Sitting of 22 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ellesmere Port and Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Liverpool United Gaslight Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.
Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Building Regulations for Secondary Schools, being principles to be observed in planning and fitting up new buildings in England [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th June; Sir Walter Essex]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 375.]
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the boroughs of Scarborough and Keighley, of the county of Glamorgan (parishes of Clyne, Neath Lower, and Resolven), and of the administrative county of the West Riding of Yorkshire (urban district of Earby), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5350 and 5353 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1913. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TASMANIA.
Copy presented of Correspondence relating to the recent Political Crisis in Tasmania [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRINIDAD.
Copy presented of Rules relating to the Custody of Criminal Lunatics [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 21st July, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Entry into Insurance) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China (Five-Power Group).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has been completed between the Chinese Government and the five-Power group regarding the proposed loan?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer is in the negative.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the trade route between Khanikin and Kermanshah has officially been declared to be unsafe; if so, by what authority; and what steps are being, or will be, taken to forward 6,000 loads of British goods lying at the former station on the route?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has reported to me that the Kermanshah road is insecure, and that he has brought the facts to the notice of the Persian Government, warning them that they will be held responsible for losses which may be incurred by British trade interests.

  Mexico.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information, not hitherto given in the Press, regarding the departure of General Huerta and the position of General Carranza which he can place at the disposal of the House?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.

  Historical Buildings.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether all historical buildings will now be the special care of the Ancient Monuments Board, or whether certain historical buildings will be under the supervision of the Ancient Monuments
  422
  branch of the Scottish Office of Works; and whether he can state which buildings will be controlled by which?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The functions of the various Ancient Monuments Boards are specified in the Act. As a matter of courtesy, however, the First Commissioner is anxious to consult them as to any important proposal affecting historic buildings with which he is concerned. An architect of Scottish nationality responsible for the ancient monuments in Scotland is permanently stationed in Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the relationship between the Scottish architect who is stationed at Edinburgh and the Scottish Office of Works?
  Mr. BENN: The Scottish architect stationed in Edinburgh answers primarily to the head of the Ancient Monuments branch in London, who himself consults directly through the architects' office with the Scottish Ancient Monuments Board.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that this official in Scotland, whom my hon. Friend seems to know so little about, is not responsible in any way to the Scottish Office of Works, but is responsible to the London Office of Works, which is presided over by two Englishmen?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of questions of that kind.

  H.M. Office of Works (Architect, Surveyors and Engineers).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, from what source the Committee of Inquiry into the architects and surveyors and engineering divisions of His Majesty's Office of Works, London, obtained the evidence upon which they based the derogatory statements concerning the unestablished architectural staff (styled draughtsmen) made in their Report dated 22nd October, 1913; and whether he knows that such statements have been proved, from a careful census which has been taken during the last three weeks, to be inaccurate and misleading, and that in the majority of branches visited by this Committee the draughtsmen were not interrogated as to their work, experience, or qualifications?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The steps taken by the Committee to obtain evidence are summarised in the second paragraph of their Report. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  INDIA.

    SS. "KOMAGATA MARU" (HINDUS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the House any information other than such as has already been given by the Press regarding the position of the "Komagata Maru" and its Hindu passengers; and whether the latter resisted, with violence, the police and immigration officials who attempted to go aboard for the purpose of carrying out the orders of the Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have nothing beyond what has already appeared in the public Press.

    ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION (POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, DACCA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any information which can be given to the House regarding the attempted assassination of the divisional superintendent of police at Dacca?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): A deputy-superintendent of police was fired at, a man named Ram Das shot dead, and a police-constable injured, by a person who, after firing eight or ten shots, escaped, the bystanders making no attempt to stop him. At the time of the outrage the officers were searching for suspects in a recent murder case.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does this case belong to the class of crime described as political?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should imagine so.

    INDIA STORE DEPOT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether ninety labourers employed in the India Store Depot at 25s. 6d. per week receive only public holidays; whether the twenty-four men employed on similar work at higher wages, but less than 30s.
    424
    a week, receive from three to six days' annual leave according to wages paid; and, if so, whether he will take steps to grant an annual holiday with full pay to the ninety men who receive only 25s. 6d. per week?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The facts are substantially as stated in the first two parts of the question. The Secretary of State understands that the practice of the India Office in this respect is in accordance with that of other similar public offices, but he will inquire.
    Mr. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether, under the circumstances, it is possible to grant these men, at all events, at least three or six days' holiday during the year, so that they shall not be handicapped by obtaining such low rates of pay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think there is any justification for saying that they obtain low rates of pay.
    Mr. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that 25s. 6d. per week for these men under present conditions is an extravagant rate of pay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is the minimum rate of pay laid down by the Committee which investigated the matter.

    OFFICIAL SHORT LEAVE.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the Viceroy of India, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Governors of Bombay and Madras are prohibited during their tenure of office from proceeding to England on short leave; if the same prohibition exists as regards their visiting other places outside India; and if legislation would be needed to make provision for those holding these posts to visit England to confer with the Government on matters of importance in connection with Indian affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTS: These officers may not leave India with the intention of returning to Europe, and they are precluded from receipt of salary if they leave India at all otherwise than in the known actual service of the Crown. Legislation would be necessary if the law were to be altered.
    Mr. HALL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when there should be legislation in order that these officers may, if necessary, return to this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir, I am not of that opinion.

  Fogs at Sea (Sound-Locating System).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has recently been called to the Kelway sound-locating system, for which it is claimed that safe lanes may in the densest fog in narrow waters, such as the St. Lawrence and the Straits of Dover, be followed by inward and outgoing vessels, respectively, with the consequent avoidance of or reduction in losses by collision, stranding, and delay; and, in view of the recommendation of the "Empress of Ireland" Commission in regard to obviating the necessity of ships crossing one another in fog, whether he purposes taking any and, if so, what steps towards the adoption in the mercantile marine of the Kelway system, which the United States Navy Department at Washington reported to be a valuable aid to navigation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The attention of the Board of Trade has frequently been called to the invention to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer which has already been given, that it rests in the first place with the inventor to convince shipowners and lighthouse authorities as to its utility.

  Mercantile Marine (Seamen and Fire Drill).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to exempt seamen from penalties for failure to comply with rules made by the Board of Trade, as regards fire drills, under the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The question whether, and under what conditions, a specific penalty should be provided for the cases referred to by the hon. Member is being considered, with a view to an Amendment being proposed on the Report stage of the Bill.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ACCOMMODATION FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office regards it as incumbent upon the State to provide suitable accommodation for re-
    426
    ligious worship for the troops; whether any such accommodation is in course of being provided at the new barracks shortly to be occupied at Redford, near Edinburgh; if so, what accommodation; whether he has received communications from a joint committee of the churches in Scotland upon this matter; and, if so, whether he will take any action in connection with the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have received communications from a joint committee of Scottish churches on the subject referred to. The whole question is receiving my consideration, and I cannot make any statement with regard to it at present.

    CANTEENS COMMITTEE.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to appointing one or two private traders upon the War Office Committee to examine into the question of Army canteens, in view of the fact that the interests of private traders are involved in the question of canteen supply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on Monday, the Committee will no doubt give representatives of all interests concerned every opportunity to lay their views before them. I cannot now add to the number of the Committee, which has already sat several times.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that no steps will be taken as a result of this Report without the House of Commons having an opportunity of discussing it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to give a pledge on those terms.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that a similar pledge was given about a year ago?

    SPECIAL RESERVE (OFFICERS).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship to retired officers involved in the enforcement of the provisions of Appendix III., Royal Warrant, under which an officer retiring on retired pay has to serve for five years in the Special Reserve, with the result that many officers find it impossible to get employment in civil life owing to this obligation; whether he is aware that

    427
    an officer was recently appointed to an important position under the Home Office, but lost the appointment because of the obligation to serve in the Special Reserve; and whether it is the practice in any other public service to force men who have earned retired pay to do duty for long periods in the year to the detriment of their prospects in civil life?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The conditions laid down in Appendix III. relate not to officers who have given the full term of service, but to those who, on retiring short of that term, wish to draw the retired pay to which these conditions are attached. In the Civil Service, voluntary retirement on pension short of the full term of service is not normally permitted on any conditions; and in the Army the privilege has always been, and always must be, subject to conditions.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (RETENTION OF EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements will be made in the event of the mobilisation of the Territorial Force to ensure the retention of their employment by members of the force on disbandment?
    Mr. TENNANT: Definite arrangements to ensure that the civil employments of mobilised Territorials are kept open for them till they are demobilised have not been and cannot, I think, be formulated in advance, but any steps in this direction that may be appropriate will, of course, be taken when the proper time comes, and I have full confidence that employers will accord their employés no less generous treatment than they did in the case of the South African war.
    Mr. HALL: Is not failure to deal with this point one of the reasons for the shortage in the numbers of the Territorial Force?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know how that could possibly be.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any special reason why these rules cannot be formulated in advance?
    Mr. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in many cases persons are deterred from joining the Territorial Force in consequence of the
    428
    danger they may run of losing their situations, and is it not possible to do something to do away with that danger?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means that there may be fear in the minds of the men, but I do not see how that can be got over by issuing rules in advance.

  Collision at Sea ("St. Margaret" and "King Orry.")
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, as regards the recent collision between the steam collier "St. Margaret" and the Manx excursionist steamer "King Orry," he can state whether the master and officers of the "St. Margaret" held Board of Trade certificates and how many officers she carried?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: According to the agreement with the crew of the "St. Margaret" for the first half of this year the master, mate and engineer were all certificated. I have not the information showing whether any change has taken place since 30th June, but I will make inquiries, and inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.

  S.S. "County of Devon."
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has been come to as regards the taking of legal proceedings against the managing owner, or owners, of the ss. "County of Devon"?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Not yet, Sir.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: When may we expect a decision upon this matter? Several weeks have elapsed since the Board of Trade took it up?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I expect we shall hear from counsel shortly, but I am unable to give the date

  Irish Land Bill.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the length of time that has elapsed since the First Reading of the Irish Land Bill; whether he is aware that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland gave an undertaking on his behalf that the measure would be energetically proceeded with; and whether the Irish Land Bill

  429
  will be the first Bill to be taken in the new Session of Parliament which is projected for November of this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill was introduced on the 2nd April last. It was stated from the first that the Bill could not be proceeded with unless some general measure of agreement was arrived at previously. The Government are fully aware of its importance, but I cannot give the hon. Member such a pledge as he asks for in the last part of his question.

  FINANCE BILL.

    PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO EXECUTORS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to move to recommit the Finance Bill in order that a provision for payment of interest to the executor of any tenant for life or annuitant from the 11th May, 1914, to the death of the tenant for life may be added to the Bill as promised?
    Mr. MONTAGU: An Amendment is on the Paper for this purpose, and it will not be necessary to recommit the Bill.

    SETTLEMENTS.
    Mr. CASSELasked what amount of revenue it is estimated would be lost during the current financial year if Clause 12 of the Finance Bill, as amended in Committee, were made not to apply to settlements in respect of which Settlement Estate Duty had been paid before the passing of the Finance Bill into law?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The loss is estimated at upwards of £100,000 in 1914–15.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is that allowing for the concession that has been made?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the assessment of income from possessions under Clause 5 of the Finance Bill will be based on the income of the three preceding years
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Motor Traffic.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the damage being done to the roads of the country by the increase of motor lorries and heavy traction engines; and if he will
  430
  consider the desirability of increasing the licences on these vehicles, the proceeds to be paid to the bodies responsible for the repair of the roads?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The whole question of heavy motor traffic is under consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: Who is considering it, and when will their Report be issued?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Andover (Captain Faber) yesterday asked a question on the subject of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and the reply was that a Technical Committee on the law and the regulations relating to heavy motor cars and traction engines was about to be appointed.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will their names be put on the Paper?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is a Departmental Committee.
  Mr. LYELL: Will the terms of reference be published?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will address a question on that point to the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. KING: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how little confidence there is in technical experts, and will some practical men be appointed? [HON. MEMBERS: "King!"]
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked what was the amount of money collected from carriage and motor car licences by the county councils of England and Wales during the last complete year; and how much of such sum was retained by these bodies towards the cost of the upkeep of the roads?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The total collection in England and Wales during 1913–14 was £1,103,593 19s. 11d. Of this £536,954 8s. was retained by the councils of counties and county boroughs under the provisions of Section 88 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911, and the balance less cost of collection was paid to the Road Board.

  Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railway.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the names of the present directors of the

  431
  Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railway and Piers Company; whether Sir Thomas H. C. Troubridge is still the chairman of this company; whether it has complied with the Companies (Consolidation) Act by filing an annual balance-sheet; and whether particulars have been included in these statutory returns of the manner in which the paid-up capital of £100,300 has been employed?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have no official information as to the present directorate of this company, but I believe Sir Thomas H. C. Troubridge is still the chairman. The company, being a statutory one, is not required to comply with the provisions of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, and I am not in possession of any particulars respecting the disposal of its paid-up capital.

  Metropolitan Police (Pay).
  Captain JESSELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state when he will be able to lay before the House of Commons the Minute required by Section 1 (6) of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1912; and when he intends to make a full statement of his proposals as regards the revised scale of pay for the Metropolitan Police?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I cannot add anything at present to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Dulwich last Monday.
  Mr. F. HALL: Are the police to receive any consideration during this Session of Parliament, or are they not?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand the point raised by the hon. Member.
  Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken the necessary steps to lay the Minute on the Table, and when the matter may be discussed in the House of Commons?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already informed the hon. Member that I propose to lay the Minute on the Table of the House.
  Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating a question which the right hon. Gentleman has already answered.
  Captain JESSEL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to lay the Papers on the Table?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I stated on Monday last, I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

  Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to issue before the end of this Session a general Order which will secure for district medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors greater security in the tenure of their offics; and, if so, when such Order will be issued?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This matter is still under consideration. I hope to be able to come to a conclusion on it at an early date.

  Public Elementary School (Erection).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the event of a new public elementary school being erected in any locality during the remainder of the current year on the demand of a county education authority or of the Board, the whole cost of its erection will be spread over the county or whether, as heretofore, three-fourths of the cost will fall upon the ratepayers in the immediate neighbourhood?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The law relating to this matter will not be altered by any legislation which it is proposed to pass this Session.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Middleton, county Cork, old age pension committee granted a pension to Jeremiah Leahy, of Wood, Cloyne, and that this claimant was shown to be seventy-nine years of age, and without land, means, or resources; whether, in face of these facts, the Local Government Board declared that the claimant was not entitled to any pension and overruled the local committee who had knowledge of the circumstances; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The facts are as stated in the question in

  433
  so far as the grant of the pension and the age of the claimant are concerned, but the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as regards Jeremiah Leahy's means and resources. Leahy resides on a farm of 43 acres which he assigned to a nephew in February last, reserving maintenance for himself. Nearly half the farm is under cultivation, and carries a good stock of cattle, pigs and fowl, and in the opinion of the Local Government Board the value of the benefits and privileges enjoyed by the claimant is worth more than £31 10s. a year. As the claim has been decided the Board have no power to reopen the case.

  Dublin Strike (Murder of Thomas Harten).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the murderers of the free labourer, Thomas Harten, during the syndicalist strike in Dublin on 17th January, have been brought to justice; and, if not, what has been the result of the police investigations?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Three persons were charged in connection with this murder. One of the prisoners was tried on 6th and 7th April last, and was found "Not guilty." A nolle prosequi was then entered in these cases of the other two prisoners.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has this matter been dropped, and is this poor man's murder to be overlooked and passed over?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty."
  Sir J. D. REES: Are the police or the Government urging further investigation into this serious charge?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No doubt the police have done everything they possibly could to bring these men to justice.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do I understand that the Government have dropped the matter, and are no longer pressing it?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
    Mr. KINGasked whether our armed merchantmen will be free to offer forcible resistance to the right of search which might be demanded in a naval war in which Great Britain was neutral; and whether a belligerent would be entitled to assume that the presence of guns on board a neutral ship proved that contraband was being carried or that forcible or hostile action was being intended?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Has this question of international law been considered not only by the First Lord, but by his legal advisers in connection with this policy of the arming of merchantmen?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. KINGasked whether, in the case of armed merchantmen entering foreign or Colonial ports, any difficulties have arisen in connection with the ammunition on board; whether the amount and character of the ammunition have to be declared; and whether any extra dues or expenses incurred by the carrying of ammunition on these vessels are borne by the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Up to the present no difficulties have arisen and no extra expenses have been incurred, but the point raised in the second part of the question depends upon local port regulations, which differ, and I do not desire to make any further statement at present on the subject.

    ARMAMENTS TRIAL (TOKIO).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the allegations established in the recent armament trial in Tokio, showing that bribery to secure contracts was resorted to by the agents of the armaments firms; whether inquiry will be made into the position of the Vickers Company in this matter; and whether, if bribery is found to have been practised, the firm in question will be struck off the Admiralty list of naval contractors?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of the accuracy or otherwise of the statements in the question, and I do not propose to make the inquiry suggested as I have no reason to assume that British naval interests are in any way affected.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm of Messrs. Lipton has been struck off the contract list of the War Office for action quite similar, if not identical, with that which has been brought home to a certain armament firm in Japan?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know of any facts which justify a statement of that kind, and it is a very serious statement for the hon. Member to make in regard to

    435
    a firm which certainly plays a very necessary part in the supply of British armaments.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that my accusation is not against the members of the firm or their directors, but against their agents in Japan?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information that will enable me to pronounce on a matter of that kind, and I do not quite understand why I should be called upon to pronounce upon what takes place in Japan.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the agents exceed their instructions would there be the smallest reason for proceeding against the firm?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no ground whatever for striking the firm off the list.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    GOVERNMENT NURSING GRANT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state whether it is proposed to make the county and borough councils or the insurance committees the authorities for the administration of the proposed Government Nursing Grant; and whether any use will be made of the county nursing associations in establishing a county nursing service with the aid of such Grant?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The service referred to will be administered by the Insurance Commissions through the local insurance committees. It is hoped to secure the cooperation of the County Nursing Associations.

    EMIGRANTS.
    Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, to what purpose or fund the contributions of insured emigrants are applied in cases where it is not found practicable to transfer the emigrant to a society or institution in the country to which he or she has emigrated?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The cost of the emigrant's insurance while he was still in this country will ordinarily have exceeded the amount of the contributions paid by him.
    Major HOPE: What happens to it if there is a surplus due to an emigrant or en behalf of an emigrant?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member knows of an emigrant who has a surplus and he will give me the case in point, I will give him an answer.

    MIDDLESEX COMMITTEE (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
    Mr. NIELDasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the application of G. W. Allen, of Station House, West Ealing, for leave to make his own arrangements was refused by the Middlesex Insurance Committee, subsequently granted within a fortnight, and again refused the day following such consent; whether the applicant was a patient of Dr. Chambré, in connection with the District Railway Provident Society, before the Act came into force and is still a member of both sections, all the members of his family being patients of the same doctor; what is the reason for this action on the part of the committee; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists throughout the county with regard to the manner in which the Act is being administered?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend understands that the insurance committee referred to has received and dealt with applications from three different persons resident at the address given in the question. No such action as that suggested in the question was, however, taken in any of these cases.
    Mr. NIELDasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he is aware that the Middlesex Insurance Committee have persistently refused applications of injured persons to make their own medical arrangements; will he say whether this is in pursuance of any resolution or as part of any definite policy, and without regard to the merits of the particular applications; if this is not so, will the Commissioners give such instructions to the committee as will ensure each application being decided by reference to its own special circumstances; what is the reason for the committee refusing to forward to applicants the necessary forms to enable them to make their applications, unless such form is specifically asked for by its technical reference; and how many letters of application were received by the insurance committee from Miss Marsh and Mr. Constable, of Ealing, before such forms were sent?
    Mr. BENN: As I have previously informed the hon. Member, a discretion is vested in the insurance committee in dealing with any such application. There is no foundation for the statement contained in the last part but one of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the forms of application were sent at the request of a doctor, no application having been received from the insured persons themselves.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Middlesex Insurance Committee does its work exceedingly well, and does he not think it would be very inadvisable to remove any portion of its local autonomy?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir, the Middlesex Insurance Committee is a very capable committee, and the Commissioners have no intention whatever of interfering with its autonomy.
    Mr. NIELDasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East why, in the event of a pool proving insufficient to pay the claims upon it, the drug bill is paid in full and only a dividend is paid on medical charges; and what is the reason for favouring the chemists at the expense of and penalising the medical men who are in attendance on insured persons entitled to make their own medical arrangements?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The arrangement to which he refers is the prescribed method of calculating the insurance committee's contribution to the insured person, who is himself responsible for the bills he has incurred.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that insured persons who asked to be allowed to make their own arrangements were informed that one of the conditions would be that probably there would not be enough money in the pool to pay their doctors?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, I believe insured persons who did not want to take advantage of the panel doctors provided by the Act are warned that it may result in their having to pay the balance necessary to pay their own doctors.
    Mr. NIELDasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether, in view of the insolvency of so many pools of insured persons making their own medical
    438
    arrangements, the Commissioners, out of the large surplus in their hands or under their control created by persons from whom and from whose employers compulsory levies are made under the National Insurance Act, but who have continued to provide and pay for the medical services rendered to them independently of the Act, will appropriate some portion of that fund in aid of those persons who, having paid their contributions, are unable to obtain the promised benefits?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 15 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, which preclude the adoption of the course suggested.

  Elementary Education.
  Mr. KINGhad on the Paper the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the girls' and infants' school of Christ Church, Albany Street, St. Pancras, is built on Crown land granted in 1837, with an express provision of reverter if the premises are used for any other purpose than a school for the education of poor children in the principles of the Church of England, or in the event of the discontinuance or the abuse of the trusts or breach of covenant; whether he has seen a Report of the Board of Education that the general defects of the premises do not admit of remedy and that expenditure on them would not be justified; that the rooms are dark and disturbed by traffic in the street; that the small entrance lobby and access to it are impeded by the offices and coal store, and provide insufficient cloak-room accommodation; that the girls' school is approached by a single wooden stairway with numerous turns, contrary to all rules for safety against fire and panic; and that there is no playground; and whether he will use his power under the reverter clause in the lease to prevent the abuse of the trusts involved in compelling the public to use and maintain such premises as suitable for educational purposes in defiance of the requirements of Section 7 (1) (d) of the Education Act, 1902?
  As so many Ministers are absent, may I ask if there is anyone on the Treasury Bench to give an explanation—is it duo to any development of the crisis? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is hardly three o'clock yet!" "Better resign!" "Responsible and sober-minded!" and "Move the Adjournment!"]
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)(who entered the House later): I am informed that the site of the girls' school—which no doubt included the infants' school—was the subject of a Grant, dated 17th June, 183V, by the Lords of His Majesty's Treasury to the Rt. Hon. T. Erskine and others in trust for the purpose of erecting thereon a national school. The Grant embodies various covenants by the grantees as to repairs, user, etc., and contains a proviso "that if at any time hereafter the school buildings and premises or any part thereof shall be applied to or used for any other purpose whatsoever than as a school for the education and instruction of poor children in the principles of the United Church of England and Ireland," or if the grantees do not observe the covenants, etc., then the King or the Commissioners of Woods may re-enter. I do not understand how the public can be compelled to maintain the premises, if not suitable, for a school, but so long as they are used for the purposes for which they were granted the Commissioners of Woods have no power to intervene.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has information showing that the boys' school of Christ Church, Albany Street, St. Pancras, is built on Crown land granted in 1858 with an express provision for reverter if any act be done which shall be a nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance to adjoining owners; whether he has seen a Report of the Board of Education on this school that there is no playground and that the boys spend their recreation interval in the street; that the shortage of playground is one of the less prominent defects of the premises, and that these defects do not admit of remedy; and whether he will use his power under the reverter clause in the lease to relieve the housing requirements of London?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the site of the boys' school was the subject of a Grant, dated the 26th October, 1858, by the Lords of His Majesty's Treasury to the perpetual curate and churchwardens of the district of Christ Church, St. Pancras, who were the holders of a lease of the site with the buildings then standing thereon. The Grant contains a declaration that if a schoolhouse should not be erected as therein specified, "or if at any time hereafter the premises hereby conveyed or the buildings to be erected
  440
  thereon shall be used or appropriated for any other purpose than a school for the education of the poor children in the said district of Christ Church and the residence of the master or mistress or teacher or teachers of the said school, or if any act or thing shall at any time be done or permitted upon the said premises which shall be or may become a nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance to the owners, lessees, or occupiers of any of the adjoining or contiguous premises, the Grant hereby made shall from and immediately after such user or appropriation, or the commission of any such act or thing as aforesaid, cease and be void." I am not aware that any circumstances have arisen which would justify the Commissioners of Woods in terminating the Grant.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether these schools have not been actually condemned as irremediably bad; and will he not use the land for housing purposes in London?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the purposes of the Grant have not been avoided.

