

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dillon, John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lundon, T.

    Palmer, Godfrey, Mark

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Hackett, J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    McKean, John

    Reddy, M.

    Hayward, Evan

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hinds, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Molloy, M.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hodge, John

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Mooney, J. J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sheehy, David

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Morison, Hector

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Shortt, Edward

    Hudson, Walter

    Muldoon, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Munro, Robert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Snowden, Philip

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Connor, J. (Kildare, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Malley, William

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Leach, Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (5th August).
    And, it being after Half-past Five of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Nine minutes before Seven o'clock.

    PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
    The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
    MONDAY.
    Criminal Law Amendment Bill—Petition from Kensington, in favour.

    WEDNESDAY.
    County Courts Bill—Petition from Southampton, in favour.
    Taxation of Land Values for Local Purposes—Petition from Hyde, for legislation.

    THURSDAY.
    Housing of the Working Classes Bill— Petition of Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour.
    FRIDAY.
    Trade Disputes (Pickets)—Petition for legislation, from London.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  RURAL POSTMEN (IRELAND).
  RURAL POSTMEN (IRELAND).
  SEAMEN.
  SEAMEN.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  INSURANCE STAMPS.
  INSURANCE STAMPS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  COMPULSORY LEVY.
  COMPULSORY LEVY.
  Estate Duty Account (Elizabeth Finch).
  Estate Duty Account (Elizabeth Finch).
  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Oil Fuel Committee.
  Oil Fuel Committee.
  Camp Equipment.
  Camp Equipment.
  Juvenile and Adult Offenders.
  Juvenile and Adult Offenders.
  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Richmond, Surrey).
  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Richmond, Surrey).
  Lord Devonport.
  Lord Devonport.
  Cotton Yarns and Manufactures (Imports).
  Cotton Yarns and Manufactures (Imports).
  Indian Staff Corps.
  Indian Staff Corps.
  Indian Towns (Water Supply).
  Indian Towns (Water Supply).
  Bishop of Bombay (Eucharistic Vestments).
  Bishop of Bombay (Eucharistic Vestments).
  Straits Settlements (Jinriksha Coolies).
  Straits Settlements (Jinriksha Coolies).
  House of Lords.
  House of Lords.
  Certificates of Successful Vaccination.
  Certificates of Successful Vaccination.
  Lincolnshire Estates.
  Lincolnshire Estates.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation.
  Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation.
  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society.
  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society.