  Rural Cottages.
  Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will place in the Tea Room of this House plans of such rural cottages as the Government approves, stating the probable cost of such cottages?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope shortly to be able to lay on the Table the first Report, including plans, of the Advisory Committee which I appointed to consider this question.
  Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will name the districts, if any, in which land has been offered to the Government free for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages thereon?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received free offers of land for the purposes mentioned in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether he is aware that at Beningholme Hall, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is the property of the Crown, the houses provided for the labourers are in a bad condition, namely, in

  441
  the principal cottage in respect of ventilation and dampness of walls, and as to the sleeping accommodation in the loft, and also as to the want of proper closet accommodation; whether he will consider the advisability of sending a Government inspector to report on the sanitary conditions of all the cottages on Crown property in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and if he will consider the advisability of placing the cottages on Crown property under the same conditions as apply to a private landowner, inasmuch as it is in reality property managed by the Government?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The late tenant, who held on a repairing lease, died in the autumn of 1911 in financial difficulties—the executors determined the tenancy by notice last spring and a claim for dilapidation was made against the estate. The farm has now been relet. I gave instructions some time ago for the necessary repairs and improvements to the buildings, and I understand that the work has been actually commenced. The Crown Receivers, in whom I have every confidence, are reporting estate by estate, on the sanitary condition of cottages on the Crown property in Yorkshire and elsewhere, and there is no need for the intervention of any ether Government inspector. In answer to the latter part of the question I may say that it is already the practice of the Commissioners of Woods to act just as if the Crown were bound by all the provisions of those Acts which apply to cottages.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only way of dealing with a cottage that is in such an extremely bad condition as this one is to pull it down and rebuild it, and would he consider the advisability of placing all the cottages on Crown property under the control of the local authority in the same way as the cottages of private landlords are under their control?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: These cottages are under the charge of the Commissioners of Woods, and it would be impossible to put them under the charge of anyone else without statutory sanction.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many cottages on Crown property such as
  442
  this one which are in an extremely insanitary condition, and will he not at once take steps to have the matter inquired into?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered the question very fully, and I have told the hon. Member that long before he put this question these subjects were being inquired into.
  Mr. BOOTH: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply with regard to the investigations on Crown property in Yorkshire being very thorough, does that apply to the Crown property which is technically under the Duchy of Lancaster, as well as that which is under his own Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I can only answer for those over whom I have control—the Commissioners of Woods.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Would it not be possible to make some arrangements by which the same control could be exercised over these cottages as over others?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that were done it would mean an amendment of the Crown Lands Act, and I should certainly have to consider that matter.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Would it not be possible to place a Clause to this effect in the Housing Bill?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; it would be out of order.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Are we to understand that cottages on Crown property are not subject to the ordinary hygienic laws?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, the Noble Lord can understand that they are subject to the same laws and customs, and that the same care is being taken over these cottages as is taken over his cottages by any benevolent landlord?
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
  At the end of Questions, the hon. Member said: I desire to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the questions I put to him with regard to the condition of certain cottages on Crown property, I shall call attention to' the matter on the adjournment of the House.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce the reopening of the English ports for Irish cattle drawn from counties which have continued free from any suspicion of cattle disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board proposes to issue an Order to come into operation on Friday, modifying the present restrictions so as to allow animals from certain parts of Ireland to be shipped to certain ports in Great Britain, there to be slaughtered within ninety-six hours. I hope to be able to announce full details to-morrow.
  Mr. H. BARRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was with his authority that I was informed by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) that the relief now promised on Friday would be given to-day?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what passed between the Vice-President and the hon. Gentleman, but the Order opening the port on Friday will be issued today. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member is referring to.
  Mr. BARRIE: Did the right hon. Gentleman allow the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) to inform me, personally, with his approval and consent that the port was to be opened to-day?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What I did say, and what I have said in this House as well as privately, was that the Order would be issued to-day. If it is issued to-day, it obviously cannot be put into operation to-day, and I do not know that any relief will be given if the port is not opened until Friday.
  Mr. BARRIE: Was it not the custom, when these Orders were necessary some months ago, to send word by telegram before noon, in order to give the relief necessary, and why should it now take two days to get the port open?
  Mr. LOUGH: Can Members generally be put into possession of the terms of the Order some time this afternoon as soon as possible, having regard to the grave interests affected in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not an easy matter, in answer to a question, to define
  444
  exactly the boundaries within which the restrictions have to be maintained without having to go into long geographical particulars. These can best be given in the form of an Order. I have promised to give as full details as possible at Question Time to-morrow. Meanwhile, the trade is being fully informed, and in some districts it will be resumed on Friday.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the universal enforcement of his Order means the ruin of a trade worth £18,000,000 to Ireland, and does it not amount to separation between the two countries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, it would be absurd to put the case in those terms. It is in the utmost interest of both the Irish and English trade that the greatest precaution should be taken to prevent the spread of the infection.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if time will be given to discuss his decision?
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will state each of the years under which a levy has been made under Sub-section (5) of Section 71 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894; the amount of the levy and its produce for each year; and whether he will state the amount of the contribution received, respectively, to these years from the Treasury for the purposes of the same fund?
  Mr. RUSSELL: If the hon. Member will move for a Return, I will endeavour to give the information desired.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the maximum amount payable by the Treasury to Ireland for the working of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, has been paid in each year, and, if not, will he state the total arrears; and whether in each year in which a local levy was made the Treasury contribution was first exhausted?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The reply to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. A levy is made whenever the balance to credit of the General Cattle Diseases Fund from all sources (Treasury Grant and local authority contributions included) is approaching depletion. The point of exhaustion is never actually reached before a new levy is raised.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked if, when a levy is made under Sub-section (5) of Section 71 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, it is made on the whole of Ireland; if not, how is the area charged selected; and what is the produce of a halfpenny rate on the annual valuation of Ireland liable to be charged?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The present produce of a halfpenny rate levied as mentioned would be £33,037.
  Mr. FIELD: I beg, in accordance with private notice, to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what arrangement has been made respecting the opening of British ports for Irish live stock; whether it is a fact that only two animals were affected in Tipperary, and that those two cases were immediately dealt with; whether there is any symptom of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, and whether, under these circumstances, he will allow the live-stock import trade to resume its normal condition?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the first part of the question, I can add nothing at present to the answer which I have already given to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Londonderry. According to my information, although only two animals were found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease in the recent outbreak, there had been considerable movements of stock a few days previously from the immediate vicinity of the affected farm, particularly to Dublin Market, and it would not be safe to assume yet that the infection has not been carried to some other parts of Ireland. In the interests of all concerned it is necessary that strict precautions should be taken until the normal period of incubation is passed. I hope to be in a position to make a reassuring statement on the subject early next week.
  Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement tomorrow, because it is an exceedingly important matter to all connected with the trade?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have promised to make public to-morrow the terms of the Order, which will allow for the passage of animals over to certain ports in England and Scotland for slaughter this week, but with regard to the resumption of the normal trade it would be well to postpone any statement till next week.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the Irish Members be given an opportunity of discussing in the House this extraordinary action on the part of the Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That rests with the Leader of the House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry to trouble the Prime Minister—I know he is very busily engaged—but I must ask him, in view of the total stoppage by the Department of Agriculture of this Irish trade, involving many millions of money, whether he can give an opportunity to the House of Commons to discuss the action of the Department?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that. I do not know if it can be done on any Vote in Supply.

  Rural Education Conference.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Education Conference will take into consideration matters affecting education in rural elementary schools; whether any request has been received by him that the Conference shall include some teacher or teachers in rural elementary schools; whether that request has been acceded to; and, if not, why this has not been done?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative; the remaining parts of the question therefore do not arise.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is this Conference referred to? Is it an official body?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there exists a body known as the Rural Education Conference which from time to time issues reports upon educational questions; if so, by whom the members of that conference are appointed; whether, having regard to the nature of the subjects considered and of the reports published, he has appointed any practical teachers as members of the conference; and, if not, why this has not been done?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Rural Education Conference has been dissolved and reconstituted under the name of the Agricultural Education Conference. I am sending

  447
  to my hon. Friend a copy of a Minute, in which the constitution and functions of the Conference are explained, together with a list of the members, thirteen of whom are teachers.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTasked a question which was not audible in the Press Gallery.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is a Conference of representatives of a large number of educational bodies who give advice to the Department concerning rural education.
  Sir W. RYLAND ADKINS: Are we to understand it is an Advisory Committee similar to that of the Board of Education?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, it is exactly the same body, only larger.

  Anthrax.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in future he can arrange that in a suspected case of anthrax, when a farmer has been served with Form A, the Board shall send to him a Report as to whether the case is proved to be one of anthrax or not, to secure the payment of insurance money on the animal; and whether at present the confirmation required by an insurance company can only be obtained by payment of a 10s. 6d. fee to a veterinary surgeon?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Whenever after the service of Form A the owner of an animal wishes to have a copy of the veterinary surgeon's certificate, he has only to ask and the Board will send him a copy at once. But the Board have no knowledge of any case in which an insurance company has acted in the manner mentioned in the last part of the question and I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of any such case which has come to his notice.

  Fatal Accidents in Factories.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large and continual growth in the number of fatal accidents occurring in factories and workshops in recent years, he will grant a Return of all such accidents for the past year showing the name, age, and occupation of each person killed, with date of accident, cause of accident, and description and name of owner of factory or workshop in which the accident occurred, similar to the list of fatal accidents con-
  448
  tained in the Reports of inspectors of mines and quarries; and will he require the insertion of such particulars in future Reports of the chief inspector?
  Mr. McKENNA: The subject of a Return by the Departmental Committee on Factory Accidents, who did not suggest any such Return as proposed by my hon. Friend, but took the view—with which I agree—that what is important is the preparation of careful analyses of the accidents in particular trades or districts. Tables giving detailed information for specific trades have been published in the Annual Reports of recent years, as, for example, for cotton spinning in 1909, shipbuilding in 1910, locomotives and motors in 1911, and iron and steel foundries in 1912, and other trades will be dealt with in the same way. Statistics in this form should, in my opinion, be much more valuable for purposes of prevention of accidents than unclassified particulars of individual accidents spread over the whole body of miscellaneous industries.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last four years the annual number of fatalities in factories has increased by over 40 per cent.? Does he not think that some steps are desirable in regard to this increase?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot commit myself to the precise percentage, but I regret to say that my hon. Friend's statement is substantially right.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there has been a distinct increase in the number of fatal accidents since legislation was undertaken by this House in regard to Employer's Liability and Workmen's Compensation?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend means to suggest there is any relation of cause and effect between the two, I cannot agree with him.
  Mr. BOOTH: I merely asked whether it is not the fact that there has been a large increase in the number of accidents since this legislation was passed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already said there has been an increase in the number.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any legislative action to diminish the number of fatal accidents, or does he intend to take no steps whatever?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, we are constantly taking steps.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Legislative steps?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: In late years?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of giving details of all the accidents, similar to those given in regard to accidents in mines? Will he do that for one year?
  Mr. McKENNA: We think the giving of details as in the case of mines would be of no value. It would not assist us in deciding what is necessary to be done.
  Mr. MORRELL: It would assist in discovering where accidents occur?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have that information already

  POST OFFICE.

    SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the number of young persons employed at sub-post offices as counter and telegraph clerks, some of them with upwards of six years' experience, who are working 63, 66, and 72 hours per week for a wage of 12s. 6d. per week; and whether he will apply the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause to the staff employed by scale-pay sub-postmasters?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I am not aware of the number of young persons working at sub-post offices, if any, who are employed under the conditions alleged by the hon. Member. They are not, of course, servants of the Post Office. I am informed that, generally speaking, the maximum number of hours worked by assistants exclusively employed on Post Office work at the larger scale-payment sub-offices in London is fifty-four weekly, including meal reliefs, and I think it should be so in the provinces also. At small offices, where the work is very light, the hours may be altogether different. I have recently issued instructions with a view to securing, as far as possible, that the conditions of service of assistants employed by scale-payment sub-postmasters other than their own relatives should not be less favourable than those
    450
    of shop assistants of about the same standing in the service of good employers in the same district.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman control of the ordinary kind over the wages paid to sub-post office assistants?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have no control whatever.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: But cannot the Postmaster-General make representations to the sub-postmasters to the effect they must pay their assistants more?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have answered that question by anticipation, as the hon. Member will see if he refers to the latter part of my answer.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is it the case the right hon. Gentleman can issue a circular, but cannot enforce it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have power to issue a circular, but I cannot enforce the suggestions made in it.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT FOR POSTAL WORKERS.
    Mr. MOUNTasked what provision for sanatorium treatment is made for established servants of the Post Office?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The medical attendance provided by the Post Office for its staff docs not include the provision of sanatorium treatment. About one-half of the established staff are voluntary subscribers to the Post Office Sanatorium Society, an unofficial society controlled by the members themselves. I understand that the staff, in return for the subscription of 2s. a year, are able to obtain sanatorium treatment when required without delay and for as long as may be necessary.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Does that apply to the employés generally—to those who do not subscribe?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It applies to those who subscribe an annual amount to the society.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is done in this matter as regards established Post Office servants in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should imagine the same conditions apply, but I should like notice of that question.

    REDUNDANT ENGINEERS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the fact, in connection with the engineering revision of 1911, that twenty-nine of the ninety remaining redundant engineers are in process of absorption into the higher class and that seventeen are unfit for promotion, whether it is intended that the remaining forty-four officers shall continue to serve without any prospects of promotion.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord's question is apparently based on figures quoted in my speech on the Post Office Estimates; but as I indicated on that occasion, I was unable to state with certainty the exact figures. The total number of second class engineers is fifty-seven; of these, seventeen may, as I informed the hon. Member for North Islington on the 23rd ultimo, be found suitable for advancement as opportunities occur. I regret that I can hold out no hope of the remaining officers obtaining promotion, unless in any particular case clear proof is given of improved qualifications.

  Road Board.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the classification of main roads now being carried out by the Roard Board, regard is had only to the number of cars passing over a given road or whether, in arriving at a decision as to a road being a main road for purposes of classification, any other considerations are taken into account?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir, the classification is to be made on the basis of the relative importance of the various highways for general traffic purposes.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Does this investigation include many roads which are in no sense of the words main roads?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.

  Factories and Workshops (Women and Girls).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary (1) if he can state approximately the number of women and girls employed in factories and workshops either in the year 1912 or in the year 1913 or at the present time; and, if not, when such information will be available; and (2) when
  452
  the Return promised for the year 1912, showing the total number of persons employed in factories and workshops during that year, will be ready; and whether, in view of the fact that such Returns were given for the years 1904 and 1907, but no Returns have yet been published for any year since 1907, he will consider the desirability of publishing this Return at regular intervals?
  Mr. McKENNA: Approximate figures for the total number of women and girls employed in these years are not available, but the number for 1912 will be shown in the Return for that year now being tabulated, the textile part of which will, it is hoped, be published next month, and the remainder before the end of this year. It is already the practice to collect these Returns at regular intervals, but it was decided in 1910, under the powers conferred expressly for the purpose by Section 10 of the Census of Production Act, that the intervals at which the Returns are to be made should be the same as those for the Census of Production Returns. The Returns are accordingly now collected at intervals of five years.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it has taken two years to tabulate Returns collected in 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    UNITED FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Prime Minister whether he received from office-bearers of the United Free Church of Scotland a communication stating their view that the interests of their co-religionists in Ireland demanded the modification of the Government of Ireland Bill; whether he will inform the House what reply he made thereto; and whether such reply contained an assurance that the undertaking given to General Gough would be acted up to by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a memorial from certain office-bearers of the United Free Church of Scotland, the terms of which and the signatories were published in the Scottish Press on the 17th instant. I understand that the reply which I sent to the memorial will also be published shortly. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Can the Prime Minister say if he has received any communication from the United Free Church Assembly or only from a few office-bearers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, not from the Assembly.
    Mr. PRATT: How many of the 10,000 office-bearers in the United Free Church are associated with this memorial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not know.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are there fifty?

    CONFERENCE AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

      HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
      Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Conference which is now sitting to consider the Amendments inserted by the Upper House to the Bill to amend the Government of Ireland Bill has been convened to solely consider the area, if any, to be excluded from the terms of such Bill and the duration of such exclusion, or whether the whole policy involved by the abrogation of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland will be included in the subject-matter under discussion?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I fear I can at present add nothing to the statement which I made on Monday last.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of those taking part in the Conference attached any conditions to their entry into it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No Sir, I cannot.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Conference meets at Buckingham Palace instead of the House of Commons?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot discuss these matters.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will there be an opportunity for discussing them, and when will it arise?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Time will show.
      Mr. HOGGE: On account of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister, I beg to give notice I will draw attention to this on the Adjournment.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I shall not be here.
      Mr. PONSONBY: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether the King's Speech published last night in the "Court Circular" was drawn up by or published on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers, in accordance with custom and precedent?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Speech delivered by the King was sent to me in the ordinary way by His Majesty the day before. I take the whole responsibility for it. The King left it to the discretion of the Conference to determine whether or not the Speech should be published, and the Conference unanimously decided in favour of publication.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether what has been stated in the other House is correct, namely, that the summoning of the Conference was an act undertaken by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister?
      The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty the King throughout this matter has followed the strictest constitutional precedent. He has not taken any step from the beginning up to now except in consultation with, and on the advice of, his Ministers.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has inquired, or will inquire, by what channel the information about the Conference on the Government of Ireland Bill, which was given to the House on 20th July, was previously conveyed to a section of the Press?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Monday last with regard to myself and those for whom I am responsible. I do not see my way to undertake further inquiry.
      Mr. KING: In view of the fact that there is a strong political colouring in those papers which had the information, is the Prime Minister aware that that fact has raised a suspicion concerning certain Members of the Conference, and will he not, therefore, in loyalty to other Members of the Conference make some inquiry?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I can only speak for those for whom I am responsible. As to them, I say emphatically that we gave no information.
      Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries of Lord Murray of Elibank?
      The PRIME MINISTER: That has nothing whatever to do with it.

  Questions (Member's Absence).
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I point out that I have a series of questions on the Paper which have not been called?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They have been called twice, and the hon. Member was not here on either occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken after eleven o'clock to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take after eleven o'clock the remaining stages of the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, the Second Reading of the County Town and Parish Councils (Qualification) (Scotland) Bill, the Entails (Scotland) Bill, and the Feudal Casualities (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: Can my right hon. Friend indicate that he will give us a little more notice than a few hours of what Bills are to be taken? Could we not have, if it is possible, at least forty-eight hours' notice?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I think that is reasonable.

PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 376.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 376.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 338.]

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 377.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 339.]

PROCEDURE.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 378.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Order (Housing) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,

462

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill, without Amendment.

London United Tramways Bill,

Tees Valley Water Bill,

Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to—
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to—

Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Birkenhead Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Hotels (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, Mr. Gordon, and Major M'Calmont; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.
  ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To amend the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909." Presented by Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR; supported by Sir John Jardine, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. Barnes, Captain Gilmour, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Crooks, Sir John Bethell, and Captain Campbell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 337.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  REPORT.—[SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  As amended, further considered.
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Taxation of Income in Respect of Foreign Property, 5 and 6 Vict., c. 35.)
    Income Tax in respect of income arising from securities, stocks, shares, or rents in any place out of the United Kingdom shall, notwithstanding anything in the rules under the fourth and fifth case in Section one hundred of the Income Tax Act, 1842, be computed on the full amount of the income, whether the income has been or will be received in the United Kingdom or not, subject in the case of income not received in the United Kingdom to the same deductions and allowances as if it had been so received and to a deduction on account of any annual interest or any annuity or other annual payment payable out of the income to a person not resident in the United Kingdom; and the provisions of the Income Tax Acts (including those relating to returns) shall apply accordingly and in particular for the purpose of computing Income Tax in respect of securities, stocks, shares, or rents to which this Section applies in pursuance of the rules under the fourth and fifth cases in Section one hundred of the Income Tax Act, 1842, the income arising from the securities, stocks, shares, or rents shall be substituted for the sums, profits, or gains, as the case requires, received therefrom in the United Kingdom:
    Provided that this Section shall not apply in the case of a person who satisfies the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he is not domiciled in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    Although this Clause involves a comparatively small amount of money, it involves a very important question of principle. It goes to the very roots and fundamentals of our Income Tax practice. Under our existing system the income on which the tax is collected may come under one of two headings—income which is taxed that arises in one sense or another in the United Kingdom, or income which, although it arises outside the United Kingdom, is received within it. In other words, we only tax the income in cases
    464
    where that income is created or enjoyed under the protection of British law. Now, for the first time, it is proposed to depart from that principle, and to tax income which neither arises nor is received in the United Kingdom—that is to say, income which neither in its creation nor in its enjoyment receives the protection of British law. It is proposed to do that in face of opposition from the self-governing Dominions, which do give protection to the creation and enjoyment of that income, and can legitimately claim that that income is more properly a subject for taxation by their Governments than it is a subject for taxation by ourselves. This Clause has had a somewhat curious history. It began almost without criticism or opposition when the right hon. Gentleman introduced it. On his Budget Statement and on the Report stage of the Resolution hardly any criticism was offered. The only voice raised against it was that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Samuel Samuel) in a maiden speech, to which the right hon. Gentleman paid a well-merited tribute. He congratulated the hon. Member on his courage in having stood out alone to criticise this Clause. Since we have known its terms and seen it in black-and-white, the criticism and the opposition have grown and developed.
    In the first place, there has been criticism in the Press. In the second place, there has been a deputation which went to the Secretary of State for India, representing the views of those interested in the trade and commerce of India. In the next place, there have been representations from the self-governing Dominions, and, lastly, it is interesting to follow the course of the Debate on the Committee stage, because then, apart from the Treasury Bench, there was not a single voice raised in favour of the Clause. Three hon. Members opposite spoke from the Back Benches. One of them was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), who is peculiarly well-fitted to speak on a financial question of this character because of his great knowledge and experience of these matters. He joined in the plea I myself urged, that this matter should be referred to the Royal Commission before it was dealt with. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) said that the Clause was going to injure the international trade of Great Britain abroad, and complained that it was contrary to the principles of Free Trade.

    465
    Lastly, there was the hon. Baronet the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), whose speech I can only describe as condemning the Clause with the faintest possible praise. So that on the Committee stage the only speeches from the other side of the House which were made in favour of the Clause were those made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. They, sitting on the Treasury Bench, could hardly have spoken otherwise.
    The Clause in itself has certain attractions. I confess that, to my mind, at first blush, it had attractions, perhaps because what the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to do was to tax certain classes of income which now escape taxation, and which, if we could do it without injury in other directions, we might wish to tax, namely, the income of wealthy persons who can afford to leave it outside the jurisdiction of this country and reinvest it there without bringing it home. The points that have to be considered are, in the first place: Are you really and substantially going to hit the person at whom you are aiming and, in regard to that class of persons, to do justice as between one taxpayer and another; and, secondly, in order to be able to do it, are you not going to do an infinite amount of harm and mischief to Britsh companies trading in this country with foreign companies, and to British companies which do trade in foreign countries? Although in the first instance, I was attracted by the proposal, on looking into the matter I have come to the conclusion that you are going to create ten injustices for every injustice of which you are going to get rid, and you are going to create a whole host of fresh anomalies.
    The wise and proper course with regard to this Clause would be to defer it for consideration to the Royal Commission which is about to be appointed. I will give one or two illustrations of how this Clause is going to operate. Under it you are going to let off partnerships and tax shares in companies. You are not going to tax a share in a partnership, but you are going to tax a share in a company. Assuming that there are two tea plantations in Ceylon or in India exactly identical in character, and producing exactly the same profit, say, £5,000 a year each, and one tea plantation is owned by a partnership which is controlled abroad. A, who is domiciled and resident in England, owns
    466
    two-fifths of the partnership capital; he is entitled to £2,000 of the profits, and he reinvests it in India. He is not hit by this Clause. The next plantation, precisely similar in character, is owned by a company, and B, domiciled and resident in this country, owns two-fifths of the share capital of that company. He receives £2,000 in dividends, and reinvests in India, and is made liable to the double Income Tax of India and this country. What possible justification can there be for making the distinction in these two cases? You cannot put it on the ground that in the one case the profit is earned by the personal exertions of A, and in the other not by the personal exertions of B, because I assume A to be merely a sleeping partner. I will give a still stronger case to answer that, because if A, instead of owning two-fifths, owned the whole business, he would be liable under the existing law as controlling the business, however much he might leave it in the hands of a representative. The right hon. Gentleman is producing under this new Clause new anomalies which never existed in the Income Tax law before. It is absolutely indefensible on any principle of fair dealing and justice as between one taxpayer and another.
    But that is not the worst of it. The right hon. Gentleman is going to do a most serious injury to British companies which carry on business in this country in competition with foreign companies, and while that will operate in any case, it will operate more strongly in the case of life insurance companies. There are foreign and Colonial life insurance companies in London, and there are British companies. By this Clause you are going to put a special handicap on British companies in that competition, because the foreign company will not be liable under this Clause and the British company will, and it is a matter of vital importance to insurance companies because the dividends on their investments are larger than the amount of their property. You are going to make British companies pay under this Clause, while you are going to let foreign companies off. Under that you are going to give such an advantage to foreign companies that it is bound to divert a great deal of the business which is now done by British companies to foreign companies. I raised that point in Committee, and there was no attempt at an answer from the Treasury Bench. They resorted to the usual device where a point is put which

    467
    is incapable of answer, and they ignored it. Take the reverse case, which I did not bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention in Committee. That is the case of a company domiciled and registered in Great Britain but doing business abroad. In those cases, under this Clause, you are going to do very serious injury indeed. As I understand, the present law is this: These companies are liable on their profits wherever they are earned, whether they are brought home or not—that is to say, a land company domiciled and managed from England is liable now on any profit which is earned in the Argentine or any part of the world, whether it brings it borne or does not. You are going to go further than this; you are going to tax them whether they make a profit or a loss, if they receive anything that you can call rent or income from shares or stock.
    Take the case of a land company which makes a loss on the year and receives a certain amount of rent in the Argentine, and applies it in the Argentine in meeting losses or expenditure on its general business. You are going now, although it has made a loss and though that rent is paid in meeting losses, to tax it in this country. That is an entirely new proposal. It is not a proposal to which the House ever gave its sanction. The House never knew it was doing so, and if it had known what it was doing, it would never have consented to it. Take another case. An English company owns two hotels abroad, lets one at a rent and works the other itself, and applies the rent which it receives from the first in meeting its liabilities abroad, never bringing it home. In that case the right hon. Gentleman is going to tax it on the amount of that rent, although the company has never made any kind of profit. The worst case of all is the case of insurance companies, for the reason that the normal position of an insurance company is that its dividends and interest are greater than its profits. It is the normal position of several kinds of companies, but mainly of insurance companies, and in insurance companies a large number of very small people are interested. When we were discussing Clause 10, the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington Evans) gave us a very striking example of it, and since then I have had an interview with the director of an English insurance company which does a large amount of business abroad, and as he puts it, interest and dividends received abroad
    468
    are six times the amount of profits earned abroad. So the right hon. Gentleman is going to make that company pay on the interest and dividends received abroad, although they are six times as great as the profits, which is virtually making them pay six times 1s. 3d. on the amount of their profit. In addition to that, they have to meet a local Income Tax. There is only one course for companies in that position, and that is to transfer their businesses to a foreign country. It is the only way in which they can continue to carry on business. It is not confined to the case of insurance companies. Take a bank which has branches abroad. Supposing in a particular year it makes a loss; you still make it liable on the interest and dividends of the investment which it has abroad, and which it uses to meet the current requirements of that business abroad, and never brings into this country. That was not the object of the House when the Clause was brought forward. The object was to hit rich men who escape Income Tax now by sending their investments abroad. The by-product of your Clause is an injury far greater than any good which you could hope to achieve.

    4.0 P.M.
    Now let me give the right hon. Gentleman another case. You have included in this the case of rent. To begin with, under our present Income Tax law, we do not tax rents as such at all. You tax profits or the annual value of land, but when you tax rent it means that in the case where a fine has been paid, and there is a small rent, the man escapes, but where no fine is paid he is made liable Surely that is absurd and utterly unjust. Again, these rents may be used for the purpose of developing an estate. I will take a case where a man has an estate in Canada, and receives a certain amount of rent in connection with it. I am not dealing with the case of gross or net rent, but I am assuming that he is using the rent for making capital improvements or making roads. Although he never brings it back into this country and uses it in developing his property in Canada, you are going to make him liable to Income Tax in this country when he may already be charged Income Tax in the country where he receives protection for his property. Surely, that is an utterly unjustifiable proposal. Moreover, you are taxing him on gross rent, but that arises on another Amendment. I will assume that it is net rent. I say it is unjust in the case of net rent to charge a

    469
    man on rent which is used for the purpose of developing an estate, and which he never brings back to this country at all. In conclusion, I again venture to repeat my suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that this would be a proper case to refer to the Royal Commission. Chancellors of the Exchequer for years have had present to their minds the fact that there is a certain amount of income abroad which is now escaping taxation and which they would like to make liable to it, but they have always seen the difficulties with which that path is strewn. The right hon. Gentleman at the very moment when we are going to appoint a Royal Commission to which that question is to be referred rushes in with this half-baked and crude Clause, which is going to do ten injustices for every case where it properly applies. To do that when you are about to appoint a Royal Commission is the high-water mark of political folly. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you pass this Clause now you will gain experience, and the Royal Commission will have something to go upon. The corpus vile of the experiment is the whole national trade of Great Britain, and the right hon. Gentleman is going to create an amount of dislocation, inconvenience and disturbance which is difficult for us in this House to estimate. There are many insurance companies which will have to make entirely new arrangements in view of this Clause, and it would be wiser before taking this step, when it is going to produce so little money, to have the whole question fully and carefully considered. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to act up to the principle of his Government, to legislatate in haste and repeal at leisure, that is likely to cause the greatest possible inconvenience to many people doing important trade throughout the Empire and abroad, and I am confident that if hon. Members were only allowed to vote as they please they would vote in favour of letting this matter, first of all, be carefully sifted. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they only support him out of party loyalty and devotion. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman himself to give effect to what he knows to be the real wishes and desires of his own supporters.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Clause is really a very difficult person to please.
    470
    This is not the first time he has made a speech about this Clause. The last time he made a speech about it he did not condemn it. On the contrary, on the last occasion, which was as recently as 13th July, he said that he sympathised with the objects of the Clause, and that he thought hon. Members in all quarters of the House must feel sympathy with the objects of the Clause. The last time he made a speech about it he felt very much concerned lest the machinery available for applying the Clause would not be strong enough to catch the people who ought to pay the tax, and that attitude and temper was so generally shared by hon. Members opposite that, though in the course of the Committee stage the Clause had been elaborately discussed from many points of view, it was felt that it should be part of the Bill, and nobody could be found to vote against this proposal. We pass from 13th July to the present date.
    Mr. CASSEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not represented quite accurately what I said in my last speech. A great many of the arguments which I urged to-day I urged then.
    Sir J. SIMON: Do I do the hon. and learned Member an injustice when I say that when he made his previous speech he gave us to understand that he was sympathetic with the objects of this Clause, and that he thought everybody else would be? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman changed his opinion or has he not?
    Mr. CASSEL: I have not changed my opinion.
    Sir J. SIMON: I thought when I heard his speech to-day that he was of a different opinion from that which he formerly held. When this Clause was previously discussed in Committee nobody could be found to vote against it, although there was a great deal of discussion in detail. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cassel) made criticisms which I agree were valuable and important, and both, I think, were careful to explain that the general object of the Clause was one which they were not to be understood as condemning in toto. What is the object of the Clause? We have an Income Tax which calls upon many citizens to make contributions out of their incomes for various purposes—purposes which, so far as this Budget is concerned, nobody has disputed. Supposing a man has investments

    471
    abroad which produce an annual revenue, and his resources are such that he cannot afford to roll that revenue up, and he has to bring it to this country to spend it—he is taxed. But the person who at present does not bring home the revenue is not taxed, and he is the citizen to whom the hon. Member, if he had his way, would show a special favour—the citizen who has such a revenue, but who, nevertheless, is so well provided with this world's goods that he does not need to spend the income he has got, but can invest it indefinitely, and he invests it abroad. That is the man the hon. Member for St. Pancras thinks ought not to be caught by this Clause.
    Mr. CASSEL: I said the reverse.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg pardon. I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seemed to me that he said that man ought not to be caught. If he does mean that that man should be taxed, what does he mean by moving the rejection of the Clause?
    Mr. CASSEL: I say you are trying to catch that man by this Clause. I do not think you will do it, but you will do a great deal of harm to the trade of the country.
    Sir J. SIMON: That might be a good reason for getting the hon. and learned Gentleman's valuable assistance in altering and improving the Clause. I fail to see how anybody in favour of putting Income Tax upon persons who at present escape because they get income from abroad should reject such a Clause, the object of which is to secure that they shall pay Income Tax. I remember that the hon. and learned Gentleman in his previous speech raised some question as to whether the machinery would be adequate to secure this new source of revenue from persons, who, as I then understood him, would be very proper persons to pay the tax. I pointed out that while no doubt the subject is a difficult one, you have available for the purpose of collecting the revenue under this new Clause the whole machinery of the Income Tax Acts—the system of declaration, the system of penalty, the system of exacting treble duty, the system of calling executors to account if their testator in the last years of his life is found to have concealed improperly his true income—and that just those same methods which in practice have been found to be effective for securing revenue under other classes of
    472
    Income Tax are available to be used, and are to be applied, for the purpose of getting Income Tax from this new branch of the subject-matter. Therefore, so far as effectiveness goes, I should have thought that we had very good reason to say that this Clause is going to produce the result expected. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Here is a Clause with very little money in it." I remember the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he came to criticise the Clause, complaining that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so grossly underestimated, as he thought, the amount the Clause is going to produce—
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not think I said there is very little money in it. I said it involved a small amount of money, but it involved a principle.
    Sir J. SIMON: As the principle is a good one, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman says there is a little money involved, surely it must be a very good Clause. The latest estimates I have been provided with—they are, of course, only estimates, but they have been formed by very skilful persons in the Department—show that in this present year, when, of course, you only get a few months' revenue, it will produce £250,000. It is estimated that next year it will produce £470,000, and I think the hon. Member below the Gangway pointed out that, he anticipated a full year might produce £1,000,000. That is not a matter to be dismissed very lightly, unless the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the principle of the Clause, which, he tells us, he is not. If it be true that there are certain citizens in the country who at present escape Income Tax, though they are persons above all others who should pay it, to say that these persons ought to continue to escape a tax which in a full year will amount to £1,000,000, means that that amount has got to be found by other taxpayers who are already under the burden of the Income Tax, and who, it may be, cannot bear it so easily. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that here is a Clause which he thinks is likely to produce grave embarrassment in the Empire beyond the seas. He is quite right in thinking that this particular topic is one which those responsible for the Clause are anxious to consider most carefully. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained that the Clause in the way now proposed—there is an Amendment on the Paper, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given

    473
    notice—is expressed in the form which has been devised after consultation with representatives of the Dominions here in London. It is expressly so framed as to avoid those very objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman, after a process of mature reflection on the Clause, thinks will work for embarrassment. The Clause applies the general principle, and the burden of the tax is not to fall upon any individual who is not domiciled in the United Kingdom to begin with. That is to say, a great number of persons are to be found in the United Kingdom who have got an adress here, but who, nevertheless, are not domiciled here, although they may spend a great part of their life here, and they are not touched by this Clause at all. That, to begin with, is an important exception, and it is, I think, a very proper exception, which operates in order to relieve the kind of case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view. He referred to the Anglo-Indian case. That, again, is a very proper case to bring forward. It may be said that there are some of these persons who are domiciled in the United Kingdom. Domicile does not depend upon where you actually reside; it depends on other circumstances; and it may be that though a person is domiciled in the United Kingdom he is not ordinarily resident here, British subject though he is. The Anglo-Indian, whose case I think was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, who spends very little of his time in this country, but who is a British subject, and is usually resident in India, or it may be in any part of the world, is by the Clause, as we propose to apply it, exempt from this tax altogether. When you have excluded these men, the man who is not domiciled in the United Kingdom and the man who, though a British subject, is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, you do provide for those very cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred when he said that he thought that this Clause would produce feelings of soreness and resentment in the Dominions beyond the seas.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having entered into negotiations in London with the representatives of those areas, now has got this Clause in a form which does not produce that resentment, and in a form which ensures that no such charge can fairly be made against this Clause. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to complain because businesses are exempt. What would he have said if
    474
    businesses were included? In a Finance Bill, and most of all in Income Tax Clauses, you always have the complaint either that it does not do enough or that it does too much. But the proposal here made is a proposal to tax securities, stocks, shares, and rents, and not a proposal to tax businesses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, put that point yesterday, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House he would have heard the right hon. Gentleman express great satisfaction that the new Clause does not include businesses. Are we to understand that the hon. and learned Member wishes that it did?
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman is not fairly representing me. What I stated is that you are making an absolutely illogical distinction between cases of partnership and companies.
    Sir J. SIMON: But then what is it to be? On what basis does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that it is to be put? I agree that it happens quite often in income Tax laws—and anybody who is familiar with the subject knows many instances of it—that the actual line which you draw is a line which leaves on one side of it cases about which arguments might be made that they ought to be on the other side and vice versa. There may be a commission which is going to have the result of removing all those anomalies. If so, it will be a highly successful Commission. The truth is that in any Income Tax proposal, while you have to try to do what is fair, you do not found any valid criticism of the proposal by saying, "If you go as far as that why do you not go a little farther?" May I remind the hon. and learned Member that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked a question on this point, and it was pointed out, and I think he expressed great satisfaction with the answer, that our new Clause 5 is not addressed to businesses as such at all. Its primary object is to deal with the proceeds of securities, shares, stocks, or rents, and quite deliberately that is not extended to the case of the ordinary business. That is not to say that a business which is carried on abroad in all cases escapes Income Tax altogether, and if anything I said yesterday by accident produced that impression—I am sure it will not have produced it in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the subject so well—I would like to

    475
    take this opportunity of correcting it. As I understand businesses carried on abroad at present stand in this position that they are independent of Clause 5 altogether.
    Suppose that an individual who carries on a business is resident in the United Kingdom, and carries on his business, it may be partly in the United Kingdom and partly abroad, as not infrequently happens, under the existing Income Tax law as administered by Government after Government, he has got under Schedule D his balance of profits and gains to bring the whole matter in; but supposing he is a main in whose case the business was exclusively carried on abroad, then in that case, so long as it is really carried on abroad, it is under the old law only the proceeds of that business, so far as they are remitted to this country, that come under the tax. On this point I may quote a well-known authority:—
    "Where a person resident in the United Kingdom has profits from a trade carried on entirely elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, those profits are not assessable until they are received here by the person entitled to them."
    That is undoubtedly how the matter stands now. What we propose in this Clause 5 does not touch such businesses at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, Suppose that the business was a company, and that its profits were expressed in the form of dividends on stock or interest on shares in that incorporated company, then, he says, if the individual who owned any of those stocks or shares was a person under Clause 5 he would be caught by it, though the owner of the business would not be caught by it at all. The criticism is just. What the hon. and learned Gentleman says is quite right, in so far as that shows that the line we draw is a line which to that extent has got to involve that anomaly. I admit that that happens, but unless the hon. and learned Gentleman is coming forward to say that that shows that we should not have such a Clause at all, which he does not say, or unless he is coming forward to say that that shows that we ought to extend the Clause to businesses, which he does not say, really his criticism leaves the Clause exactly where it was before. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to make that criticism, and then to say that you ought not to have such a Clause at all, and that you ought not to tax people who are drawing interest or dividends from securities abroad which they do not bring to this country, that would be another thing,
    476
    but he does not say so. He says, "I approve of the principle." He did on the 13th of July and I understand he does so now.
    If he was going to say, "I have shown you that there is a difference between the treatment of a business and of a company, and therefore businesses ought to be brought within the Clause," that would be an argument leading to some result, but he says that businesses ought not to come within the Clause, and therefore unless it be one wants to examine the Clause on the Report stage in order to make some quarrel with it—any quarrel will do—I fail entirely to see what is the importance of that particular criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. I am sorry if I seem to be unnecessarily vehement in my opposition to the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism, but we all appreciate him when he makes a good point, and I suggest that the criticism which he is now putting forward cannot be a criticism which is going to be of any service to the Opposition, because this Clause, submitted as it has been to a great deal of discussion, is a Clause which was passed by common consent, as embracing cases which it was desirable to bring within the Income Tax law. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a reference to rents. I agree that that is rather a different case, and if he will be so good as to follow me for a moment, I would like to call attention to how the difficulty arises. I see an Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, and an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester. I do not think that in that form we could contemplate accepting the Amendment, but in substance, what I would like to do is this: I am sorry to have to speak on rather technical things, but it is necessary, first, to put the following point on the Clause. The Clause deals with securities, stocks, shares and rents. From some points of view the case of rent is rather different from the case of securities, stocks, and shares. So far as securities, stocks and shares are concerned, I think that it will be found beyond question that on the Clause as it stands it is quite right in making a proper allowance in the event of those things not being sent to this country. But rent may be in a different position.
    Suppose that a man has, say, house property in Canada, the rents which are paid in Canada by his tenants in respect of

    477
    the occupation of that house property might be and might not be sent to this country. If they are sent to this country in the ordinary way, as I think was pointed out earlier in the Debate, they would be sent less the expenses of insurance, repairs, and things of that sort, and I think myself also in the ordinary way, they would be sent less any Income Tax which is payable on them. On the other hand, it is conceivable that they might not, and that they might be sent over here, as one might say, in gross, and that the owner might pay his Income Tax out of some other sources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out last night that it was not our intention at all to say that a man who had this property and kept it there should pay on a larger sum than the sum on which he would pay if the income was sent here, and we think that the words of Clause 5
    "subject in the case of income not received in the United Kingdom, to the same deductions and allowances"
    really cover that case, at any rate in most instances; but to make the thing doubly clear, we shall be prepared when the time comes to agree to a modification rather on the lines of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, and I think it will be found best if I may just indicate it now. We should be prepared to bring in at some place, within a line or two of the passage which I have just quoted, words something to this effect: that the income which is not remitted to this country, though not remitted to this country, is to be taxed as though it had been received in the United Kingdom, subject to the same deductions and allowances as if it had been so received, and the deduction, where such deduction cannot be made under any other provisions of the Income Tax Acts, of any sum which shall be paid in respect of Income Tax in the place where the income shall have arisen. If we put that in it will make it doubly certain, because the last thing we would wish is that in the interpretation of this Clause—the interpretation of which is necessarily rather difficult—should be different from that which we indicate.
    I indicate that because of the desirability of avoiding further misunderstanding. Having explained that, I turn to the main point, and I submit with confidence that the principle at the bottom of this Clause is a good one. The principle is to tax income of certain persons who enjoy income, and who at present escape Income Tax. If you are going to draw a distinction, they
    478
    are a class of person who, as it seems to me, ought to be taxed more readily and more easily than some other people who cannot afford to roll up their incomes abroad in this way. I accept the criticism of the hon. and learned Member that the Clause might conceivably go further. Since he does not desire that it should go further, and since, on the other hand, he does not urge that the Clause in principle is a bad Clause, I would suggest that he might leave the thing as it stands in that regard. Thereby we shall catch the man who invests his money abroad and rolls up the interest of that money abroad. Whether the investor's money is in securities, in companies, in land, or house property we shall do that. At the same time we shall not in the least add to the burdens of the ordinary business man, whose case the right hon. Gentleman opposite so particularly raised last night. The addition was suggested of words which will make it quite clear that there will be no attempt to tax income which is not remitted to this country in a larger sum that the sum available to be taxed if it had been remitted to this country. After we have made these adjustments we submit to the House that we shall have made an addition to the Income Tax law which is thoroughly justified. I repeat that it is far better, if there is going to be an inquiry into the Income Tax law, that the inquiry should take place after this Clause has been put into practical operation than to simply leave it to the realm of theory, where it would not have the slightest opportunity of being tested practically in order to see whether the theoretical objections are well founded or not. I believe that the inquiry and the recommendations made would be far more effective if the Clause were passed and put into actual work, when it would be seen whether or not it operated on the whole fairly and justly.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We are all very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has recovered his vigour and his volubility. He simply remained silent last night when we asked him for an answer on this point, and I am very glad indeed that after a night's consideration he is able to reconcile his view of the law with the view of the law laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We might have saved an hour's Debate last night had the right hon. Gentleman been in the same mood as he is to-day. We recognise the return of his vigour and

    479
    volubility, but I can only say that I regret his references to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel), for I believe if the right hon. Gentleman reads that speech made on the Second Heading of this Clause, and then reads his own speech, he will see that he has merely produced a caricature of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras has been twitted—he has been more than twitted—he has been censured by the right hon. Gentleman because he stated on the Second Heading of this Clause that he was in sympathy with its general object. We have all been in sympathy with the general object of the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have heard no dissenting voice on that matter. We all of us wish that the Treasury may be enabled to exact from any rich man who invests his money abroad, whether in a foreign country or in one of our Dominions, a proper amount of Income Tax on the income from his investments. Whoever that gentleman may be—where he is so rich that he can afford to leave the dividends on his money abroad and so evade his proper share of Income Tax, or probably prevents them from being added to the aggregate of his income so that they may come from one grade of Income Tax to a lower grade of Income Tax, we have no sympathy with that; nor have I heard any expression of sympathy with it. We agree that so far as Clause 5 operates to defeat the cleverness of that class of investor we are in favour of it. But because we are in favour of the general principle of the Clause, are we bound to say that we shall support that Clause whether it is amended or not amended, and though we think that the Clause is faulty in other prospects, and though we infinitely prefer that it should be dropped out of the Bill and sent to the Royal Commission, who are investigating the whole of these difficult problems? That is the attitude which was adopted by my hon. and learned Friend from the very beginning. He said, "I agree with the general object of the Clause, but I hope that when we discuss it many Amendments may be drafted to prevent that Clause from doing many acts of injustice." Those were pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend.
    To-morrow night, supposing we do not vote against the Third Reading of the Budget it will be because we approve of
    480
    things in it, because we approve of Clause 12 and of Clause 9. We find ourselves in this position, that we have to say in this House whether we agree in the main with something, or whether we think that we so disagree with it that we are bound to go into the Lobby against it. In the main we agree with the objects of the right hon. Gentleman in this Clause, and if there had never been any prospect of a Royal Commission I daresay we might not have taken up the attitude that we have taken up all through these Debates. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not let us send this Clause to Commission without having made some experiments which may be very useful to them." Many of us say that it is very hard that possibly on 10,000 victims of little acts of injustice, as possibly will be the result of this Clause, should be experimented upon for the good of the State. We think that if you are going to set up a Royal Commission, it would be much better to set it up before you do inflict many of these injustices which my hon. and learned Friend thinks undoubtedly will be inflicted by this Clause. As I have said, we have no sympathy with the investor who seeks to evade his proper share of the Income Tax by keeping dividends abroad and rolling them up, and does not have them sent over here. But I am not at all sure that we should agree as to another class of case which would be hard hit by this new Clause—the case of a man who puts his money into a small syndicate or company, and who is in the habit of keeping £2,000 or £5,000 in the business, and which sum never comes over here. But now he will have to declare the whole of the £5,000 here, whether it is from rent, securities, stocks or shares, and his income, very likely, will have to pay two Income Taxes, the Income Tax of the country of origin and the Income Tax of the country to which it is brought, and that will be aggregated, with other sources of income, and exposed to a higher rate of Super-tax than to which many of us think it ought to be exposed.
    Hon. Members on the other side may ask why we should differentiate between the man who invests his money in business abroad in this way and the man who invests his money in business here; and the man who invests his money here and does not choose to spend the whole of his income, but returns a large part of that income into the business, would still have to declare the whole of his income in respect of Income Tax in this country.

    481
    But I would point out that the whole of the benefit of the tax inures to his business in this country. There is a great difference between the man who derives £5,000 a year in Australia, Canada or Ceylon, and the man who derived £5,000 from his business in Yorkshire, Lancashire or London. In this country the tax will go to the benefit of the one who has his business in this country. Take National Insurance, part of the Income Tax goes to National Insurance claims, and possibly the man may have 400 hands employed in his business in Lancashire or Yorkshire. Let the same man of business go to Australia, Ceylon or Canada, he would have to pay the same Income Tax here, and that Income. Tax would not inure to his benefit. He might have 400 hands employed in Canada or Australia, and some of the Police Rate, the Poor Rate, or other purposes are matters on which the Income Tax there is spent. Therefore, I think there is a very great difference between the man who derives his income from properties and business situated abroad, and the man whose property and business are situated in this country. From the point of view of public policy I very much doubt whether it is wise to discourage men in this country, Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen and Welshmen, from going abroad and putting their money into businesses and various industries or landed properties, and so on. I think it would be contrary to public policy to discourage them.
    It may be said that if you put your money into business here and do not spend the whole of it, still you must return the whole of your rents, securities, and so on for Income Tax. After all, that has always been so. But this is a new departure altogether in taxation, and therefore I think it requires a very great deal of justification. I think the Attorney-General has had glimpses of certain acts of injustice that may be done under this particular Clause. I notice that he did not attempt to reply to the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend as to foreign companies. The learned Attorney-General did not attempt to meet that point at all, nor several other points. We have not been satisfied about this Clause from the very beginning in regard to the position of those who have to pay two sets of Income Tax—the Income Tax abroad and the Income Tax here. There again the discussion has been useful, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, is seriously disturbed in his mind as to
    482
    whether it is not going to inflict a very great injustice indeed on those who will have to pay on the income which they derive abroad—who will have to pay two sets of Income Tax, one in Australia, or South Africa or New Zealand, and one here. Obviously that is contrary altogether, apart from its actual injustice to public policy. I have already heard in the last few days two people declare that in future people will not come over here to live in this country, but will go to Switzerland, France, or Italy, if they have to pay two sets of Income Tax when they return here. I am not quite sure that it is not good public policy to encourage all our citizens who leave this country for Australia or New Zealand or Ceylon to come over and live here as much as possible, either for the education of their children, or for other reasons. The reservations and conditions, which the right hon. Gentleman has made in regard to people domiciled here will meet many cases, but I believe there will still be under Clause 5 many instances where double Income Tax will be incurred by those who derive income in any of our Dominions abroad.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest one or two possible cases where double taxes will be paid?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I still think that it will be quite possible.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will suggest to me any case where a gentleman from the Colonies will be subjected to double taxes under this Clause, I am prepared to meet it.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think a very great deal would depend on the Definition Clause. "Domicile" is a word on which lawyers quarrel very often, and on which there have been many cases in the Courts. All we say as regards this Clause is that, while we do support the right hon. Gentleman in trying his best by its means to catch those who seek to evade their proper share of the tax, we still think that in the Clause as it is devised there are a great many acts of injustice that will be done under it, both to individuals and companies, and the case of the companies has not been met or attempted to be met by the Attorney-General. Therefore while we have sympathy with the general object of the Clause, we have taken this line all along that the Clause

    483
    is so uncertain in its operation, and so likely to bring about a great deal of injustice, that we thought it would be wise and more just if he did not put the Clause into the Bill this year, and if he referred the whole of this difficult matter to the Royal Commission which the Government are going to set up. That has been the whole of our case from the very beginning. Therefore, we have no right to be subjected to the taunt by the Attorney-General that we have not been thoroughly consistent in our general support of the Clause, while we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to show the weaknesses of the Clause, and to point out the injustices which might be perpetrated under it. Because we have taken up that position we are told, "Why do you not vote against the Clause. You are not consistent." We say we are thoroughly consistent in all our actions and criticisms as to this Clause, while at the same time we think that the general object of the Clause is good, and that is why we do not vote against it. And that is why, in all probability we shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Budget. It may contain many things to which we object, but with the Budget as a whole, we are not in disagreement, and just as we think that in the main this Clause is good, and ought to be supported, so we think in the main the Budget is good, and we have not voted against it, and we say that that is thoroughly consistent with our attitude.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, quoted, very unfairly I think, remarks of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) as to the attitude he had taken up with regard to this Clause. As I was included to some extent, I propose to claim that my attitude in this matter has been consistent. I say now that I sympathise with what the Chancellor said was the object of the Clause, but I say that the object which he expressed in his Budget Speech is not carried out. This is what he said the object was, dealing with this Clause:—
    "I come now to another proposal from which I hope to get some revenue, and that is income that escapes taxation now owing to arrangements purposely made by men who are rich enough to leave their incomes abroad for reinvestment. In most cases those arrangements are made deliberately in order to escape subscribing to services which both parties consider essential to the well-being of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, May 4th, 1914, col. 89, Vol. LXII.]
    If that is the object, the so-called object, of the Chancellor, I do not suppose
    484
    there is a single Member of the House on whatever side he sits who is not in favour of preventing those who purposely endeavour to escape bearing their fair share of the taxation of the country from escaping in the way they endeavour to escape. What I object to, and pointed out in Committee, was that that object is not met by this Clause at all, but that, on the contrary, it will have results which are not at all in consonance with that object, and which results ought to be very carefully examined and ought to be avoided if the House is to be asked to support this Clause or any Clause like it. Let me first of all deal with the question of avoidance. I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee two methods, one of which was now employed for investing and accumulating incomes abroad, and another which might be substituted if the person was found to be stopped, and I put it to him that unless he could show that by this Clause, or by the Income Tax Acts or otherwise, he could stop that form of avoidance, that then all he is going to do by this Clause is to tax those who are more scrupulous and to let off those who are sufficiently clever, we will say, or sufficiently unscrupulous to take advantage of the means which are at their hands. That criticism has never been answered. The Attorney-General said not a word about it to-day.
    The Chancellor in his speech the other day said that the business men who are clever enough to think of schemes of avoidance are far too well employed in business to think about putting any such schemes into operation, and that it would not be worth their while. That is what he seems to rely upon. The sum involved may mean £500, or even £1,000 or more, by the mere change in methods. Do not let anyone think that that is too large an estimate, because if a £5,000 income was accumulated abroad that would mean at least the avoidance of about £500 in taxation, if you take the Income Tax and the Super-tax into account, because it would pay in each case the tax at the highest rate. If £10,000 was accumulated abroad, then it would mean £1,000 at least in taxation, and that is only referring to the Income Tax. The same means that could be taken to avoid the payment of Income Tax could to a, large extent be employed for the purpose of avoiding Death Duties, and if you take into account what it would mean if those methods were adopted for the purpose of

    485
    avoiding Death Duties, then it might become very well worth the while on the part of anybody who choose to take advantage of the scheme. So that the Chancellor's answer that it is not worth the while of anyone to do so seems to me to fall far short of what is necessary to convince us that the wrong people are not going to be hit by this Clause. I think that the House is entitled to some more specific answer when a direct method is pointed out, and when the Chancellor is asked to say how it is going to be dealt with. That was pointed out in Committee, and I confess I pointed it out for the very purpose of warning the Chancellor that this Clause would be avoided. I do not want it to be avoided. If it is to be applied at all, it ought to be applied to all and equally. There was plenty of time between Committee and Report for the Government to consider this, and to put down whatever alterations in the Clause were necessary if they could prevent avoidance in the form that I pointed out to them. I believe it is because they cannot prevent avoidance that they have not made any attempt to meet it.
    The Attorney-General, in answering, endeavoured to put my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras on the horns of a dilemma. In dealing with the business, he said, "Do you not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and do you not want business to be excluded from taxation under this Clause?" That was not the point at all that my hon. and learned Friend was making. What he was pointing out was this, that if the business is carried on by a partnership it is not taxed, and if, on the other hand, the business is carried on by a limited company, then it is taxed. How can you reconcile a Clause which leaves open such a vast difference between the people carrying on the same class of business, one as a firm and the other as a company, and having as the result the taxation of one and the leaving out from taxation of the other? What is the answer to that? Some people may think that all companies are big. But it may be a private company with two members only, and with just exactly the same capital as would have been employed in a private partnership. But because the two partners turn themselves into a limited company, with exactly the same capital, they are to be taxed, and those who remain as partners are not to be
    486
    taxed. What is the Attorney-General's answer to that? He asks, "What do you want?" and he said to my hon. and learned Friend, "Of course, there are anomalies, and this is one that the Income Tax Commission will inquire into, but is it that you want to bring in the business man or is it that you want to leave him out?" What we say is this, that if you are going to start a new form of taxation, such as is contained in Clause 5, then do not start it before you have made your inquiries and got it into such a form that it will be fair to the taxpayers and equally fair to all taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman is doing in this Clause exactly what he did with the Insurance Act. He is legislating first and proposing to run over to Germany to inquire afterwards. It would be far better for him to make his inquiry first and to legislate afterwards.
    5.0 P.M.
    There is one other point to which I desire to refer, and that is the question of insurance companies. I do not want to go into detail as to it again, but as no one has made any sort of reply, I think perhaps I ought to put in round figures a case which has come within my knowledge, and which has also come within the knowledge of the Chancellor, because I have here a copy of a letter which was written to the Chancellor giving the details of the case of at least one company. Let me remind the House what that case is, and let me state what happens now. Under Clause 5, the whole of the dividend and income from the investments of life insurance companies, whether they are in England or abroad, will be taxed quite irrespective of what the profits of the company are. They will be taxed as dividends and interest. In the case which I have in mind there is a company which has been established a largo number of years. It has branches in almost every Continental country, and in South Africa, the Argentine, Canada, and many other places. By the law of all those places where branches are, except three, the insurance company is compelled to deposit abroad in the hands of the foreign Government national securities—that is, money invested in the securities of that foreign Government. That is the condition of business, and so long as that company continues to carry on business that deposit has to be maintained. This particular company has deposited nearly four and a half millions of money in various national securities in the places where it carries on business. It cannot

    487
    bring that over here so long as it carries on business in those countries. This company has an income from premiums of about a million a year. Eighty-five per cent. of that comes from foreign policy holders—that is, not British subjects at all, but policies derived from the deposits of those various sums of capital abroad. The assets are about ten and a half millions, of which eight and a half millions consist of foreign securities, or 79 per cent. The foreign assets are therefore about 79 per cent., and the liabilities of that company are about 83 per cent. foreign liabilities. In this company the foreign assets are actually not quite so great as the foreign liabilities. It is necessary to keep those assets abroad for several reasons—for example, the policies are met by, and the premiums are received in, the currency of the foreign countries in which the business is being carried on in order to avoid loss from the fluctuations in exchange, and the dividends of the various investments abroad, being received in the currency of the country in which the premiums and the claims are paid, go to balance one against the other. This is not a large capitalist company. The average policy issued amounts to £320, and 90 per cent. of the profits belong to the policy holders. So that the policy holders, relatively small people, are the people who will suffer from the particular tax which the Government are now proposing. The tax to them means that instead of a 1s. 3d. Income Tax they will have to pay a 7s. 4d. Income Tax, and that tax, being a reduction of the profits of the policy holders, will fall upon people whose average policy is £320, and who, consequently, are likely to be people who ought to be exempt from Income Tax.
    Nor would the Government really be losing if they accepted the Amendment which I have on the Paper, but which I understand I shall not have an opportunity of moving, because 75 per cent. of the premiums are being paid to this company out of the savings of foreigners. Those savings would never come to this country, and therefore would not be subject to taxation here; but because they are paid to this company, and the company makes a profit, that profit comes over here and is taxed as such. Hence if this company and similar companies are so affected that they remove their head offices from England in order to escape Income Tax,
    488
    the Government will lose the tax upon profit which they might fairly claim to have. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that this is a grave handicap to British insurance companies, in relation to the competition which they now have to face from insurance companies founded in foreign countries and in the Colonies. Foreign and Colonial insurance companies, if carrying on such a business as I have described, would not have to pay any Income Tax at all, except upon the profits made in this country. They would not have to pay Income Tax on their dividends and interest; therefore British companies will be handicapped to a very large extent. The Attorney-General had this case before him, but he said nothing in reply. He has never attempted to justify the Clause in regard to insurance companies, or to contradict the statement of the case that has been put before the House. He has remained discreetly silent upon the subject. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply will attempt to justify the Clause as it affects insurance companies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do you intend to move your Amendment?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I am not sure that I shall have an opportunity of moving my Amendment; therefore I am putting the matter to the right hon. Gentleman now. Of course, if he would accept the Amendment, or any part of it, no doubt he could put a star to it, and then it could be moved in any event. But I wish the right hon. Gentleman to deal with two points—the question of avoidance and the question of the effect of the tax, not upon rich individuals who pile up their income abroad—I do not want those people to escape—but upon insurance companies and upon companies doing precisely the same business as that which is carried on by private firms. How can he expect the House to support this Clause so long as it is in its present crude form?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure it must be the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the very serious question raised by my hon. Friend in relation to insurance companies as affected by this Clause. The question is a big one; it is very important to British business, and almost vital to the companies themselves, for it is perfectly evident that under the provisions of the Clause, as it stands, they would in many cases, and might in all cases, be called

    489
    upon to pay Income Tax on foreign investments altogether in excess of any profits they were making. So that it would be a tax not upon their income, if income is treated as profit, but upon such revenue as they draw from those investments, irrespective of whether that revenue is wholly profit, or even if it is only part profit, but is exceeded by their losses or expenses. I am well aware that the whole relation of insurance companies to Income Tax, even apart from this Clause, is a difficult one, and has been the subject of representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not think it will be a sufficient reply to the arguments of my hon. Friends to say that similar anomalies can be pointed to in our domestic law. You may be able to point to them, and you may not at present be in a position to relieve them; but that is no justification for inflicting such an additional and crushing injustice as would be inflicted by this Clause. I shall await with great interest what the right hon. Gentleman has to say upon that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) to point to specific cases of double taxation being paid by Colonists.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Which would not be protected by our words.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree with the answer of my right hon. Friend that it very largely depends on the question of domicile. Very few people except qualified lawyers would care to attempt to discuss in this House the question of domicile, which has afforded much material for discussion in the Law Courts, whose decisions, even now, often give the greatest difficulty to people who have to advise upon them. It will be admitted on both sides, and by nobody more readily than by lawyers, that there is perhaps no question of law which raises more points than the question of domicile. Yet in this Clause the Government actually propose to leave the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to determine the question of domicile, without appeal. I think that must be an omission. I do not know whether the officials of the Inland Revenue would themselves like to have this delicate and invidious task devolved upon them. I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers really think that this is a fitting subject to leave to a non-expert body without appeal. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
    490
    in connection with his challenge and his desire that there should be no cases of hardship in this respect, that it is very desirable that he should give a right of appeal on the question of domicile.
    The answer of the Attorney-General today amplified, and with the offer that he made partly met, the case which I put with more or less success yesterday. I frankly admit, for my own part, that I was thoroughly dissatisfied with my attempt to make my meaning clear, and I was astonished that the Attorney-General understood so much of the point that I was trying to put. It is, I think, admitted by the Attorney-General that he is unable to draw any very logical line under this Clause—that there are cases practically on all fours, but which, owing to technical circumstances, will be treated differently, for instance, the case of a partnership, or the case of a company. I have been fairly answered on this point, and shown that I need not be afraid: I put the case of a man carrying on a Colonial business—the exploitation of land, a manufacturing business, or whatever it may be. He brings home part of his revenue, and puts the other part into the further development of his property or business. I think that case was met by the Attorney-General's statement that I was mistaken in supposing that such a man was affected by the Clause, subject to the qualifications which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary to make. I do not profess to pin myself to the technical language, and I am not trying to claim more than the Attorney-General himself stated. But take the case of a man who owns property, a portion of which he has developed, and from which he derives a rent of £1,000 a year. Rents are subject to this Clause. The other portion of the profit is undeveloped, and cannot be developed until, say, roads are made. Of the £1,000 rent that the man receives, he brings to this country £500, and spends the other £500 annually in developing the further portion of the estate. Hitherto he would have been taxed on the £500 which he brought to this country. Are you not proposing now to tax him on the £1,000? You are Is that the kind of case described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have often put it in controversial argument with us on Tariff Reform questions that one of the greatest

    491
    services that the United Kingdom can render to other portions of the Empire is to help to develop their resources by our superfluous capital. Are you helping if you put a British Income Tax on money which is earned in one of these foreign possessions which is at once employed to develop that foreign possession and which is never brought home? In due course the income which these investments there produce and the developments to which they lead will be brought home and will be taxed. But do you really want to tax money that may be employed in such cases of development as that? I cannot think that that is so, or that it is wise that you should. I will not go into any further points of detail, but I confess that so much of the discussion that I have listened to—and, of course, from the Committee discussion I was absent, and I must admit that I have only been able to give a very summary perusal to the brief reports in the papers, which are quite inadequate to inform me fully as to what took place in the House at that time—has produced on my mind very grave doubts as to whether this Clause will be successful for its avowed purposes, and whether it will not do a good deal which is not part of its purpose, avowed or otherwise!
    Like my hon. Friend who has spoken, I take no exception to the Chancellor's announcement of his intention to deal with income rolled up abroad. I think it a perfectly fair and a perfectly proper thing to do; but I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, gravely and seriously, that the matter wants further consideration than he has been able to give it, and that it is not in the interests of the revenue to pass a Clause which hits a good many people whom you do not want to hit, which hinders that which you would like to encourage, and which will probably allow to pass through its meshes a good deal of income which men in all quarters of the House, irrespective of party, are agreed ought to be subject to tax—perhaps ought to be subject to taxing even before much of the revenue which is already attached for taxation. As to the cases which you admit, where you do not intend to do wrong or injury, but which you will do without intent, I draw my conclusions from the discussions which we have had, and in which very interesting and entirely non-polemical speeches have been made in the House. As to your failure to get revenue to reach the people
    492
    whom you really want to reach, I draw my inference from the Estimates which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented to the House as the best his advisers can frame of the revenue to be derived from this proposal. If he really is of the opinion that this Clause was really going to be effective, I cannot conceive that the Inland Revenue authorities would estimate its yield at so low a figure. I am convinced that they have given him that figure because they are certain that a great part of the income which he means to subject to taxation will, in fact, succeed in evading it. Under these circumstances, without challenging the principle, and, indeed, while giving the principle my support, I say as my last word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I think he would be well advised to consider this matter further, to see whether he cannot meet the grievances put forward, and see if he cannot stop up some of the loopholes before we leave this Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will deal, first of all, with some of the points of detail raised by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members behind him. I would, first of all, deal with the question of domicile, of the position of the Colonial resident in this country. I had conferences with representatives of the Dominions, and a proviso was drafted to meet their views. It was submitted to them. It meets the criticisms that Sir George Reid made on the Clause as it originally stood in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham is still nervous lest every bonâ-fide Colonial resident in this country—resident temporarily in this country—because that is the point—who comes here to stay for a few years, either to educate his children or for some other temporary purpose, should be hit. I am sure it will be agreed that there is a vast difference between Colonials who come here to make it their permanent abode and Colonials who come for a few years. It may be that it would be very hard if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could escape taxation in respect of exactly similar property that the right hon. Gentleman, his colleague, the Member for West Birmingham is taxed for. It would be unfair. Therefore, in order to protect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, we are putting these words in against this inequality. The thing would apply also to hon. Members in this House who are Colonial born: those who have cast in

    493
    their lot finally with this country are Britishers for all practical purposes. I think they should be taxed just in exactly the same way as Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen, or Irishmen, bred or born, but it is a very different thing when they have the intention of returning to the Colonies. I do not know the position of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin)—
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Ask your Chief Whip.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question to be decided. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is rather a tall order that you should leave this question to be settled by the Commissioners." It is a question subject to Amendment, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with it at the proper time, and satisfactorily, I hope, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I do not propose to dwell any further on that at the present moment. As to the question of rents raised by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, if I understand him rightly, he rather objected to the rents being put into the category of the class of income that should pay tax in the same way as interest on other investments. I rather think he drew a distinction between these cases. I cannot see the difference. Take the case of one man who invests in money and land—
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite interprets me correctly. I say that the word "rent" ought to be a fully interpreted word.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, income from land—money which is paid for the occupation of land.
    Mr. CASSELwas understood to dissent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism is one, I think, of drafting. I take it that income that comes, that money which is paid for the occupation of land is equivalent to rent. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it would be unfair to tax a man who puts his money, say, into Colonial railways, and not to tax the man who puts it into Colonial land. It would be unfair. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that proposition to begin with. He generally, when faced with one proposition, jumps off to some other proposition. Let me first of all try to pin him down to some proposition. His contention
    494
    is one that will not stand. Let us take another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He says, "supposing a man puts money back into the development of particular real property, why should you tax it?" You are putting him in exactly the same position as the man who puts his rent into the development of his estate here. That is all we propose to do.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Here he pays for the protection of his property to the Government which gives him that protection. In the case of a man abroad he does not get protection from the Government except in the sense that every subject of the British Empire is protected by the British Army.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There the right hon. Gentleman goes to the root of the taxation of this particular investment. If the money comes over here he is taxed now. According to the right hon. Gentleman he ought not to be taxed because we are giving him no protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is a very serious proposition. There are two hon. Members who cheer that proposition, that the man who brings his money over to this country now in respect of foreign investments ought not to be taxed. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that ought not to be done?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINwas understood to assent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a remarkable proposition. He is taxed although he does not get the same measure of protection, according to the right hon. Gentleman, as he does here. The only exception we propose is, that if the money from real property comes over to this country he is taxed in respect of it, although that land is not protected by the British Army or the British police; he is taxed in respect of the income which is earned upon investments abroad.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He is taxed in respect of his enjoyment under security afforded by this Government.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, the person who is receiving that money and is rolling up his wealth abroad is enjoying the same protection whether he spends the money here or whether he does not. There is the same measure of protection given to a man whether he is economic, or thrifty, or frugal enough to save his money and to

    495
    roll it up abroad, or the person who brings it here and spends it here. I only want to point out that you cannot say to the landowner here: "We will tax you if you put your rent into development, but if you sell your land here and put your money into foreign land and leave it there and develop the foreign land, we will take care that we will not tax you." I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable that we should take our share in the development of the resources of the world. Other countries are taking exactly the same view of that position. They are competing with us in that respect. At the same time we do not want to say, "We will give you advantages when you do that abroad which we shall deny to you when you spend the money for development at home." In so far as it is money spent upon repairs and maintenance the reduction will be made whether at home or abroad. I have always been in favour, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, of as liberal an allowance as the revenue will afford in respect of money spent on maintenance at home. I think the thing is different with money spent abroad. I come to the point of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. He wanted to know what our view was in regard to the effect upon insurance companies. Insurance companies are practically in the same position here as in other countries. The hon. Member took a very exceptional case. It is a very dangerous thing to take an exceptional case. I do not think there is any other case of the kind.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: It is all a matter of degree.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not quite. It is not really, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not. It is so completely different to any other case that there is nothing comparable. I think he said that it was a case where 90 per cent. of the money was represented by the Company's foreign investments. There is the case of the Gresham; but the Gresham is in a totally different position from many other insurance companies to which he referred. Of course, that is no reason why the Gresham should not have fair play. I am not contending that; but I do not think it ought to be put as the case of every company. There is no other case of the same kind as far as I am able to ascertain. The complaint of insurance companies is, they say we are able to bear it at the present moment, but now that you are extending
    496
    the law, the inequality is one which has increased, and consequently they feel it much more difficult. I agree! My right hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Whittaker) in introducing the deputation which waited on me from the insurance companies, dwelt upon that with great force. I agree there is a good deal to be said, but what I say on the other side is this: Budgets of this kind which increase taxation also increase the business of the insurance companies. I do not say that is a final consideration, but I say it is a consideration. There is no doubt at all that Super-tax has had a great effect in improving the business of the insurance companies. It has been found very profitable, and they are pointing a way, I will not say of evading the Super-tax, but at any rate diminishing the amount of Super-tax you have to pay to the State. I should be very much surprised if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has not discovered that. I do not think he is as innocent as he looks, in this respect, I mean. There is no doubt it increased their business very considerably also in the matter of meeting Death Duties.
    The Budget of 1909 has had the effect of quickening the business of insurance companies very considerably, and I have no doubt at all that the present Budget will have a still greater effect in the same direction, so that I do not think insurance companies have very much claim from the point of view as to the effect on their business which these two taxing Budgets have had. These are general considerations. The only other consideration to which I think the hon. Member referred, is where they are usually bound locally to invest money in some of the States of America, I am not sure whether it applies in Canada—
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: It practically applies in every country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know it applies, but as against that, although money is invested there, and has to be kept there, as against the liabilities of the company in that country, still the hon. Gentleman knows very well that although it cannot go to the benefit of the policy holders in the United Kingdom—the money invested in these particular countries must be used for the purpose of meeting liabilities in these particular countries—at the same time he knows it must be to the benefit of the general body of the policy holders of the different nationalities. It has an effect upon the

    497
    general business and position and prosperity of the company to that extent, although it is invested there, and although it has to be kept there, it has its effect upon the profitable capacity of the whole concern. It is not as if you cut it off altogether, and as if it belonged to another country. There is another consideration which I should like to put. My right hon. Friend, when he represented this very powerful and influential deputation, of practically all the great concerns in this country, submitted on their behalf two cases of what I consider to be undoubted grievances at present in the life companies. The first was the grievance they suffered in respect to the expenses and management, which they are not entitled to deduct, and I must say I feel that a case has been made out for allowing these expenses in so far as they are defrayed out of the interest of the company. This case was very substantially made out by the companies, and we think it is no doubt a grievance that ought to be dealt with. The second grievance which the company made out was that there was no differentiation between their position and that of the composite companies. The composite companies are in a much better position in respect to the basis of taxation than the life companies. The most formidable competitors of the life companies are not the foregn companies, but the composite companies, and they are placed at a disadvantage with companies which have other business besides the life business. Therefore, I agree, a serious grievance is inflicted upon companies whose business is confined to life business, and the Government are prepared to deal with these two problems.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: This year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not this year. If we did it this year it should be done by means of a charge upon the composite companies. We think the way to deal with it is by placing the composite companies in the same position as the life companies, and not by putting the life companies in the same position as the composite companies. We found we could not do that on the Report stage or the Committee stage; it would not be a fair thing to do under the guillotine, because it would enforce a charge, and it is right that we should give fair notice to the composite companies on that, and that they should know exactly what the position was. We propose, therefore, next year to deal with these two particular propositions, namely,
    498
    the question of the expenses of management and the question of the unfairness at the present time to the life companies as compared with the composite companies.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is there not a third grievance—namely, while some of these insurance companies have paid their Income Tax all along, others were placing sums in reserve, so that those with a clean slate are prejudiced to the advantage of others who have not paid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a grievance which the companies have not presented to me.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In a letter of the 15th of July very important Scottish companies pointed out that grievance.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Scottish companies were represented, and very ably represented, at that deputation, as the hon. Baronet knows, and certainly that was not the complaint made. If there is a case of that kind, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSmade an observation which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are dealing with one particular grievance so far as it benefits insurance companies, whereas at the same time we are leaving the revenue that protection which it ought to receive so far as the other grievance is concerned. We felt it would be unfair to deal with it in a partial way, inasmuch as it would involve very substantial loss to the revenue this year, whereas we would not have the benefit we are otherwise entitled to by remedying the other grievance, which is much greater. I do not know whether there is any other point. I have gone through the general questions put to me, and I think I have dealt with most of them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester dealt with avoidance. There is no doubt at all if a man sets his mind, and has nothing else to do, he can devise all sorts of schemes for the purposes of avoiding the revenue. But if he is busy it will be otherwise. It is the old story, "Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do." When the hon. Gentleman, was busy he never thought about these schemes, but now that he is not so busy with his profession he has entered upon another partnership with that gentleman, who always puts mischief into men's minds. He has altered his partnership,

    499
    and instead of being in partnership with honest solicitors, he has entered into a partnership with another, and he begins to devise all those malignant, mischievous, pernicious, poisonous methods for tempting honest people to defraud the revenue. The hon. Gentleman should occupy his mind with something else.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I was only attempting to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seems to pride himself on being my partner.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am the person to be defrauded by these schemes which the hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with his new partner, is devising. Let me refer to another thing which the hon. Gentleman says, but which has really nothing to do with the subject now before us. He said, I am doing the same thing here that I did in connection with insurance. I first legislate, and than go to Germany to inquire. I went to Germany and investigated the question of insurance for two years before I attempted to legislate. That is simply the sort of fact which as a rule is used by hon. Gentlemen opposite outside. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has brought it up here, where I can contradict him.
    Now, on the general question of this Clause, I really cannot understand the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Attorney-General has put the point very well, and I do not know that I need repeat it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say they sympathise with the object. It is the same old sympathy; it is the same old criticism of the method. What is the objection? Are they in favour of putting on a tax in respect of securities. They say "No; because you do not do it in regard to other businesses." Are they in favour of doing it for other business? "No," they say, "We are very glad you have not done it. You must not do it either for rents, because there is nothing that is equivalent to rents abroad." What is their remedy? Nothing but a sort of pious resolution which we can pass here, saying that it is highly desirable that foreign investments should be taxed in general, but not one of them in particular. How does the hon. Gentleman opposite propose to do it with regard to business? You must either include one or you must exclude the other. That is the only way you can produce equality. He says it is unfair to do it in the case of a man interested in a company unless you
    500
    also do it for a firm. The only way to put that right is either by excluding everybody or including everybody who has got an interest in the business. Which is the hon. Member in favour of? Are hon. Members in favour of including business or excluding companies? If they are, what is there left? It is no use saying you are in favour of an object like this when you vote against every proposal to carry that object into operation. Hon. Members opposite have spoken in favour of people rolling up their money abroad.
    Sir J. D. REES: They are not all rich.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said anything about rich people, and the hon. Member opposite seems to have got rich people on the brain. I am just talking about poor people who roll up their great incomes abroad. These poor men roll up their money in companies, in land, and securities abroad, and they ought not to escape when the rich of this country have to pay. I am for equality in this respect: A great landowner pays in full on his land, and I have some sympathy for him when others are rolling up their money abroad and avoiding taxation. I want equality of treatment. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, this million has to be found somewhere, and if you do not find it out of these poor people investing their money abroad, you will have to find it out of the rich people who are investing their money honestly at home. The amount is equal to a penny on the Tea Duty, but I am sure hon. Members opposite would not like that. Do not suggest the cutting out of this Clause altogether, and at the same time say that you desire its object to be carried out.
    Mr. HENRY TERRELL: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he wants equality and fairness, but he legislates for inequality and unfairness. It has been laid down by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, and by no one more emphatically than Mr. Gladstone, that the essentials of taxation are, first of all, that it should be fair as between the persons upon whom the taxes are imposed, and that they should stand in substantially the same position; and, secondly, that the taxes should be such that they might be easily and certainly collected. This Section transgresses both those principles. Can it be said that this Section imposes a tax fairly upon all persons who are in substantially the same position? I ask the House to consider a concrete case to show the unfairness of

    501
    this tax. Take the case of two men residing in England, each carrying on a similar kind of business in Australia. One of these men forms a company to carry on his business although it remains substantially his own business. From that moment he is taxed under this Clause not only on the profits of that business which he brings to this country, but on all the profits derived from that business, whereas the other man in precisely the same position, except that he does not turn his business into a private company, is taxed only upon so much of his profits as he chooses from time to time to bring into this country. They are two men in the same position. One of them is heavily taxed and the other, if he chooses, need not be taxed at all. That is an instance of the unfairness of the injury which is inflicted by this Clause. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about equality and fairness and then proposing to do that which is manifestly unfair.
    There is another case in which this Clause will transgress the well-established principles I have just mentioned. The collection of the tax will be most uncertain here. Take the case, which has been discussed, which was provided by the Attorney-General at the end of his speech: A man is not to be taxed under this Section if he is not domiciled in the United Kingdom. How are you to decide whether he is domiciled in the United Kingom or not? Take a man from Australia who comes over here, buys a house, and lives here. Who is to say whether he is domiciled here or not? Questions of domicile are always most difficult to decide, even when the man is dead, and you have to determine the question from his acts during his life. But when you have the man alive and he has only to say, "I intend to retain my domicile of origin," how are you going to prove that he has abandoned that domicile and adopted domicile in the United Kingdom? The Attorney-General gave some estimates—I am always rather sceptical of Government estimates—but does he suggest that those estimates show the amount of tax that will be paid by foreigners and Colonials domiciled in England? How can you determine whether a foreigner or a Colonial is domiciled in the United Kingdom? You cannot decide it, and you will simply enable all Colonials, whether really domiciled here or not, if they say, "I intend to retain my domicile of origin," to defeat your object, because you could not say that their intention is something different.
    502
    You are going to tax income arising from securities, stocks and shares. We know that nearly all foreign stocks and shares are not disclosed, and you have to estimate your tax upon whether a man discloses truthfully all stocks and shares he has in foreign countries. If a man is minded not to disclose them, how are you going to make him do it, and ascertain whether he is entitled, for instance, to any number of securities in America? There is no means by which you could find out the truth of the matter or ascertain what a man is entitled to and what he is not. The result would be that you would tax heavily the man who has honestly stated everything he possesses and you would let off the man who does not make a clean breast of what he possesses, and that man would know that you have no possible means of detecting him. That is another illustration of the transgression of the well-established principles of finance which I have mentioned.
    By this proposal you are putting a heavy premium on dishonesty. No one will doubt that there is enough temptation to-day to make incorrect returns, and if you are going to make the return the only criterion, without any possible means of detecting whether it is true or not, you are putting a very heavy premium on dishonesty, which will, no doubt, be accepted by a very large number of persons, and the result will be that they will not make true returns. There are other questions involved in this proposal. It is said that you are going to charge Income Tax in respect of income arising from rents. What do you mean by incomes arising from rents? What is that income? And who is going to determine it? That is another illustration of the uncertainty which is involved in carrying this Clause into practice. Criticisms have been passed upon this Clause so freely and of such a character that it is almost impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General to answer them. Bearing in mind that the whole question is very shortly to be submitted to a Royal Commission, surely it would be better, before you embark upon crude legislation of this sort, which is calculated to do great injustice to certain men and which is not calculated to yield anything large in the way of income, that we should wait until the whole matter has been considered by a Royal Commission, and then we may hope to have some reasonable fair and settled legislation, which will carry out the object

    503
    stated by the Attorney-General, which we all desire to achieve, namely, to charge those men who have large properties abroad when they roll up their income abroad instead of bringing it into this country.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I desire to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has made, and the promise he has given as to what he intends to do in the Budget next year. Of course, we would rather have had it this year, and that is always the case, but failing that we are obliged to him for his undertaking to rectify this injustice on the next occasion. In regard to income from foreign investments, personally I am of opinion that it is right that it should be taxed; but so long as it was not taxed you could not blame anybody who had foreign investments for collecting their money in order that it should not be taxed. That was avoiding a tax, but it was not evading it. So long as that was the law the money was collected abroad, but now it will have to pay tax. The hon. and learned Member opposite complained that the money would have to be paid upon the declaration of the individual. There is always a certain amount of the Income Tax that does depend, and must depend, upon the personal declaration of the individual and upon personal honesty. It is true that so far as that is concerned there is a temptation to a man to be dishonest. That exists to-day in a very considerable portion of our tax law. The general complaint is that our Income Tax authorities look after these things pretty closely, and I do not think that there is a great deal that escapes through the net. That, however, is surely no reason why we should have a much wider and further abandonment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that the insurance offices will feel the pressure of the grievances which they have put before him much more keenly now that this foreign income is to be taxed. The grievances existed before, but the fact that we could avoid a very considerable portion of the tax by collecting our income abroad made the pressure of them less severe. The pressure now is to be very much accentuated, and that is why the point has been so strongly pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman. He has undertaken that next year expenses of management will be allowed in so far as
    504
    they come out of interest. That is a very substantial and welcome concession. With regard to the difference between life insurance offices only those which are known as composite offices—that is, offices doing life, fire, accident, burglary, and other business—there has been a distinct inequality and grievance. The suggestion of the life offices was that the right hon. Gentleman should put them into the same position as the composite offices. His view rather is that he should put the composite offices into the position of the life offices. We have not asked that. All that we ask is that the grievances should be remedied, and that they should be remedied by putting us into the same position as they are in. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made up his mind to do it the other way, and it is to be done in the next Budget.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that the increase in taxes benefits life insurance offices by promoting life insurance business. That is true to some extent, but, so far as the mutual life offices go, increasing business is no advantage whatever to the policy holder. It is no advantage whatever to a policy holder in a mutual office that the office is getting a larger amount of extra business. If it has got a sufficiently large business to give a good average for its lives, then it is no advantage to increase its business unless it can do so at a lower rate of cost than it has been able to do previously. Consequently, the increase of business is no advantage to the policy holder. The policy holder is practically the owner in mutual life offices. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that an increase of business is an advantage to a proprietory office, because the proprietors take a percentage of the surplus. If the total amount of the surplus is larger, although it may not be more per policy holder, the shareholders benefit. So far as the mutual offices are concerned, the increase of business is no advantage to the policy holder. Therefore, although it is true that the influence of these increased duties is to promote life insurance business, it is no advantage to the policy holder in the mutual life insurance office. My main object was to acknowledge the care and attention which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his officials have given to this matter, and to thank him for the promise which he has made. We should have liked it this year, but we are very much obliged to him for promising it us next year.
    Sir J. D. REES: The learned Attorney-General, who poured scorn on my new Clause last night, can hardly, after the announcement to-day that the Government have accepted it, claim the attribute of infallibility as an occupant of the Front Bench. I will not pursue that; it is enough for me that the principle has been accepted for which I contended last night. The Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both characteristically left out of account the poor man whom this Clause will fine. They both assume, as a matter of course, that the Clause is only going to tax the rich man. I ventured to interpolate the remark that there were others than rich men affected, whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Who mentioned rich men?" That was trifling with a serious subject, because right throughout he has been talking solely of rich men who evaded payment, and he has devised this Clause to reach them. He then proceeded in the most dramatic way, and in his best platform manner, to refer to rich men who are rolling up their investments abroad. I submit that there are very poor men who keep, and have to keep, investments and the income from investments abroad. I am going to speak seriously upon a matter with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer trifled. Take the case of the Indian or Ceylon official. That man, while in office, with a view of providing for his family, probably buys a small tea or coffee estate. He comes home to England, but at the same time he has investments in this little estate in the place where he served, and ho has to keep that going in order to provide an opening for one or two sons. He is, in every sense of the word, an extremely poor man—not the monk and make-believe poor man of whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke. He has to leave a part of his income as well as his investments abroad, but it is very far from being the case that he leaves his income abroad rolling up, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, for the purpose of evading the tax. There must be an enormous number of cases of that very sort, and there are probably, although I am unacquainted with them, an equally large number of cases of a similar character which are hit by this Clause and in which the men, so far from being individuals rolling up money abroad and escaping the Income Tax, are individuals who are painfully endeavouring to provide for their families in circumstances of difficulty.
    506
    No man is likely to roll up incomes where the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the inventor of schemes of Socialistic legislation to be payed for by the taxpayer, whether he is to be caught in this country or abroad, can get near to him with his army of inspectors. I am not concerned to defend this Clause. I would have voted against it in Committee. It is an unfair Clause, and I am utterly opposed to this principle of grasping the British subject wherever he is. He should pay taxes where he obtains protection, where he lives, and where his income is received and spent, and he should not be taxed elsewhere. The principle here is an inversion of another principle, a manifestation of the same principle which would bring the Empire down with a run—I mean the claim that every citizen of every component part of the British Empire has equal rights—and which has led to a tragic comedy which is now being played at Vancouver. This grasping of people abroad to pay this tax is a bad principle, and I hope there will be a Division upon the omission of the Clause, when at any rate those who object to the Clause altogether will have an opportunity of coming out into the open and voting against it. My particular object has been to urge that it does not only affect the rich. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) shakes his head. He was kind enough to inform me that he always differs from me when I speak. I regard that as a very handsome testimonial to my political integrity and rectitude when I reflect on his latest essay on Indian legislation.
    I do not think that sufficient has yet been made of the strong opposition there is in British possessions to this Clause. Reference has been made to the opposition of the self-governing Dominions. They, by their opposition, have wrung from the Government an addition to the Clause as originally drafted which may be presumed more or less to meet their case, but little has been said of the opposition of India. When they appeared before Lord Crewe to urge their case, Lord Crewe in his answer recommended that process which is so dear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the process of legislating first, and repealing or amending or altering afterwards. He gave them no satisfaction in regard to that matter. The Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both said that if this money is not found in this manner it will have to be found by other means, and that the burden will be thrown upon other taxpayers. I dispute that altogether. It

    507
    is an absolutely inaccurate statement. It is not necessary that this money should be found. There should be a saving in the expenditure of the Government by abstaining from expenditure. This money, and more, might be saved for these and other reasons. I submit that there is no occasion for passing this Clause, which will hit the poor as well as the rich, which is in itself based upon an unjust principle and which should be omitted from the Finance Bill.
    Mr. HUNT: I want to know whether this Clause will not operate very unfairly where investments have been made in one of our Dominions. I believe that there is an Income Tax in India, Australia, and New Zealand. A person owning securities in those countries will have to pay, as I understand it, Income Tax in India, Australia, or New Zealand, and will also have to pay Income Tax in this country. It also appears that, although an Income Tax has just been imposed in America, it is remitted in some if not in all cases if a person can prove that he is a British subject. I am not sure whether I am right, but that is how I understand it. If you take the money and invest it in a country where there is no Income Tax imposed, then the Income Tax has to be paid but once. I cannot help thinking this particular policy on the part of the Government will have a very bad effect in the direction of discouraging people from investing their money within the British Empire. They will prefer to invest it in countries where there is no Income Tax imposed. I hope the Solicitor-General will give me a plain answer to my question. I want to know exactly how we stand in this matter. It strikes me that if you go on double-taxing incomes, you will drive people to take up their domicile in Canada or elsewhere, and then you will not only lose the Income Tax, but you will lose all the money which they would have expended had they resided in this country, as they would have done if you had not doubly taxed them.
    Mr. F. HALL: I was rather surprised at the speeches we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, and with the way in which they dealt with this question, so far as it concerns insurance companies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the particular company which had been in communication with him, stated that, as far as that company was concerned, it was a case that stood by itself. I should like
    508
    to draw the attention of the Government to a fact of which apparently they are not aware, that when an insurance company proposes to do business in other countries, either in the Colonies or in foreign lands, it has, first of all, to deposit a considerable amount of capital, and then, for the protection of the policy holders, it has to deposit the whole of the premiums in that country. The money is consequently invested in those countries, and according to the conditions of the country the premiums have to bear their proportion of taxation. In the case of a British insurance company doing business abroad, the interest on the premiums has to be calculated as profit, irrespective of the amount disbursed on the policies that have been met, or whether or not there is any surplus. They are all treated as profits, and then, in this country, they are to be called upon to bear the additional Income Tax which this Bill proposes to impose, but of which, up to the present, we have been free.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, said he would like to have brought to his attention cases in which people have had to pay the Income Tax twice over. I would point out that not only do the insurance companies so pay, but their contributors also do so, and a man who has shown thrift, and has put his money into insurance, bears this burden equally with the insurance companies. Remember that, in order to secure a fair proportion of the business, the insurance companies divide the bulk of their profits amongst their contributors, and then you will appreciate the fact that this double tax is borne not merely by the wealthy insurance companies, but also by the policy-holders, whose average interest is considerably less than £300. Surely the Government and the House will recognise the fact that by the imposition of this tax, irrespective of whether any profit is made, another burden is being put upon the poor man who is desirous of providing for his wife and children hereafter, because by this tax you are taking away from the profits which he might reasonably expect to go to increase the value of his policy. To my mind, it is both inequitable and unfair that this tax should be levied in the manner proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Samuel Samuel) had the courage of his convictions when he told this House plainly that, as far as he was concerned, he was adverse to this tax. I can quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to

    509
    look round and see how he can raise revenue, and yet not having the pluck to say that, having gone into the question as regards protective measures, he is not prepared to seek to raise the revenue from other sources. I should have thought that it would have been quite reasonable for him to have done so, seeing that we are told that the amount to be eventually obtained from this source, is only £470,000. I should have thought that taking into consideration its dangerous bearing with regard to particular insurance companies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have considered whether, under the circumstances, it was not possible for him to raise the revenue in some other way.
    But I suppose there is no hope for that. All we can expect is that in perhaps two or three years' time the Chancellor of the Exchequer will fulfil his promise to provide redress for the grievances which we say are likely to be created, and then probably he will press hardly again on the composite insurance companies, and they will be subjected to further forms of competition as if they had not sufficient at the present time to cope with. It means driving more of our business into the hands of the foreigner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Because I happen to have a grievance drawn to my notice—and I admit it is a grievance—I have looked round to see on whose backs I can place the burden, and I think the easiest thing for me to do will be to say that the insurance companies, who are doing business abroad, shall bear it," irrespective of the fact that foreign insurance companies are allowed to come here and do all classes of business without making any deposit, and without contributing to the upkeep of the country, the only exception being that a deposit is necessary in the case of life insurance. I hope the suggestions which have been thrown out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon will cause him to reflect before he takes the step which he has indicated. It is hard enough for insurance companies, in many cases, to get a reasonable return for their money, and if this new plan is adopted it will only be one more instance in which the Radical party and Government are doing all they can to crush out British industries.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer also told my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) he would like to be informed of cases in which people domiciled here had been asked to pay two Income Taxes. I can quite see the elasticity of the word "domicile," and I
    510
    can foresee it again fought out in the Courts of Law, as so many points have had to be fought out as a result of recent legislation by the Government. The Government have stated their ideas as to the meaning of certain terms, but when cases have had to be fought out in the Law Courts, in a great majority of the actions the Government have been proved to be entirely in the wrong, so far as their theory is concerned. Therefore I can quite foresee, in regard to this word "domicile," that notwithstanding the statements which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, many people will eventually be asked to pay Income Tax on their investments abroad, and when they get their dividends in this country will also be called upon to pay Income Tax upon them here, notwithstanding that they may have no direct control over the business in the Colony. The hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) dealt particularly with the hardships which would be created with regard to private companies. This is a very important point, and we cannot too often bring it to the knowledge of the Government.
    Some time back I suggested an Amendment to the Government which would enable people doing business as private companies to get over the difficulty, and which would place private traders in exactly the same position as those carrying on business in partnership—because in many cases you have two, three, or four men binding themselves together for the purposes of necessary and reasonable protection, and it may be in some cases for the protection of one partner against another. If private businesses are excluded from this Income Tax I cannot see any reasonable excuse why private companies should not be treated in a like manner. I asked the Government simply to insert the word "public" in order to effect that object, and I think it was a proposal they might reasonably have accepted. I am sorry, notwithstanding all the cases that have been brought to their notice, the Government have met us with the usual non possumus, and apparently they intend to pay little or no attention to the complaints of those for whom they have, in the past, stated their sympathy. I hope it will be plainly and straightforwardly proved to the great majority of the poorer classes in this country that there is a necessity for some alteration in regard to our legislation.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I desire to support this Amendment. The Attorney-General rather gibed at us because we had no principle in regard to this Amendment. Although some of my hon. Friends do not seem very clear on that point, so far as I am concerned I say that the whole principle of this Clause is bad. It is a vicious principle that large corporations with British capital finding employment in the United States, and taking many hundred of thousands of risks there, should not only be liable for those risks, but should have to pay a heavy Income Tax in this country on the dividends received from that money. It is a principle which ought not to be adopted in the Budget of any Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country. Another vicious principle of the Clause is that you are setting yourselves to induce Englishmen to get out of the responsibility of living in England. You will find that, where very large sums are involved, men will take legal advice to see how they can rule themselves out of being domiciled in this country, in order to escape this tax. You have only to give a measure of this kind some ten or fifteen years, and you will find hundreds of men so arranging their business, their domiciles and their lives, that they will get out of this tax.
    We have seen that happen in the United States. Objectionable taxes were put on by certain States, and immediately they ceased to be the centres of finance. New companies registered themselves in States where the objectionable taxes did not exist. The same kind of thing will happen with regard to this Clause and the domicile of an individual. We are talking about the Income Tax in this country, but if no money comes into this country it cannot be an Income Tax. You are endeavouring to obtain money from an income which remains abroad. I could mention cases in the City of London where the business is a private firm so far as England is concerned, but is a limited liability company in every other country in the world where the same business is carried on. That is done for the simple reason that the heads of the firm in England limits its liability in every country in which it has branches by forming those branches into limited companies. I would remind the Solicitor-General that in the cases of persons who leave the income from their investments to accumulate abroad, they have to settle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to Death Duty. Those accumulations are then taxed. In that way the Chancellor of
    512
    the Exchequer gets a great revenue from the Death Duties on the estate of an individual who has shares abroad and leaves the money to accumulate there at compound interest. I sincerely trust my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of certain Amendments which the Government have promised to make in this Clause limiting its effect, and in view of the fact that I said I was not opposed to it in principle, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, although I still think the Government are not wise in not referring this matter to the Royal Commission.
    Question, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn," put, and negatived.
    Mr. BOOTH: The whole substance of this Debate disappeared long ago. There is no life in it. There being only this day for the Report stage, I am utterly astounded that hon. Members should have occupied hour after hour on a subject like this without intending to divide the House. It has been with the utmost difficulty that we could get from any speaker on the other side a statement as to whether he was opposed to the Clause or not, or whether he was going to vote or not. The last speaker said he was against the Clause on principle, but immediately he sat down up got the Proposer of the Amendment and asked leave to withdraw it. That is not treating the House with respect, and I decline to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
    Mr. HUNT: May I have an answer to my question?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I shall be glad to answer the hon. Member. The answer is quite simple. If a man pays Income Tax on a foreign investment abroad, he will still pay Income Tax on the income that he receives over here. The Amendment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down will prevent the Income Tax that is paid in this country being assessed on the total income, and it will only be assessed on the net income. Nevertheless, it is quite true to say that the total income will bear two Income Taxes. I would point out to the hon. Member that it does so at the present moment if the income is received over here. All that this Clause does is to make the income bear just the same burden if it be retained in some foreign country.
    Mr. HUNT: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question: Is it or is it not true that in some cases where English money is invested abroad only one Income Tax will be paid, whereas, if it is invested in our Colonies, where there is also an Income Tax, it will pay two Income Taxes?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I am very sorry I did not make the matter clear. Let me restate it. If a man has invested his money in a country, whether one of our own Colonies or a foreign country, where no Income Tax is paid, he will only pay one Income Tax. If he has invested his money in any place, whether it be a foreign country or one of our own Colonies, where the Income Tax is paid, he will pay two Income Taxes. I am pointing out to the hon. Member that that is exactly what he does at the present moment.
    Mr. HUNT: No!
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It is absolutely what he pays at the present moment if he receives the income over here. The only thing Clause 5 docs is to make him bear just the same burden if, instead of receiving it over here, he keeps it in the country where the investment is.
    Question, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'income' ["be computed on the full amount of the income"] stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move, after the word "and" ["allowances as if it had been so received and"], to insert the words "to the deduction (where such a deduction cannot be made under any other provision of the Income Tax Acts) of any sum which shall have been paid in respect of Income Tax in the place where the income shall have arisen and."
    The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Income Tax charged here being paid on the total income actually received in a foreign country. We had a considerable Debate over this question last night, and I am glad to see that the Government have now come to a different conclusion from that at which they arrived yesterday evening. I am moving the words they have suggested. As to the word "paid," I am not sure whether it would not be better to use the word "charged," because I understand that in certain Colonies the Income Tax is not always collected in one lump sum, but that the proprietor of the income is either entitled or forced to pay his Income Tax in portions, either once a
    514
    quarter or once every half-year. Therefore it is possible that at the time of making a return he might not possibly have paid the total amount of the Income Tax, and it may be better to use the word "charged." I do not know which word the Government prefer.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): As the hon. Member has said, he has moved this Amendment in this form because it is the form in which the Government were prepared to ask the House to accept it. It is not necessary for me to add anything to what he has said. When my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General was addressing the House, he explained and read the words of the Amendment with a view of showing what our intention was. In regard to the word "paid" and the word "charged," the matter was carefully considered by the Law Officers and our advisers, and we believe that the Amendment is watertight, and that the word "paid" is better than the word "charged."
    Question, "That the words 'to the deduction (where such a deduction cannot be made under any other provision of the Income Tax Acts) of any sum which shall have been paid in respect of Income Tax in the place where the income shall have arisen and,' be inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move, to leave out the words,
    "and in particular for the purpose of computing Income Tax in respect of securities, stocks, shares, or rents to which this Section applies in pursuance of the rules under the fourth and fifth cases in Section one hundred of the Income Tax Act, 1842, the income arising from the securities, stocks, shares, or rents shall be substituted for the sums, profits, or gains, as the case requires, received therefrom in the United Kingdom,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "and nothing in those provisions as to the receipt of sums in the United Kingdom shall be construed so as to render liable under these rules to Income Tax for the current or any subsequent year any sums which represent—

    (a) income from any such securities, stocks, shares, or rents, on which Income Tax has been paid under this Section; or

    515

    (b) income from any such securities, stocks, shares, or rents which was paid or became due before the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen."

    I will deal in a very few words with the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House will remember that in Committee on this Clause a controversy arose between the Attorney-General on one hand and some hon. Members on both sides of the House as to whether it was quite clear what the Clause meant. It is not the intention to take advantage of the fact that when Clause 5 is passed the interest on securities which has been accumulating abroad will come into this country. It is desirable that it should not be taxed twice, both under Clause 5 in the year 1914–15, and under Sections 4 and 5 of the old Income Tax Act in 1915–16. As, therefore, it is only desired to tax the income of the year, and as that intention was made plain and debated during the Committee stage, in accordance with the promise then made, we suggest that these words should be added to make the meaning quite clear.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the words "satisfies the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he."
    The object of the Amendment is to give an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners. The question whether a person is domiciled in the United Kingdom is a very difficult question of law and fact, and one on which there ought to be an appeal from the Commissioners. I understand the Government are prepared to concede some form of appeal, which is one of the questions to which I attach very great importance, but I understand they do not quite accept the form of words which my Amendment suggests, and wish to put in some other words in their place. So far as the exact form of giving the appeal is concerned, I am quite prepared to accede to the suggestion of the Government, provided I have an assurance that words will be moved which will give the subject a right of appeal on this very important question.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second the Amendment. It is most important that there should be some right of appeal from the Commissioners on this matter. The unfortunate individual ought to have some right of appeal to some higher Court of justice.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I am not sure that I agree entirely with the suggested difficulties which have been put forward in the course of this Debate as those which will arise in determining what is a man's domicile. It is not an infrequent dispute in our own Courts, and it is capable of determination. I feel, and the Government feel, the force of the suggestion that the determination of this question may involve very important consequences to certain people, and that it is therefore only right that they should have recourse to the Courts, and not be precluded by a decision arrived at by any body of people, however trustworthy and responsible they may be. It is therefore proposed to move an Amendment to this effect: "Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on a question of domicile or residence, under this provision shall have the same right to require the Commissioners to state a case on the question as an appellant has to require a general or special Commissioner to state a case on a point of law, and Section 59 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, and any rules made for the purpose of that Section shall apply accordingly." As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that makes a consistent right of appeal in regard to all questions arising under the Income Tax Act. I think he will also agree that the appeal is in the most convenient possible form and the one least burdensome to the subject, and the one in which it will be most readily possible to have the matter effectively, quickly and, I think, as cheaply as possible determined. I shall therefore be prepared to move that, if this satisfies the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which meets the point of granting the appeal, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words,
    "or that being a British subject he is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom."—[Sir. S. Buckmaster.]
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
    "Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on a question of domicile or of residence under this provision shall have the same right to require the Commissioners to state a case on the question as an appellant has to require a general or special Commissioner to state a case on a point of law, and Section 59 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, and any rules made for the purpose of that Section shall apply accordingly."
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is not this an extraordinarily lengthy Amendment to provide for a very simple object?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I can assure the hon. Member that we have done our best to prepare the Amendment in such a form as to make it complete and comprehensive, and it is not possible, in our view, to make it any shorter.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Does it apply to residence as well as domicile?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Yes, it does.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: Would it not be possible to frame the Amendment in such a way that the Commissioners should not be the sole and final judges of the fact? The difficulty is this. When you come to a question of domicile the only question is one of fact. You cannot state a case as to whether a man is a liar. The question is whether you believe the man or not when he says, "I intend to retain my domicile." But there is no question of law on which you can state a case. I should have thought that on such an important question as that it should not be left to the decision of the Commissioners, but there ought to be some kind of means of bringing a question of fact before an Appellate Court.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: You have passed over an Amendment which stands in my name. Am I to understand that by reason of the kangaroo we are prevented from moving it in the interests of insurance companies and policy holders?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I exercise the duties which are imposed upon me to the best of my ability.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of Relief in Respect of Children).
    Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (which gives to individuals whose total income does not exceed five hundred pounds relief from Income Tax equal to the amount of tax on ten pounds in respect of every child under the age of sixteen years), shall have effect as if twenty pounds were substituted for ten pounds.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add the words "and the expression 'child' shall be extended to include a child permanently adopted."
    This is a very modest Amendment—not nearly so ambitious as a great many which have been proposed, and I think I can safely say it is a very cheap Amendment. I hope on both those grounds that the Government may be able to look upon it with favour. At present no relief at all can be obtained in respect of an adopted child for this reason, that the term "child" under the Finance Act, Section 68, in addition to a legitimate child, only includes a stepchild or an illegitimate child whose parents happen to have married afterwards. But take the case of a widow with two or three children having to earn her own living. In order to relieve the burden of those children, it is quite possible that relations and friends may come forward and adopt one or more of those children permanently. In fact, it often happens. They undertake to bring them up and educate them and provide for the whole of their maintenance. Take the case again of a father who is left with young children. It is an enormous relief to him that someone should come forward and permanently adopt one or more of the children who have been left behind, to look after their interests and their education, and, of course, it is not only an enormous relief to the father, it is of the greatest benefit to the child, who cannot possibly be looked after by the father if he happens to be a working man, out at his work all day long.
    But under the existing law adoptive parents cannot get any relief under this Section or under previous Acts. I really do not think it is fair. I think it is only fair to help those people who, out

    519
    of kindness and generosity of heart, come forward and agree to permanently adopt the children of other people who happen to be in very poor circumstances. I cannot conceive anybody going to the trouble and expense of adopting a child merely in order to get the relief I am trying to persuade the Government to give. It certainly would never happen. I think it is quite conceivable that want of relief, and holding the relief back, will very often discourage the adoption in cases where it would really be of inestimable benefit. I have no estimate of what the cost will be, but I cannot imagine that the cost will be at all large, and I am certain that it would not be anything but a very small proportion compared with the great benefit which would accrue to a great many poor people.
    The Government may possibly reply that it is impossible to define the term "permanently adopted." But, after all, that will have to be a question of fact, and all through the Income Tax laws it is over and over again a question of fact as to whether a tax has or has not been paid, or whether relief is given or not. For instance, take the case of the control of a company. It very often has to be decided whether the control of a company is in this country or abroad. That is merely a question of fact. There is no absolute definition. Take, again, a trader's profits. It has continually to be decided what really are the profits. It has to be decided whether what ought to be profits appear in the accounts of the year. That, again, is merely a question of fact. Take, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Clause 5—the question of domicile. That, again, is merely a question of fact as to whether a person is domiciled or not in this
    country, and the right hon. Gentleman has since put down an Amendment dealing with persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. That, again, is merely a question of fact. And I maintain that in just the same way the term "permanently adopted" would be a question of fact which would have to be settled, just as other questions of fact have to be settled, under the Income Tax law. Therefore, I do very much hope that this Amendment will not be rejected. It will be of great advantage to many poor people.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It is impossible really, to accept this Amendment, and I cannot help thinking that when the hon. Member sees the difficulties it would produce, he will understand that himself. He proposes to make a concession in favour of those who permanently adopt a child. It is impossible to say that a child is permanently adopted. You might adopt a child to-day and abandon it to-morrow. There is no such thing known to the law as "permanently adopted." Nobody suggests that you can have a child permanently adopted, and, therefore, this Amendment would enable a person to adopt a child in order to get relief for a few months and then to get rid of the child. I think the only way of dealing with this matter is to confine the Clause to those for whom the reduction was originally intended.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 271.

    Division No. 196.]

    AYES.

    [7.2 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Boyton, James

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Astor, Waldorf

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Barnston, Harry

    Butcher, John George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Barrie, H. T.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fell, Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cave, George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Forster, Henry William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Bird, Alfred

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Blair, Reginald

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Grant, J. A.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Stanier, Beville

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Gretton, John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

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

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hall, Marshall (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

    Moore, William

    Swift, Rigby

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester).

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Helmsley, Viscount

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Younger Sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Clynes, John R.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Alden, Percy

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Armitage, Robert

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crooks, William

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cullinan, John

    Hackett, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Hancock, John George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

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

    Haslam, Lewis

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    De Forest, Baron

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Delany, William

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Devlin, Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dillon, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Boland, John Pius

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hinds, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Doris, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hodge, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Buxton, Noel

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Field, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Joyce, Michael

    522

    523

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Kenyon, Barnet

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    King, Joseph

    O'Malley, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sutherland, John E.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Radford, George Heynes

    Walton., Sir Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Reddy, Michael

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Webb, H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Middlebrook, William

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molloy, Michael

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Morison, Hector

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Muldoon, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rowlands, James

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, at the end Clause, to add the words,
    "Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall read as if for the words 'five hundred' the words 'one thousand' were substituted."
    By the Finance Act of 1909–10 it is provided that wherever a person who is liable for Income Tax proves that his income does not exceed £500, and that he has a child or children under sixteen years of age, he is entitled in respect of each child to relief from Income Tax on £10 of his income. By the present Bill that is altered to £20. My proposal to substitute the words "one thousand" for "five hundred" is avowedly in the interest of public servants abroad, and more particularly in India. I venture to submit that it is very advantageous that officials from our British Possessions with sons who are likely to follow in their footsteps should have the advantage of giving them educa-
    524
    tion in a public school. By common consent of those acquainted with this subject, they make better administrators in foreign countries than those who have not enjoyed that advantage. I suggest that the limit should be altered from £500 to £1,000, in order to give this class a chance of giving their sons this kind of education. My hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Stewart) moved last night that a reduction of Income Tax should be allowed in respect of the amount spent by parents on the education of their children, and, in reply, the Attorney-General rather unfairly said that it was a proposal that every man who sent his son to Eton and paid £300 for his education should have a corresponding reduction in respect of the amount upon which Income Tax is charged. There is very little chance of men who have only £1,000 a year sending their sons to Eton. I submit that it is perfectly clear that men with £1,000 a year all told—they do not get so much net—cannot afford to

    525
    send their sons to Eton. I think the privilege mentioned in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Act should be extended. This is quite a moderate proposal, and, for the reasons which I have given, I venture to commend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I dealt with this matter before in reply to the hon. Gentleman; I forget whether when he was proposing an Amendment or foreshadowing this Amendment. I still adhere to the view which I then expressed, that if there is any extension it should be an extension of the allowance. I would very much prefer to increase the amount of the allowance to incomes under £500 than to extend the limit. People with less than £500 who have children are very hard hit by Income Taxes and rates. It is a very serious matter for persons with these incomes who have to try to keep up an appearance for professional purposes and the purposes of their business, as well as to spend money upon the education and the maintenance of their children, to have to pay additional rates and taxes. I think that there is a great deal to be said for increasing substantially the amount of the allowance for incomes under £500. I have no defence for the comparative smallness of the increase this year, except that the Exchequer could not afford to give a larger allowance. But I hope that some Chancellor of the Exchequer soon will be able to give a greater allowance than I could afford to submit to the House of Commons this year. I hope that when that time comes the House of Commons will take the view that the direction in which such allowance should be made is by increasing the amount in the case of small incomes before you come to the extension of the limit. For that reason I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir M. WILSON: I beg to support the Amendment. I have been in India, and I know how hard it is for Indian Civil servants to pay all these taxes. I am for helping the man who has under £500 a year, but I do not see why relief cannot be given in both cases We are getting a lot of money now for rates and taxes, and there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not accept this Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: This is a perfectly nonsensical Amendment. The amount of relief which is proposed to give to these people from India is 15s. on incomes of
    526
    £1,000, and to say that an official from India cannot educate his child because he does not get relief to the extent of 15s., is perfectly ludicrous, and the hon. Member knows it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Though I do not at all accept the views of the hon. Baronet, still this proposition is not one which seems to command support, and I do not think that I should be justified in asking the House to divide upon it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Relief from Income Tax in respect of Maintenance, etc., of Land and Houses.)
    The limit under Section sixty-nine of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on the amount of duty which may be repaid on account of the maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management of land or houses shall be removed as respects Income Tax for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and any subsequent year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to propose at the end of the Clause to add the words,
    "and as respects that year, and any subsequent year, twelve pounds shall be substituted for eight pounds in Subsection (2) of the said Section as the annual value limit for houses to which that Section is applied."
    This is an Amendment which I have promised, to increase the limit of abatement in respect of the repairs and the maintenance of cottages from £8 to £12. That means £12 exclusive of taxes. The £8 would represent the rent of a cottage at 3s. a week, or 4s. a week including rates, and this will mean the rent of a cottage of 4s. 6d. exclusive of rates, and 6s. including rates. That more than covers the cottages in the country. It covers the great bulk of artisans' dwellings in towns as well. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for the extension all round to £15 which I did consider, but a £15 cottage is outside the kind of dwelling-house occupied by the industrial population of the villages. The £15 house in a village is rather a swagger kind as a rule.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTdissented.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In Wiltshire they are rather a higher cut altogether. Down there I suppose that they have more sumptuous dwellings. But taking the country as a whole, the £15 house is a

    527
    very good house. In the towns I agree that it is a rather different proposition. I should like first to see the experiment tried of increasing from £8 to £12, which is a considerable advance upon the old limit, and the Inland Revenue authorities would like to see that experiment tried before going beyond it. We should like this 50 per cent. advance on the limit first made, and then we will consider two questions: first, the extension of the limit, and then the extension of the flat rate. What I should be rather afraid of is that the bad landlord would do just as well as the good landlord, if you increase the flat rate. But in regard to the other point, there are artisans' dwellings undoubtedly whose rents are above 6s. a week, but 6s. a week would cover the vast majority of these houses. There might be some sort of scale which would discriminate between the town and the country, but I would like time to consider the matter before coming to a conclusion on the subject. I would appeal to the House for the moment to allow us to experiment with this 50 per cent. advance. The two questions which we have to consider afterwards are the increasing of the rating limits, and the raising of the limit of the flat rate. These two things I wish to consider before coming to any conclusion. Therefore I ask the House to accept this proposal for the time being with a view to looking into these two points.
    Mr. BATHURST: I wish to acknowledge the very reasonable manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to meet our point with regard to the limits in respect of the amount allowed to be abated under the head of repairs, maintenance, insurance, and management, and for my part I will not at all complain if the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires some experimental system during the coming year before adopting, as I think he will have to adopt, a somewhat higher limit. I cannot see any logic in this flat rate. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, it puts a premium on negligent landlords, and it becomes wholly impossible for us logically to present our case, as we shall continue to present it, in favour of assessment under Schedule D, if the flat rate limit continues to be part of the Government scheme. I am inclined to think, although the Chancellor says that 4s. or 4s. 6d. would represent, and possibly more than represent in his view the rent on an
    528
    economic basis of a cottage in the agricultural area—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Without rates.
    Mr. BATHURST: I am inclined to think that when the Government take to building houses themselves in rural districts, as well as in urban districts, they will find it very difficult, if they have not fully allowed for repairs and outgoings generally, and if they mean to base their scheme on an economic rent with a corresponding wage to the agricultural labourer, to keep the rent down to 4s. or 4s. 6d. In any case where is the logic of the distinction between the urban cottage and the rural cottage? Assuming that the owner of the cottage is entitled, as I suggest he is entitled, to be allowed everything that he expends in order to maintain the rent of the cottage, on the analogy of a man of business who is assessed under Schedule D, it must be equally fair in the case of the urban cottage, as in the case of the rural cottage, that the true economic value should be taken as the basis. I would suggest, if you cease to make any distinction between the two, as I think you will find it absolutely necessary, that the limit of £12 is not sufficient for this purpose. When I appeared to differ from the right hon. Gentleman just now I was not thinking of Wiltshire, I was thinking of the semi-industrial area of Gloucestershire in which I live, and also of the conditions prevailing in South Wales, with which I am only too painfully familiar.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a rural district.
    Mr. BATHURST: I am not talking of rural districts. You cannot logically differentiate in this matter between rural districts and semi-industrial or industrial districts. It is necessary in order to maintain the rent to expend a certain amount upon repairs and maintenance of the cottage, and that is the amount which ought in fairness to be allowed to the owner of the cottage, whether it is urban or whether it is rural. My experience as to the cost of building in a semi-industrial district—and this, of course, does not apply to South Wales, which is more wholly industrial—is that it has gone up by at least 30 per cent. during the last five years. If I may give a personal illustration, I find that I cannot myself build cottages which will satisfy the requirements of miners in my district to-day at less than £300 apiece. Of course, no

    529
    doubt I could, if I built them in a long and uninteresting row, which is a thing I very much deprecate; but if you have single cottages or semi-detached cottages, the kind of cottage that has at least three bedrooms, which the miner is now demanding, and is quite properly demanding—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the price of the land?"]—I am not saying anything about the price of the land, and, if I include that, the figure would be still higher—if you have single or semidetached cottages, with three bedrooms, cottages of a kind which will satisfy the mining population, having suitable sanitary outbuildings, a garden, bath, and other luxurious requisites which are coming to be necessities with that class, I say I find it extremely difficult to limit the allowance to £12.
    I am not at all sure whether £15 is not a very modest allowance in such cases. I have, after carefully considering the matter, put an Amendment on the Paper suggesting £18, but by way of compromise, and arising out of my own personal experience in a partially rural and semi-industrial district, it occurred to me that £15 was a figure which the right hon. Gentleman might consider. It is not only the high cost of building at the present time which has to be considered; there is also the increased demand as to standard on the part of the local authorities, and there is the demand—in the industrial districts at any rate—for a much better type of cottage, costing a much higher figure than was contemplated when the Act of 1894 was passed. I do not want to press this too far, because I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has not only made some concession, but he has adumbrated further concessions after further examination and experience. I believe the true test of this matter is the test which is applied in commercial circles for the purpose of assessment under Schedule D, in regard to the amount that has necessarily to be expended in order to maintain income, and, if it is found to be reasonably necessary to expend a certain amount of money for the maintenance and repair of cottage property beyond the suggested limit in order to maintain income derived from that property, surely, in fairness, that is the allowance that ought to be made. I think we have a reasonable and logical case for asking for a further extension of the limit; but whilst accepting the endeavour on the part of the Chancellor to meet our view, I think he will act illogically if he differentiates between one class
    530
    of cottagers and another, and I venture to hope that, bearing that in mind he will see fit to stretch this £12 to the sum of £15, and so effect a compromise, which I think will give satisfaction in every part of the House.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen fit to extend the £12 to the amount of £15, which is the amount I have suggested in an Amendment that I have put down, but which I do not propose to move, because I fully sympathise with his feelings and views that he wants to gain more experience in regard to the limit which should be fixed. So far as that is concerned, I certainly think that we could have a very much better system than the flat rate. In regard to urban houses, it is perfectly true that, so far as ordinary rural districts are concerned, the £12 limit will probably meet the great bulk of cases; but when you come to the urban district, like my own Constituency, 7s. a week is by no means a high rent for a relatively small cottage, not by any manner of means; and you will get cottage rents running up to 8s. and 9s. a week. If you take London it will probably require special treatment compared with other towns. Undoubtedly what the hon. Gentleman opposite said is quite true, namely, that the price of building has gone up by 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in a very short number of years. That is one of the difficulties which faces everyone who have any responsibility connected with providing houses in urban or rural districts. I think £300, the figure named by the hon. Gentleman opposite, is very high. I know that very good cottages have been erected by a company with which I am concerned in South Wales, for about £225 each. They fulfil all reasonable requirements, and they have three bedrooms. I know that the price of cottages depends very largely on the locality where they are built, and on the facilities for obtaining material and labour. Undoubtedly there has been so much said recently on the subject of rural housing that urban housing in places like South Wales has been rather overlooked.
    I regret that we have not made a little more progress, and undoubtedly we should encourage people to build bigger and better cottages. The limit of 6s. would prevent the building of larger cottages, without penalising by way of taxation those who build cottages that will accommodate large families. I sincerely hope

    531
    that the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he deals with the next Budget, will go more fully into this question, and that we shall not be limited even by £15, but that we shall get to a limit which would really meet the requirements of the better class artisan, or even the better class clerk. We are only asking for exemption from Income Tax of the cost of repairs, maintenance, and management, in the same way as other businesses and questions of property are dealt with under Schedule D. What we want is that people may provide better housing accommodation without being penalised by taxation, for the two together seem to be rather an illogical proposition. I do not know whether the Committee which is now sitting could not take into its purview the question of doing away with the present artificial definition, and instead of dealing with the subject in this piecemeal manner—so many shillings a week—deal with it in a way which would really encourage the building of better housing accommodation, for that would be a substantial advantage to all who have responsibility in providing decent accommodation for workpeople at something like an economic rent.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I would urge the Government, on the same lines as those followed by the two previous speakers, that they should not differentiate in favour of rural as against urban cottages. I think a very strong argument, which has not hitherto been mentioned, is provided by the Census Returns. If the right hon. Gentleman will give them his attention, he will bear me out when I say that the Census Returns show that the increase in the adequacy of the supply of cottages is far lower in the urban district than in the rural. I do not want in any way to suggest that there is not a great deficiency in many rural districts, but in the last ten years the inadequacy has been much greater in the urban districts than in the rural districts. That is a strong reason why the figure, if it is necessary to fix a limit at all, should be such as to include the ordinary artisan dwelling. Without appearing to look a gift-horse in the mouth—because I am one of those who for a long time have been urging the Government to do something in respect of relief under Schedule A—I do want to protest against this method of meeting an admitted grievance, From year to year, as the Chancellor has admitted, and as the country as a whole
    532
    admits, the Schedule A Income Tax payer has a substantial grievance, but the methods which have been employed are only a series of palliatives, each one of which is a further admission of the grievance which exists. I would point out that the Government themselves since 1909 have enormously aggravated the grievance of the Schedule A Income Tax payer by the imposition of the Super-tax. The imposition of the Super-tax has extended the effect arising from the amount being assessed upon the gross income, which is very different from the net income, to far beyond the actual sums involved. There is a case within my own knowledge in which the difference between the net and gross income, between the assessment and the net income for Schedule A purposes, brought the owner of the property into the Super-tax limit, and this made a difference to him out of all proportion to the amount of property upon which the tax was imposed.
    I would suggest that it would be more convenient to the Government themselves and to their officials who have to administer the Income Tax and the Finance Act, that the original assessment on rural property to Income Tax should be the same figure as that upon which the final payment is intended to be made. Section 69 of the Finance Act of 1910 and this Clause which is proposed are both intended to have the effect that in certain classes of property the assessment and the actual payment of Income Tax on that property should be on the net income rather than on the gross assessment. Yet the payment of Income Tax has to be on the gross assessment itself. A very elaborate process has to be gone through in order that the Schedule A Income Tax payer may recover as much as he is entitled to under Form 99, and in many cases the Super-tax returns must necessarily be hung up, or have to be revised, long after the period, simply in order that the claim upon Form 99 may be received. I maintain that it would be infinitely better and cheaper in every way for the Treasury as well as for the individual if the Government would go to the root of this grievance and deal with it by practically giving the option of assessment under Schedule D, instead of Schedule A, rather than by dealing out palliatives, giving an exemption of £8 one year and £12 this year, and probably £15 or £18 next year. There is an analogous case in existence now. Schedule B Income Tax payers have

    533
    already the option of being assessed under Schedule D. I have never heard that that has caused any inconvenience whatever to the Income Tax officials or to the individuals who are subject to the assessment. I do not know that a great many have taken advantage of it. I believe, if they would allow owners of real property the right to claim to be assessed originally under Schedule D, instead of Schedule A, although the Treasury might and would lose a certain amount of Income Tax, yet they would gain enormously in convenience and in many other ways.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think we ought to try to understand in the interest of property owners what is really being conceded by this Clause. We are, as I understand, extending the limit which is in operation under Section 69 of the Act of 1910 with regard to the amount that is allowed for repairs from an £8 house to a £12 house. Under the existing law one-eighth is allowed upon land, and one-sixth upon houses under £8. We understand, according to this Amendment, that that is now extended to £12, and the limit of one-sixth, so far as houses are concerned, is to be abolished under this new Clause. By that provision any property owner with property under £12, in either rural or urban districts, will be able now to obtain a deduction from his Income Tax on the actual amount he has expended upon his property. There is no limit up to the £12. I think that is a very great concession, but, unfortunately, I am afraid, from the discussion which has taken place, that property owners do not understand that concession, because the Income Tax collector docs not explain to them what powers they have. The concession is made by what we regard as law by reference, which will make the matter more complicated than it has been, and what I would suggest is that there should be a circular sent out from the Inland Revenue instructing the Income Tax collectors as to the limits now in operation.
    I believe that this concession will be a great relief to good landlords, to the men who repair their property and keep it in a proper state of efficiency, and I am quite certain that they will appreciate the extension from £8 to £12 and the abolition of the one-sixth limit. I should like to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to another grievance which property owners suffer from and to which my attention has been called. I think it is
    534
    a serious grievance. Formerly an owner was allowed, without regard to limit, to make full deduction of the balance of rent owing by a tenant when he left the property. Thus, if a tenant left owing £5, or £10, or £20 of rent, until two or three years ago the owner of the property concerned was allowed to deduct in full from the Income Tax the amount which was owing, because he had really paid Income Tax upon the rent. Now he is only allowed to deduct two-thirds of the £5, or £10, or £20 due by the tenant when he goes away. That is considered to be a serious grievance, especially on the part of small property owners who are small Income Tax payers. The rent may be carried over for three or four years, and the owners have been paying Income Tax in full upon the value of the property, while they are now allowed only the two-thirds—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is quite a different subject from the one dealt with in the Clause. We are now only concerned with the question of allowance for repairs.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I quite agree, but it is really part of the subject of grievances of small property owners, and I thought I might refer to the matter. I quite admit I should have done so on Clause 2. I do hope that this other change will be notified by circular from the Inland Revenue Department, and as to the grievance which I have just mentioned, I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to do something to rectify it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sure the House will agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's general statement that it is desirable to increase this allowance, although I for one should have strongly urged to do so to £15 now, on the grounds which were stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst). I should not personally desire to divide the House on the question, and I do not think my hon. Friend wishes to do so. We quite recognise that this is a concession, and that the Department may wish to feel their way, but I do think that it might be generally agreed that £15 is not too high a limit even now, especially in urban districts where such a house is really no more than the average house occupied by the artisan at present rents. It is very hard on small property owners who try to improve their property and keep it up-to-

    535
    date and make it really fit for habitation by the working classes not to get full allowance for that in the Income Tax. There was a hardship when the Income Tax was 6d. or 9d., but it is much greater now when the Income Tax is so much higher. There seems to me to be a fatal objection to a flat rate, and to extending the flat rate. The flat rate must, I think, be a minimum. If you are going to give a flat rate you must make it as low as anybody can possibly be expected to spend on the maintenance of his property. The moment you do more and extend your flat rate beyond the minimum, you are giving the same allowance to the man who neglects his property as you do to the man who keeps it in good and habitable repair. That is a position you cannot escape from, 7 quoted figures recently, giving chapter and verse, and I can show them to the Chancellor if he desires, stating the actual cost of maintenance and repair of certain blocks of small property in towns. That showed that the owner at the present rate of Income Tax was really paying an Income Tax of 3s. 6d. in the £ upon the actual income which he received from the property, and that the allowance he received fell so far short of the actual expenditure that on the actual residue he was paying 3s. 6d. in the £. The houses in that case were let at a rent of 7s. 6d. per week, which would just about be covered by the £15 limit suggested.
    8.0 P.M.
    Another point is that the extension of the limit would have some tendency to keep down rents. There is no doubt that there is a tendency in the case of urban houses for rents to rise in the present congestion of building. The way that small urban house property rents are rising in many large towns is very remarkable. I think it would be in the interest of the tenants of the houses to raise the limit of allowance to £15. The owner in that case would hesitate to raise the rent above the £15 limit, because that would immediately deprive him of his allowance for expenditure upon maintenance and repairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he thought there might be some way of drawing a distinction between urban and rural houses. I do not believe it is possible, and I do not think it is desirable, for this reason: What I look forward to, and what I hope will be the tendency of building, as communications constantly and steadily improve, is that because a man works in the town
    536
    there is no longer any necessity for him to live in the town. I believe in as much light and air as possible, and, where it is possible, for every working man to have a little bit of ground available on which he may have a garden, which is one of the most desirable things. I cannot see because a man works in a town why he should not be able to get a house at a small and reasonable rent, not only with brick walls, but also a little plot on which he could grow something for himself and his family. That being so, I am sure that both owners of land and this House ought to do everything possible to encourage that tendency. If that comes about, it must tend constantly to obscure the dividing line between urban and rural districts. Any kind of legislation which attempts to draw a hard and fast line between what is urban and what is rural will be mischievous from that point of view. We want both to enable the town worker to get out into the country where he can get a garden and also to encourage rural industries, so that people in purely rural districts may not be wholly confined to one form of getting a living.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Samuel) that it is very desirable that owners who are entitled to this relief should have some official intimation of their right to obtain it. I think that would best be done by a notice on the demand note. It is a common practice of the Department to attach a small slip of paper to the demand note notifying the Income Tax payer that he is entitled to make a claim for certain relief; it is then the fault of the owner if he does not apply. Such a notification is particularly necessary in the case of a small owner. The man with a large amount of house property has professional advisers, who will see that every penny to which he is entitled is claimed. But the small owner, who cannot afford professional advisers, may not have the knowledge enabling him to claim the relief to which he is entitled. I very much regret that the £15 limit is not adopted at once. I do not think there is any valid reason against it, in view of the present high rate of interest and the rents of small urban house property. I entirely accept the statement that the £12 limit will meet the rural case, but the justice of the claim is by no means confined to rural districts. Urban authorities very properly have to be more particular than

    537
    rural authorities, because anything insanitary in a town is a far greater danger to the public than where the houses are isolated. Consequently, the requirements are very properly more onerous and insistent than in the rural districts. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) very properly pointed out, the cost of repairs in urban districts is extremely heavy. But, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, I am afraid we must accept the £12. It will, however, only touch the fringe of the urban case. It is true that we have the frank admission that this is an experiment which must be extended. We must, therefore, accept the concession with a good grace. I would express my thanks for what the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do, and my deep regret that he cannot see his way to extend it to £15 at once.
    Mr. MONTAGU: As the hon. Gentleman says, the £12 meets the rural case, and I suggest that it would be better to defer the question of the urban case for a little longer while we examine the figures of particular instances. It is very difficult to say for certain whether £15 or £18 is the right figure. It is worth investigating, anyhow, whether the flat rate could not be extended as between £12 and £20, rather than treat the houses between £12 and £20 in exactly the same way as we treat those under £12. I will carefully consider the suggestion to attach a notice to the demand note, and, unless there are difficulties of which I am not at present aware, I will see that it is done.
    Mr. BOYTON: Before the question is put, may I make a plea for a possible compromise? It is admitted that £12 is satisfactory for rural property. Could not the Government concede £15 for urban property? The expenditure on urban property of this description is rapidly growing. Wages and the cost of materials have gone up. The requirements of local authorities are much greater and more difficult to cope with. Therefore, there is a most substantial case for making this concession. If you are going to make the experiment, why not differentiate between the two at once? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, I do not think that he would be so stony-hearted. I hope that, even at the last moment, this differentiation can be made.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions with respect to Income Tax of Married Persons.)
    (1) If an application is made for the purpose of such manner and form as may be prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, cither by a husband or wife, within six months before the commencement of any Income Tax year—

    (a) Income Tax (including Super-tax) for that year shall be assessed, charged, and recovered on the income of the husband and on the income of the wife as if they were not married, and all the provisions of the Income Tax Acts with respect to the assessment, charge, and recovery of Income Tax (including Super-tax), and the penalties for failure to make a return, shall apply as if they were not married; and

    (b) All the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to claims for exemption, relief, or abatement, and the proof to be given with respect to those claims, shall also apply as if they were not married; and

    (c) The income of the husband and wife shall be treated as one in estimating the amount to be repaid or allowed in respect of any exemption, relief, or abatement which depends wholly or partially on total income, and the total amount of any exemption, relief, or abatement given in respect of the incomes of the husband and wife shall not exceed that which would have been given if an application had not been made under this Section; and

    (d) The benefit of any such exemption, relief, or abatement may be given either by way of reduction of assessment, or by repayment of any excess of tax which has been paid, or by both of those means, as the case requires, and shall, in the case of relief given in respect of earned income, be given in proportion to the income earned respectively by the husband and the wife, in the case of relief given in respect of insurance premiums, be given to the husband or wife, as the case may be, by whom the premium is paid, and in any other case be given in proportion to the respective incomes of the husband and wife; and

    (e) For the purpose of any exemption, relief, or abatement, a return may be made by the husband or the wife

    539
    of the total income of the husband and wife, but if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are not satisfied with such return they may obtain a return from the wife or husband, as the case may be; and

    (f) The income of the husband and wife shall be treated as one in estimating total income for the purpose of Super-tax, and the amount of Super-tax payable in respect of the total income shall be divided between the husband and wife in proportion to their respective incomes, and the total amount payable shall not be less than it would have been if an application had not been made under this Section.

    (2) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may require returns for the purposes of this Section to be made at any time, and Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in the case of the refusal or neglect to make or wilful delay in making any such return.
    (3) Where Income Tax (including Super-tax) is charged on the profits or income of a married woman, whether in the name of her husband or separately in pursuance of this Section, the power to distrain in the case of non-payment of any Income Tax payable by the wife shall extend to the goods and chattels of the wife as well as to the goods and chattels of the husband.
    (4) Section eleven of the Revenue Act, 1911 (which relates to the assessment and recovery of part of the Super-tax from the wife in certain cases) shall cease to have effect; and Section five of the Finance Act, 1897 (which relates to the exemption of the income of a married woman in certain cases), shall not have effect in a case where an application has been made under this Section.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "commencement of," and to insert instead thereof the words "sixth day of May in."
    When this Clause was in Committee the question was raised whether it was really necessary to insist that the latest date for making the demand for separate assessment should be the beginning of the Income Tax year. The suggestion was made that it might be possible to allow claims to be made a month later than that. I promised to have the matter considered. It
    540
    has been considered carefully, and I am glad to say that it seems possible to meet that suggestion, not indeed by saying a month after the notice has been given, but by moving the date on a month, and making it the 6th May instead of the 6th April. I hope the House will agree that that is an improvement. It can be allowed without prejudice to the practical working of the scheme, and we are very glad to make it in the general interest.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'sixth day of May in' be there inserted."
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "May," and insert instead thereof the word "June."
    This Amendment is a concession made in response to a fairly long discussion, and it is one which I am sure those who took part in the discussion will appreciate. But I would point out that the extension of the date by one month will make all the difference in the world to the actual effectiveness of the Amendment. Under the Clause married people have the right to appeal for a separate assessment. They have to make a fresh appeal each year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that they shall make that appeal by the 6th May—that is, one month after the beginning of the Income Tax year. I suggest that the 6th June would be a better date, for this reason. I have never heard of anybody saying to himself on the 6th April, "This is the beginning of the Income Tax year; therefore, I must begin to think about my abatements, my life insurance, and number of my children, and so on." What everybody does, and what I believe the Inland Revenue expects us to do, is to wait until we receive our form of return—I think that is what the large document which we receive is called—and then to consider our payments and abatements. It seems to me fair and reasonable that in the same way married women who make this claim should be allowed to make it after they have received their form of return. The date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen is 6th May, which comes in the very thick of the time when these forms of return are being sent out—in fact, most of them are sent out rather later. The result will be that a certain number of

    541

    married women will make the claims to which they are entitled, and the majority of them will find that they have made their claims just two days, or a week, or perhaps three weeks, late.
    I think it will be very inconvenient if this concession, which the whole House approves of, should be so given that married women who wish to claim under it—in the comparatively few cases where they will do so—find that in practice that their right is whittled away, and that they are tripped up by the difference of a few days in the day. That is why I propose 6th June. At that time these forms of return will have been sent out. The Attorney-General mentioned the question of the difficulties of administration. I am fairly certain that no difficulties of administration would arise by extending the date one month. None of the assessments are made until, at any rate, the middle of July, and most of them are not made until September. In places like the City of London they are not made until October. Therefore, from the point of view of the Inland Revenue, 6th June is a time when most of the assessors and surveyors of taxes would have at the least a period of six weeks—in most cases a period of three and a half months—to prepare these separate assessments for married women. I think, therefore, that this is a reasonable extension which will not create any administrative difficulties which are not present in the Amendment as it already stands.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is a very natural thing for the hon. Member to seek to extend the month which the advisers of the Government say is what is most consistent with administrative convenience to the two months which the hon. Member suggests will be consistent with administrative convenience. In this matter one munst have some regard to the reasoned advice which is offered by those who have actually the duty of administrating the Act. I might give my hon. Friend one example of the difficulties which will arise if you postpone the date too long, and I give it with the more assurance because it does not appear to have occurred to him. Supposing we test the matter in this way: Let us assume that the hon. Member's rights are not exercised until the last day. If on the last day it should occur to him, being the 6th of June, to claim for a separate assessment, the claim may be made by either the husband or the wife, not necessarily by
    542
    both. Say it is made by the husband on the 6th of June. That would be the first moment that the revenue would know that they will have to seek for a separate return from the other party. The other party will be entitled to the full allowance of time which the law gives. The hon. Member will see that that illustration at once carries him to the month of July. As he very accurately says, some assessments are made in the month of July. But assessments are not made in five minutes. It may be that a certain amount of inquiry has to take place. The wife may deny that she has an income, and so may the husband, although the revenue authorities are certain that one or the other, or both, have the income. There is thus a perfectly good reason why the concession should be limited to one month—which I would remind the hon. Member was what was asked by those who urged the matter upon the Government in Debate the other clay. That, of course, does not in the least rule out my hon. Friend from making a further suggestion. It hardly, I think, justifies the view that the proposal now made commends itself to many people who want to make this provision a reality and not a sham. For these reasons, though I am very sorry to have to refuse the request of my hon Friend, I must do so, and I am acting on the very best advice that I can get.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "married" ["shall also apply as if they were not married"], to insert the words
    "and a claim under Section five of the Finance Act, 1897 (which relates to the exemption of the income of a married woman in certain cases), may be made by the wife as well as by the husband."
    This Amendment must be read by the House in conjunction with the two Amendments that follow, all three of which are down in the name of my right hon. Friend. These three Amendments are put down in order that we may fulfil several promises which I gave the other day in Committee. I not only promised to look into the matter which we have just disposed of, but to see whether it was possible to amend the married women's Clause in such a way as

    543
    not to put people to the choice of either enjoying the provisions of Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1897 or of enjoying the benefits of the new Clause, but to see whether we could not devise a scheme by which, in proper cases, they could enjoy the benefit of both. The House will perhaps remember what the benefit of Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1897 is. Supposing you have a husband and a wife who between them have a total income of not more than £500 a year: supposing, moreover, that a portion of that income, say as to £100, is earned by the wife; then, however you make up the balance in that case, the Act of 1897 permits an application to be made by the husband to have a separate assessment in this sense—that the income which his wife earns is to be assessed separately and entitled to abatement or exemption according to this amount, exactly as though it were not combined with any other income, and the rest of the income, the £400 that I have used as an illustration, is again to be assessed separately, and is to enjoy the exemption or abatement, as the case may be. Under the provisions of the Act of 1897 hon. Members will see that only two conditions need to be specified to enjoy the exemption. One is that the total income should not be more than £500, and the other is that the wife should earn some of it. It is not so easy to combine that with our new Clause, which allows the husband and wife to claim that there should be separate assessments, and the difficulty arises for this reason, that the right exercised under the new Clause of division between the incomes is not between the income the wife earns and the rest of the income, but is the income belonging to the wife, earned or unearned, and the income belonging to the husband, earned or unearned. I confess I thought it was not possible to combine the two. I saw that the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) held another opinion, and though he did not suggest at the moment how it could be done, his belief in fitting the two things together was well warranted. I hope he will agree that the proposals we make will fit them together. It is necessary to do three things which are done in these Amendments. The one which you put from the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, has this effect: Supposing Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1897 is going to be taken advantage of instead of its being taken advantage of by the
    544
    husband claiming that the wife's earned increment should be separately assessed, the wife may claim that her earned income may be assessed. So far this removes what some people may call a sentimental grievance, because it makes no difference in pounds, shillings and pence, but it puts her in a position in which she would be under our Clause and enables her to claim in her own name what, under the Act of 1897, should be claimed by the husband. In the second Amendment we require, in line 14, the necessary exemption which hon. Members will find printed on the Paper, because under Sub-section (c) of our Clause the income of the husband and wife is to be treated as one. The object of that provision is to prevent the subdivision of the joint income resulting in exemption or abatement being claimed twice—by one in respect of one-half of the income and by the other in respect of the other half. Under the Act of 1897 you did allow exemption and abatement in respect of both halves, and we introduce that exception under Sub-section (c). The third Amendment is on line 25, and the reason for that is that our new Clause provides that in the event of sub-division being applied for—the sub-division is between the income of the wife on the one hand, and the husband on the other—whereas that is not the way the line is drawn under the Act of 1897, consequently it is necessary here to provide, when that expression comes in, for the provision of the abatement in proportion to the earned income, as this abatement is specifically given in respect of the wife's income, which seems on the whole the right idea, in respect of earned income, and the result of it is that everybody who could have previously taken advantage of the Act of 1897 will still be able to do so. That will not affect their rights under the existing law, because the wife will be able to claim in her husband's name, and at the same time we manage to reconcile these two statutory provisions so that they fit together, and I hope hon. Members will feel that these three Amendments, regarded as part of the whole, do really adequately meet the rather difficult case which was pressed upon us during these discussions.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think that the three Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to are a great improvement on the Clause and meet a real grievance which would have existed without

    545
    them, because under the Clause, where the joint income is under £500, it would have deprived the husband or wife of availing of the benefits of this Section or the benefits they would otherwise receive under the Act of 1897. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman it was an extremely difficult matter to draft words that would so amend the Clause as to remedy that grievance. I think the right hon. Gentleman has skilfully succeeded in doing so, and I am grateful for the trouble he has taken.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has skilfully succeeded in completely fogging my mind by taking these three Amendments together. The first one is easy to understand, but on the last two I am hopelessly at sea.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "income" ["which depends wholly or partially on total income"], to insert the words "(except so far as otherwise required for the purpose of dealing with any claim for exemption, relief or abatement under Section five of the Finance Act, 1897)."
    I do not want to repeat myself, but, as the hon. Baronet tells me that I have "produced confusion," perhaps I may say a few words. Will the hon. Baronet follow for a moment, and I think it will become quite clear? Under Sub-section (3) the income of the husband and the wife shall be treated as one in estimating the amount to be paid or allowed I will give an illustration which the hon. Baronet can follow. So far as this new Clause is concerned they were entitled, husband and wife, to be separately assessed. That does not mean if the total income is £320, £160 of which belongs to one and £160 to the other, that the result of the Clause would be that no Income Tax is paid by either, because they cannot each say that the first £160 is not to be taxed. But we must except from that general rule the case we are now bringing in, because under tht Act of 1897 it is the fact that you allow separate exemption to be claimed by each of the two parties without lumping them together. That is the reason why we are moving to insert in brackets the words of this Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, paragraph (d), after the word "income" ["in respect of earned income"], to insert the words
    "(including any exemption, relief, or abatement given in respect of the profits of a wife from a business in pursuance of Section five of the Finance Act, 1897)."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I quite agree that some of the later Amendments down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if inserted, will mean that this Sub-section will be improved because it is now proposed, not to empower the Commissioners to levy a distress upon the wife's goods for the husband's tax. That is to be done away with. But you still leave the power to levy a distress upon the husband's goods for what is now the wife's tax. Under the existing law, apart from this claim under the Section, the husband was liable for the whole of the tax. He included his wife's income in his return and he was liable to have his goods distrained upon. Now you have a different position. An assessment is made upon the wife. The husband has no power of disputing the returns. She may accept a return which he would consider to be too high, she may not pursue her right to which she is entitled in disputing that assessment, and the amount of the tax is fixed under the present procedure upon the wife and the husband. I venture to say there is no case under the law at present in which the husband can be made liable for the liability of the wife where the husband has not got the opportunity of disputing that liability. Here you are going to make him liable without any power of disputing the liability. You do not even make it necessary as a condition that you should levy the distress on the wife's goods. The Commissioners, although they may know that there are goods belonging to the wife, may levy the distress on the husband's goods without any demand and without any opportunity of the husband disputing the claim. I do not suppose that the Inland Revenue Commissioners would exercise their powers to this extent, but Parliament is responsible for what it puts in an Act of Parliament, and on these grounds I think this Sub-section ought to be omitted.
    Sir J. SIMON: I regret that I cannot accept the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member opposite to omit Subsection (3). No doubt that Sub-section, as we propose to amend it, will leave the possibility of the husband's goods being-seized in order to pay his wife's tax, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the practical side of this matter, he will see that it really is impossible as the result of permitting this separation between the wife's assessment and the husband's assessment, to leave the Inland Revenue Commissioners in the position that unless they are able to decide which goods are the husband's and which are the wife's, they shall be exposed to any number of interpleader actions. Our proposal does not involve any grievance of certain married women. This is the case in which the husband's furniture is taken to pay for his wife's tax. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said there was no precise analogy there are plenty of cases where husbands have to be answerable for some of their wife's liabilities. Many people think the law in this respect is unduly harsh on the man because the husband is answerable in damages for tort which his wife commits. A husband is liable if his wife libels somebody or assaults somebody, or commits some other wrong entirely against his instruction, or in spite of the announcement that he repudiates all responsibility. Even under those circumstances the responsibility attaches to him just the same. A husband is responsible for his wife's contractual debts, or for that large proportion of them which are regarded as providing a wife with necessaries.
    There is no such corresponding liability on the wife in regard to the husband's contractual debts. A wife has not to pay for damages in a libel action against her husband, and she is not responsible for her husband's tailor's bills. Therefore, if there is to be any distinction drawn, the hardship in these cases is on the side of the husband and not on the side of the wife. If this hardship is to be corrected the Government cannot begin when engaged in collecting the revenue. As far as the revenue is concerned, it must be collected, and in view of the fact that this is the existing law and has been ever since the Income Tax started, and you might in the last resort seize goods belonging to a husband to collect the Income Tax which is due from any portion of the income of the home whether it is the income of the
    548
    husband or the wife, we do not feel able to depart from that practice. But in order that nobody should say that a Clause which is designed to right certain wrongs under which married women suffer should deliver a backhanded blow at the expense of married women, we propose to make it where husband and wife are separately assessed that we should not seize the married woman's goods to pay her husband's taxes. Somebody must be answerable for the taxes of the common home and since it is impossible for the Inland Revenue to find out which wedding presents belong to the husband and which to the wife, it is necessary to stick to a machinery which has been working ever since the Income Tax started and call upon the husband to pay the tax. It is not a case which often arises.
    Mr. CAVE: I agree that this Clause as proposed to be altered will not leave a woman's grievance, but it will create a mail's grievance. As the Attorney-General has stated, a man stands already in a position very much less favourable with regard to his wife's debts than the wife stands in regard to her husband's debts. There is no question in this Amendment of correcting that inequality. The point is that the Government are going to extend it and create anew disadvantage. Whatever the liability of the husband is, at all events he is not liable for his wife's debts incurred in respect of her separate property. Now you are going to make the husband responsible, so far as his goods go, for debts of that character, and you are going to do it in an extremely unfair way. Because ex hypothesi the wife has income in respect of which she is liable to Income Tax. If proper notice is given, the assessment to Income Tax is going to be sent to her and the husband may never see it. She may object or not, but at all events she will be assessed. The demand for the tax is going to be sent to her and not to her husband; in fact, the husband may never see it. One fine day, without any notice or warning of any kind, the husband may find the Government officer in his house and his goods distrained upon for his wife's tax. This kind of thing is not only extremely unpleasant, but it is very injurious to a business man to have that kind of process in his house.
    Unfortunately, wives and husbands do not always agree, and the wife may allow that kind of result to ensue. I do not think that is right, and I thought the Attorney-General would

    549
    have accepted the principle of the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend has put down on this Clause by which no distraint is to be levied on the man's goods until he has had notice and a demand for payment. That surely is a very moderate suggestion indeed, and I do not see how that proposal can be fairly resisted. The learned Gentleman says that the Government officers ought not to be expected to distinguish between the husband's and the wife's goods. That is all very well, but in the case in question the wife has an income, and why should they not go against her income rather than against the husband's goods and property? The difficulty as regards distinguishing arises every day. There are thousands of cases in which a man's goods are seized and somebody else intervenes. That is the kind of difficulty which is dealt with every day, and I do not think it ought to be raised as against the suggestion that in justice the husband ought not to have his goods seized for debt not incurred by him but by his wife, who for this purpose is made a separate person, and incurred by her in regard to her own separate property for which he is in no way liable. I think a strong case has been made out either for the omission of this Sub-section or, at all events, for the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend as a proviso to the Section, so that at least a man may have a demand made upon him before he is subjected to the indignity and injury that may be caused him under this Clause.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I speak only as an ignorant layman seeking knowledge, but I want to ask the Attorney-General what would be the effect under this Sub-section if the husband had issued the ordinary statutory notice that he was not responsible for his wife's debts. Would that affect his liability under this Section, or would it not?
    Sir J. SIMON: No.
    Mr. J. HOPE: In the second place, how would it operate in the case of a legal separation. If the husband and wife were legally separated, would the liability of the husband under this Section continue? Before we vote on this we ought to be quite clear as to those two matters, and when I speak as an ignorant layman I am sure there are plenty of others in the same position in the House.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think we ought to have a reply to the questions raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr.
    550
    Cave), and the last speaker. It seems to me that the request put forward—that before you distrain on the goods and chattels of the husband, who may be quite an innocent party, he should, at all events, have notice—is a very reasonable one. Surely the Attorney-General will grant that without referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is purely a question of equity. I think we ought also to have some reply to the question how this Clause would operate in the case of a husband and wife living apart when they are legally separated. The Bill will soon proceed to its Third Beading, and we cannot go back on it again. I hope the Solicitor-General, therefore, will give the matter his consideration, and see whether there is time to put the Clause right in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite
    Mr. BOOTH: This is one of those well-known cases which to the layman often causes surprise. It is generally assumed that women in some way or other suffer an injustice from this House, but whenever we come to close quarters, we generally find that learned Gentlemen on both sides of the House get up and assure us that women have the advantage as against the male sex. That being so, I think we ought to be very careful about extending it. Even the champions of the female sex, as far as I know, do not go beyond pleading for equality. If there were equality in this case, it is very evident to me that a woman with personal property of her own would be as liable for the Income Tax of the husband as a man with his own separate property is liable for the Income Tax of his wife. It is all very well for the Law Officers to say that they are only extending a principle which exists now in law, but I am not quite sure that is a sufficient answer, because it is acknowledged now that the female sex have the advantage. The illustration about a man being liable for his wife's debts was given. This is purely a case of the Income Tax.
    In many cases a hard-struggling man marries a wife with a considerable amount of property. Her income may be three or four times his income, but he is liable to pay her Income Tax, and she is not liable under any circumstances to pay his Income Tax. They say that is the present law. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, they are extending this principle and therefore making it still more unequal. I should have thought, if that were so, there was all the more reason for this

    551
    additional safeguard, of which the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) has spoken. I can conceive a case in which the husband and wife live under what are called modern advanced ideas. They decide, as far as money matters are concerned, to be totally independent. The modern husband says, "You can have the use of your own money, and I will not ask you to give any account how you spend it." I do not think that even my hon. Friend would say that he was justified in calling into question this justifiable reticence where they both have assured means. Women, however, are not always brought up in business habits, and when they get these notices they do not always file them or deal with them in the way that a man does in an office who has a cashier or a secretary. They do not always see the importance of them, and they may put them on one side because they have a pressing social invitation, and forget all about them. The consequences do not fall upon the woman, but upon the man. I think there should be some kind of demand made upon him before distraint is levied upon his goods, and I hope we shall receive some answer from the Front Bench on the points properly put by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I think a few moments will enable me to deal satisfactorily with the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope). It is quite plain that you will not be able to get any escape from the liability of the husband for the wife's tax unless the parties are living separately. No notice will get rid of that obligation. But if the parties are living separately, the Income Tax authorities at the present moment always regard the woman as a femme sole. Indeed, the liability of the husband for the wife's tax only arises when the woman is living with her husband. If they are living apart and properly separated, there is no trouble.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Must they be judicially separated?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I do not think that is necessary.
    Mr. CAVE: If this Clause stands as it is, would it not have the effect of abrogating that rule?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No, all this does is to apply certain existing provisions of
    552
    the Income Tax Acts, so as to alter the right of the wife and of the husband in particular respects. There is nothing further. That at any rate is our view. For the rest there is an Amendment later on proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, to Clause, 9, and I think it will meet some of the objections raised if we accept a modification of that Amendment. The modification that we would be prepared to accept would be in these terms:—
    "Provided that no distraint shall be so made on the goods or chattels of the husband, unless a written demand for payment shall first have been made on the husband, or left at his usual place of residence, and he shall have failed to pay the amount of the tax payable by his wife within seven days' of such demand"
    That enables notice to be given the husband in cases where harsh proceedings are to be taken. To that extent we can meet the hon. and learned Member. But we cannot go to the extent of relieving the husband of ultimate liability to pay the tax.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of the fact that the Government have made a substantial concession, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. But I wish to say that, personally, I do not regard it as going far enough. I accept it because I cannot get any more, but I still think it is a hardship that a husband shall be made liable in a case where he has no opportunity of disputing his liability.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. SIMON: There are two Amendments on the Paper which must be regarded together. They are down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My explanation of them is this: As this Subsection was originally drafted, it provided that the Income Tax on a married woman's property, assuming she is to be treated separately from her husband, shall be recoverable on the goods of either the husband or wife, and the arrangement was mutual in this respect; the wife's goods were answerable for the husband's tax as well as her own, while the husband's goods were answerable for the wife's tax as well as his own. We propose to make a change in the Clause so as to make it run in this way. I will read Sub-section (3):—
    "Where the Income Tax (including Super-tax) is charged on the profits or income of a married woman"—

    553
    We propose to leave out the next phrase, "whether in the name of the husband or separately"—
    "in pursuance of this Section, the power to distrain in the case of non-payment of any Income Tax payable by the wife shall extend to the goods and chattels of the husband as well as the goods and chattels of the wife."
    I think in that form it will be quite clear, as far as a married woman's own property is concerned, her property will in no circumstances be liable for anything other than her own tax, whereas, on the other hand, the husband's property will be liable, not only for his own tax, but for his wife's tax as well.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "wife" ["chattels of the wife"], and insert instead thereof the word "husband."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Sir J. SIMON: I now beg to move, at the end of the same Sub-section, to leave out the word "husband," in order to insert instead thereof the word "wife."
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I raised a point on the Committee stage which I wish to raise again here. I put it to the learned Solicitor-General, that the law, as it stands at the present time, applies to the goods of the husband even when he is not living with his wife. I am fully aware of the circumstances under which separate assessments can be made if the husband and wife are living separately. But assuming that they are living together, and notice is given six months before the end of the financial year that they desire to be separately assessed, the assessments are made separately, and that subsequently they become separated, then this Section will at once operate, and the effect will be that the husband's goods will be liable to be seized under this Section, although he may have been separated from his wife for the rest of the year. I venture to submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should put in some words which would do away with what would be an obvious injustice. I hope I have made my point clear. I am fully cognisant of the fact that at present, under this Sub-section, the husband and wife living together and giving notice six months before the end of the financial year that they wish to be separately assessed, there will be still power of distraint. But I want the Government to apply a remedy for an in-
    554
    justice which certainly is not intended, by inserting some such words as I have suggested.
    Sir J. SIMON: I quite realise the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would suggest to him that there is some reason for another view. I would not be so dogmatic as to suggest that my view is the only possible view. The way in which I would put it to him is this: As things stand at present if the wife lives separately from her husband she is, as a matter of fact by Income Tax law, treated as a separate person. In many cases the authorities do not know she is married, and they treat her as a widow or as a single lady. It is undesirable that we should do anything to upset that, and I certainly should be unwilling to do it by a side wind. If you look at Clause 9 broadly, you will see it is obviously designed to deal with cases where, unless application is made in a given period the husband and wife who live together will be assessed as one. But if application is made then they will be assessed separately. If that is the groundwork of the Clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the view I am rather disposed to suggest to him is the right one after all, and that a Sub-section in the Clause will not really have the effect of making the husband, who is separated from his wife—because he would be assessed separately without any application—liable in his goods for his wife's debt. That is the other view I suggest to him. I shall be very glad to consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I assure him it was with that intention that the matter has been left as it is. We thought, as my hon. and learned Friend said just now, that this is a Clause which obviously proceeds on the assumption that you are dealing with a case of a husband and wife living together. If they each want a separate assessment, they must make an application, and if that is regarded as the substantial meaning of the Clause, none of these subsidiary matters would be thought to have other application. I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that that is the view the Inland Revenue take. The present view of a married woman living separately from her husband is very largely a matter of practice. It is not easy to get it out of the actual words in an Act of Parliament. I am quite confident, if he will accept the assurance for what it is worth, that it is the intention to regard this Clause as confined to the husband and wife

    555
    who live together and who claim to be assessed separately. If that be so, I suggest to him that to deal with the matter hastily might upset the law with regard to husband and wife living separate.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I was assuming that the right hon. Gentleman was right, and I was dealing with the much narrower point where husband and wife are living together and claim to be assessed separately under this Clause, but that during the progress of the financial year they become separated. I hope he will bear that in mind.
    Question, "That the word 'husband' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    The word "wife" there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words,
    "Provided that no distraint shall be so made on the goods and chattels of the husband unless a written demand for payment shall first have been made on the husband or left at his usual place of residence and he shall have failed to pay the amount of tax payable by his wife within seven days of such demand."
    Mr. CAVE: May I suggest that the words should read, "left for him at his usual place of residence"; otherwise a demand on the wife might be held to come within the Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: I agree.
    Words, "for him," inserted in the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I desire to ask a question as to the last few words. The hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) proposed they should be "within twenty-one days of such demand." I should prefer that, but as he accepts the Amendment as a considerable concession, I can only express my satisfaction with the agreement. Should it not be made clear that the seven days is seven days after such demand? How it is delivered, one does not know. Is it not possible that the demand note may be a week-end in the post? Is it clear that there are to be seven clear days after the demand is left?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that is so.
    Mr. J. HOPE: I should like to ask whether the Government cannot alter the seven days. They might accept a longer time. Seven days may easily pass without the husband knowing anything about it. I should prefer the twenty-one days as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras. I do not want to make meticulous objections, but I do not see the point of the Inland Revenue, so long as they get the money in the end, in objecting to a longer term than seven days.
    Sir J. SIMON: We must assume before one has to take so extreme a course as seizing the goods of a husband to pay the Income Tax, that there has been a pretty considerable degree of negotiation or application, or altercation between the Inland Revenue on the one side, and the subject on the other.
    Mr. J. HOPE: With the wife?
    Sir J. SIMON: With the wife, if you please. When you get to that point, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will think it reasonable, but every additional day you give to people makes it more likely that when you do come to seize the goods they will have disappeared. It is quite right that you should not, as the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said, put a business man to the indignity, and it may be, actual commercial inconvenience and social disturbance of having a bailiff put in his house to seize his furniture when, by some conceivable accident, he may not even have heard that his wife has refrained from paying her tax. Once you have seen that he has got a notice you cannot give him more than this time, or you are not giving the revenue proper security against cases which do arise. You have to consider not only the case of an honest citizen but also the case of a dishonest citizen in which to give a great lapse of time means that any possibility of recovering the tax disappears.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I recognise the force of what the Attorney-General says, but I hope and believe that the Inland Revenue will exercise reasonable discretion in cases of this kind. I remember, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a right hon. Gentleman, who was a respected Member on the other side of the House, but who is no longer with us, coming to me in fierce indignation, not because a bailiff had been put into his house,

    557
    but because minatory notices had been issued to him at his usual place of residence, when he in fact was taking what I have no doubt was a much needed holiday or cure abroad, and letters had not been forwarded. He was a well-known Radical Member, but his indignation could not have been greater if he had been the most austere stickler for the rights of property that any of us has known within this Assembly. I think he said that, after all, he was not the kind of person who was likely to disappear, that he had paid his Income Tax and discharged his obligations as a citizen regularly, and that it was offensive and insulting to assume at once that he was nefariously defaulting, when a little inquiry would have shown that he was taking a holiday abroad in the ordinary course. That was an incident which arose through the too great zeal and too little discretion of some subordinate officer of the Inland Revenue. When it was brought to my attention the Inland Revenue and myself did what we could to heal the outraged feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the Inland Revenue will understand that when they have powers of this kind, they have to exercise them with discretion, according to the circumstances of the case.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words:—
    "and Section five of the Finance Act, 1897 (which relates to the exemption of the income of a married woman in certain cases), shall not have effect in a case where an application has been made under this Section."
    This Amendment is necessary. We have now redrafted the Clause so as to provide for the case of applications under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1897. The Amendment is purely consequential.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Abolition of Settlement Estate Duty and of Relief in respect of Settled Property.)
    Any relief from the payment of Estate Duty given by Sub-section (2) of Section five, or by Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1894 (which relate to settled property), or by Subsection (16) of Section twenty-three of that
    558
    Act (which relates to entailed estates in Scotland) shall cease in the case of any person dying after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and Settlement Estate Duty shall not be levied in the case of persons dying after the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
    Provided that—

    (a) nothing in this Section shall affect the relief given by the above-mentioned provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, in cases where Estate Duty or any of the duties specified in Subsection (1) of Section twenty-one of that Act have been paid upon the death of one of the parties to a marriage, so far as respects the payment of Estate Duty on the death of the other party to the marriage; and

    (b) on the first occasion on which Estate Duty becomes payable in respect of any property which would not have been payable but for this Section, the amount of Settlement Estate Duty, if any, which has been paid in respect of that property, shall be allowed against the amount of Estate Duty payable on that occasion, and if it exceeds that amount, the excess shall be repaid to the estate.

    Mr. ROYDS(who was indistinctly heard): I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause abolishes Settlement Estate Duty and at the same time abolishes the relief from Estate Duty given by the Finance Act of 1894 in respect of settled property, Estate Duty, of course, being imposed for the first time by that Act. It gave this relief to settled property, for reasons which commended themselves to the authors of that Act, and for the time being relieved settled property from the new imposition placed upon it for the first time by the Act of 1894. After twenty years it is sought, not only to retain the burden which is placed on property by that Act, but to abolish the relief given to settled property, whether that relates to existing settlements or to future settlements. The revenue to be derived this year from the alteration of the law proposed is only the paltry sum of £150,000. Next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that this alteration will give £900,000 a year to the Exchequer. We are considering, as regards this Finance Bill,

    559
    mainly, of course, and making pro vision for the needs of the present year, and therefore, if my Amendment is accepted, it will make little or no difference whatever to the revenue of the present year. At the same time, if the Amendment is not accepted Parliament will be sanctioning a most stupendous and fundamental change, as I think without any proper consideration whatever, and I appeal to the House to pause before they make such a considerable alteration of the law which for this year will give such a very trifling sum to the revenue, but may have and will have the most far-reaching effect which none of us at present can contemplate, and which we certainly have not at present considered and have had no opportunity of considering in the short time at our disposal. I leave out for the moment the question of a breach of contract with a person inheriting under existing settlements. The effect of this alteration will, in the first instance, abolish the inducement to make settlements at all, because there is no doubt that since Estate Duty was imposed as a new burden and these relief Clauses were inserted in the Act of 1894, there have been many more settlements effected both of land and personal property, and especially of land, and if this Clause is passed, it will have the effect of abolishing the inducement, which there has been in the past, and is now, to make settlements. It would impose on settled properties, of course, very heavy additional duty, and that duty and burden will be mainly felt, I think, in the case of land.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a comparison between estates which were settled and estates which were unsettled, and thought it was unfair that settled estates should get the benefit of this relief, and said that there was a large number of properties in this country which had descended from father to son from time immemorial, but which had never been settled. I believe that statement to be perfectly correct. Certainly, there are many cases within my own knowledge. But this duty was imposed for the first time in 1894, and before that year exactly the same duty, as far as I know, was payable in respect of settled and unsettled property in land. There was no exemption in favour of settled property, and in those days it made no difference to a man, as regards duty, whether his property was settled or un-
    560
    settled, and it is for that reason that so many properties have descended from father to son, not being the subject of settlement. But for the first time, in 1894, these very heavy Estate Duties were imposed on land. Prior to 1894 the only duty which was payable on land, whether it was settled or unsettled, was a moderate Succession Duty calculated on the value of the life interest of the person succeeding to the property, and that system prevailed both in regard to settled and unsettled property. In 1894 an attempt was made to put the same duty on personalty and realty, but relief was given in the case of settled property. Owners of land thereupon took advantage of that relief Clause, and they have made many more settlements since 1894 than existed before that date. There is no doubt about that at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer states also that he wishes to put land and personalty on the same footing. He thinks it is fair that it should be on the same footing. Prior to 1894 land did not pay these heavy Death Duties, and I have always understood that they did not pay them because the owner of the land was annually paying a much greater share of the country's burden in the form of rates and taxes than the owner of personalty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
    Mr. ROYDS: I remember I asked, when I came to look into these things many years ago, why Death Duties were not payable by the owners of land in the same way as by the owners of personal property? And the answer I received was, "How can you expect a man to pay the country's burdens again on his death when he has paid them annually all his lifetime?" That point cannot have been overlooked when the Act of 1894 was passed. Since that date those burdens have increased hugely, and if realty and personalty are to be placed on the same footing, the least that can be done is to place them on the same footing not only as regards Death Duties, but as regards the annual burdens also. And if that was done. I do not know that the owners of realty would have very much fault to find with the proposal. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has since the 1894 Act placed heavy additional burdens on land. You cannot buy land, and you cannot lease land, without paying double the duties which were paid in 1894. The People's Budget, as it is called, doubled the stamp

    561
    duties every time land is sold. It doubled the duties every time land is leased, and it placed for the first time an ad valorem duty on voluntary settlements. Under those Sections of the Finance Act about £3,000,000 has been paid. The point has been very much overlooked, but when you wish to compare the position of the owners of land and the owners of personalty, I think it is a point to which prominence should be given. The exact figure which I got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is £2,965,000 up to April last. In addition to the duties, besides the cost of the valuation of land—I am not referring to the cost to the State, but to the cost to the owners of land—if the owners of land make any profit, they have to pay Increment Value Duty. If an owner is not developing it, he has to pay Undeveloped Land Duty, and at the termination of a lease he has to pay Reversion Duty. If there are minerals, he has to pay Mineral Rights Duty.
    All these are new burdens imposed on land by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When considering the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave for introducing this Clause to abolish relief in the case of settled estate these things should not be overlooked—all the additional burdens he has put on land since he has been in office. It is impossible for landed estates to bear the additional burdens. I do not know whether it is the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government to break up landed estates. Certainly the effect of their legislation has been most disastrous on the agricultural and landed industry, and on the development of land generally, and not only on agriculture, but on building development. I do not think any Member representing a rural constituency would go down to his constituents and tell them that it is desirable in the interests of the country that landed estates should be broken up. The Departmental Committee which reported on this matter found the exact contrary on the evidence brought before them, and yet the effect of the proposal we have now under consideration is to bring about that which the Departmental Committee and all who have the true interests of the country at heart know is fatal to our industry. By way of anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I would say that he may tell us, "I must have this sum of money for revenue purposes." As I said before, it is only a paltry sum of £150,000. I would point out to him that next year it will be £900,000,
    562
    and I would suggest that if he cannot do it now, he should next year repeal the Land and Valuation Clauses of the People's Budget. That will give a clear £1,000,000. It will be the most popular proposal ever put before the country or the House of Commons, and I am sure that a sigh of relief would be given by everyone connected with land and house property if they heard that the People's Budget and all the Land Taxation and valuation proposals were to be repealed.
    Mr. FITZROY: I doubt very much if the House of Commons itself realises the importance of this Clause which we are dealing with at the present moment, and I am quite certain that the country as a whole has no sort of idea of the very far-reaching effect which this Clause will have. In bringing forward this proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some calculations—I have no doubt quite accurate calculations—as to the amount of money which he would receive this year and next year. I do not say for one moment that in giving these figures the Chancellor of the Exchequer wilfully misled the country as to the effect of these proposals, but I am certain that in a few years' time when the full harvest comes to be reached, and when the settled estates come into taxation, instead of the estimate given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the revenue he would receive from these taxes being the correct amount, the revenue will come to a very much larger figure. I quite appreciate the small concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised during the Committee stage of this Bill, and which is embodied in the Amendment that appears on the Paper. It appears to me to be pretty obvious that this concession is in no way a fair compensation for the loss which those who have made these settled estates will have to bear when the settled estates come to be taxed under this Clause. It seems to me pretty obvious also that the direct effect of this Clause in the future will be that there will be very few settled estates at all. I do not propose this evening to argue the merits in favour of settled estates, or to examine the arguments against making settled estates. I think there are very good arguments both for and against. In many respects I think settled estates have had their evil consequences, and in some respects, no doubt, they have had good consequences. But the chief argument, I am quite certain, which appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that with re-

    563
    spect to the revenue which he will receive. Of course, that is a very right argument from his point of view for the proposal he is now making.
    The chief argument which my hon. Friend (Mr. Royds) advanced in moving the Amendment, was that the effect of this Clause will be detrimental to landed estates. I think that is quite true. The effect of this Clause will be much more detrimental to landed estates than it can possibly be to personal property, and I do not think it is fair on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's part to go into the country and make political capital out of the scarcity of cottages on landed properties, and in some cases to make political capital out of the insecurity of the tenant farmers on large estates. It is quite true that there is a great scarcity of cottages. I do not admit that there is insecurity of tenure on agricultural estates, but if there is any little insecurity of tenure on large agricultural estates, as well as this great scarcity of cottages, I maintain that both those evils are directly due to legislation passed by this House, and more especially to legislation passed by the present Government, If you still further impose taxation on landed property, such as is suggested by this Clause, you are only aggravating the evils which you claim to exist on landed property. To my mind the most important argument against this Clause is that the Government propose to break a contract with those who have settled their estates. There can be no justification, however much you compensate those who are likely to suffer, for breaking a bargain which has been entered into by Parliament with individuals for a consideration, and to deprive them of what they would have got out of their bargain. I listened to a debate the other day on this subject, and neither from the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the learned Solicitor-General did I hear the slightest argument in justification of this course. If once you start on behalf of Parliament a system of breaking contracts of this importance, there can be no safeguard for any individual in any contract which he makes with the Government.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The aspects of this Amendment which formed the first part of the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down are, I think, important, and give us food for serious reflection.
    564

    But at the same time they are not the point on which I wish to dwell. I feel very strongly about this Clause. I have often not approved of particular financial expedients to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resorted. Sometimes I have thought them inexpedient, and sometimes unjust. But I feel against this proposal a deeper and stronger objection than I do against any proposal which he has yet made to the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend said in conclusion, to me, as to him, this is a proposal that Parliament should commit a breach of faith in dealing with people with whom it has entered into a bargain, from whom it has received consideration from that bargain. The case is a very hard one. The number of people affected is, comparatively speaking, not very large. But in the individual cases the difference made to individual properties or individual people is enormous, and the unexpected, unforeseen, and unforeseeable burden suddenly cast upon them will be sufficient in some cases to break the property, if not to break the individual. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined his proposal to the future, if he chose to say that new settlements shall be made only on more onerous terms, and if he liked gradually to discourage the making of settlements by raising those terms, some of the objections raised by my hon. Friend would still apply, but I should have no such feeling on the question as I have at the present-moment. The Chancellor is making this taxation retrospective, and against that, and against that alone, I wish to protest now. I am not unmindful of the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised yesterday, and which appears in his name on the Paper to-day. I do not want to appear ungracious in dealing with that, but I do not discuss the exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to allow, but confine myself to the question of principle raised by the question that the Clause stand part.
    The State on the advice of Sir William Harcourt, for reasons which Parliament thought good at the time, gave an inducement to individuals to make settlements in certain cases. Parliament may have been wise; the Minister may have been wise; or both may have been foolish. But it is not suggested anywhere—and I only refer to the matter because of an argument which the Chancellor used on a previous occasion—that any suspicion of corruption tainted the action of that Minister or

    565
    Parliament. That is common ground between us. But the Chancellor says that if you once recognise the binding force of Parliamentary bargains of this kind you open the way to corrupt bargains. I say that if a bargain is tainted with corruption Parliament may void it, but the fact that some bargain may at some time be tainted with corruption in its inception is no reason for breaking a bargain honestly made which has been honestly conformed to by at least one of the parties. If you pass this Clause you not only withdraw from those who have made these settlements the advantage which you thought fit twenty years ago to give them, but you do not leave them in the position in which they were then, or with power to exercise the same option that they would have had then. Take a man who in pursuance of the Act of 1894 made a settlement soon after and is still living. By the settlement he may have, as he thought, by the payment of money to the Government, which the Government have used, expected to clear two lives, or perhaps three lives, of further payment of this duty. If you had not given him the option, then he would have done as his neighbour did and would have insured. What prospect has he of insuring now when he is twenty years older? He is too old to do it. You cannot put him back. If you could break the bargain, and if in breaking the bargain you could give the same option to choose which he had at the time that the bargain was made, that would conceivably justify what would be a strong action in breaking a Parliamentary bargain. But when you cannot put him back into the same position which he held then, and he is damnified by the mere lapse of time, I do say that it appears to me that Parliament is committing a lamentable breach of faith in making this change. I am obliged to use language so strong, because I am really anxious to carry hon. Members on the other side of the House with me, and I am trying, while my language is strong, not to put any heat into my argument. I cannot say how strongly I feel the gross injustice of the proposal now made in respect of past settlements, the injury done to individuals, the injury to property, and the injury done to the fair fame of Parliament in its reputation for good faith.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment stated, we have, I think, on
    566
    the whole, had a fuller discussion of this particular proposal than of any other proposal in the Budget. I think, if he casts his mind back to the past stages of the Debate on our financial proposals this year, he will find that this one has been discussed on every stage at great length, with great force and vigour, and there is no view of this particular proposal which has not been presented to Parliament, and presented with great strength. Therefore I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing justice to those who have directed criticism against this proposal when he said that we have not had any discussion upon it. We had hours of Debate upon it in the Committee stage, and before that. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with great moderation as regards the steps we have taken, but I am afraid I cannot accept his argument. I can only repeat the arguments which I have already advanced, but I think it is only due to the House that I should do so after the criticisms which have been made. I come first to the charge of breach of faith. I again protest emphatically against the suggestion that if Parliament in one generation imposes taxation in a certain form, and subject to certain conditions, Parliament in a subsequent generation must respect that particular form of taxation upon a particular class of property. You may have had in a past generation a Parliament which took a different view of a certain kind of taxation—the taxation of a particular class of property, or a particular form of levying taxes upon that property. That is no reason why Parliament in a subsequent generation should hold itself bound by views honestly held by the preceding generation or the preceding decade.
    The views held in 1894 are not the views of the present day on either side of the House. In 1894 the Conservative Opposition did not hold the views it holds now upon taxation. I am now speaking of the vast majority of the party opposite at the present moment, if not in the House of Commons, I think, probably, in the country. The view they hold now—the official view they hold now—is not the view they held in 1894; and therefore, while I think one Parliament may honestly, in one decade, take a view with regard to a question of taxation that affects a particular class of property or class of industry, in a subsequent decade Parliament may take a completely different view in regard to it. My contention is

    567
    that no Parliament has a right to so adjust its taxation as not to leave a subsequent Parliament perfectly free and unfettered to deal with its taxation. Let us put this to the right hon. Gentleman who said that this would only apply to a very few. Supposing it applied to most of the real property of the Kingdom—I am not sure that it does not; I rather think it does—does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that because a good bargain, if it is a bargain—I am taking his view that it is a bargain, though I do not accept that—but supposing he is right, that it is a good bargain in taxation introduced into the Finance Act, although a Finance Act can never be a bargain, does he mean to say that because a good bargain is introduced into the Finance Act in a particular generation, affecting the whole real property of this Kingdom, that Parliament, it may be thirty, forty, or fifty years after, must have its hands tied with regard to the way in which it is going to tax the whole realty of the Kingdom? If that were the case it would be one of the most serious blows against the power of Parliament—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want my point to be clear. It is this, that when you have taken money in return for a consideration, you have no right to refuse the consideration without the consent of the other party.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is perfectly true if it were a bargain. A bargain presupposes two equal parties. The House of Commons go to the owners of real property in this country, and say, "If you will give us £2 of your own free will, we will give something in return to you." There might have been something to say to it if the owners of real property had accepted the Budget of 1894, but they fought the Budget Bill from beginning to end—the hon. Gentleman shakes his head—I was a Member of the House, and I can say that never was a Bill fought more strongly than the Budget Bill of 1894. We had majorities, not of twenty-three, I can assure him, for they went down to ten, and I remember that Sir William Harcourt, when there was a majority of fourteen, turned to the Chief Whip and said. "To-night we have actually got fourteen." What is the good of talking about a bargain under those conditions? Here is something which Parliament imposed upon an unwilling class. They said. "You have got to pay £2 for settled property": they also said, "We
    568
    have altered the 1 per cent. to 2 per cent." There was nothing said with regard to the aggregation which was made in 1900, when the Conservative Government were in power. Why? Because it never entered the head of anyone until the present moment that Parliament was not free and unfettered in any way it thought desirable in the matter of imposing taxation, whether upon realty or personalty. The right hon. Gentleman, in his last few words, seemed to me to carry the idea of a bargain too far. He said that if we put them in exactly the position they were before there might be something to say for it. If this were a tariff Budget, and not a Free Trade Budget, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if, either in the interests of revenue or in the interests of the industry of this country, he found it necessary to make a complete readjustment of taxation which he himself would have imposed, he would have been entitled to do it because the parties to it would not be in the same position? He knows perfectly well that the changes that would be effected by the imposition of a tariff are vastly greater than the differences that would be effected in regard to Settled Estates. I mean the proposal from his own point of view, assuming his argument that by that means you can build great industries by means of a tariff. The right hon. Gentleman, say, five or ten years later, after he imposes the tariff, comes to the conclusion that it is not in the interests of the community that a particular tariff should be quite as high, or that goods on which he had imposed a tariff ought to come in free in the general interests of the community, and he would be perfectly consistent with his position as a Tariff Reformer to make that alteration. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that because he could not put the people who had built up an industry and put enormous capital into it into the same position that he would not be free to alter the tariff, although the whole interests of the community demanded it or the interests of the revenue? By the huge sum of money I refer to I mean not paid to the State but invested on the strength of the Budget, which they would be entitled to treat as a bargain with the State just as much as owners of settled property are. I say, whether it is a Free Trade Chancellor presenting his Budget or a Tariff Reform Chancellor setting up a tariff, if you accept this doctrine, it is

    569
    absolutely ruinous to the whole finance of this country from any point of view, absolutely! I protest in the strongest possible manner against the notion that you cannot make alterations in the Budget. The Budget is in no sense of the term a bargain with anybody. The same thing was raised, I remember, with regard to the Licensing Duties. They were considered as bargains. Huge buildings had been erected, capital had been invested, and they said, "Here you are, you are altering all that, although you have a bargain with the licensed vintners." It was true to a certain extent, but the Budget is not a bargain. The State does not bargain with a Finance Bill. It does not go to the people as if it were begging for money, and saying to sections of the community, "Will you give us this or that?" On the contrary, the replies of the whole of the people come together and say, "We want so much, and this is the best way of getting that sum." That cannot bind future Parliaments to such an extent that they cannot alter it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you ought to take into account the facts and that at that time you did levy an extra 2 per cent., and that you ought not to treat settled property worse than you are treating free property. That is the only reason, not because there is a bargain, but because otherwise you would be putting settled property in a worse position than free property. Up to the present 1 and 2 per cent. franked the property. As an hon. Gentleman said in the last Debate this is an insurance. Take it on the insurance principle, and up to the present, the premium has covered the risk, and what is still more there are a good many of those risks which have materialised—many of them—so that probably half the settled property which has been franked has already received the benefit of the premium. Then comes the question what about the future? From the moment this Bill becomes an Act the risk ceases to be covered by that agreement. Unless you return that amount or the equivalent, then you are putting settled property in a worse position than property which is not settled—that is our contention.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has exactly put my point. He has accepted a premium to cover certain contingencies, and now as the contingencies are maturing, he says, "I will not give
    570
    you what you have insured for; I return you your premium."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The right hon. Gentleman treats this as if a premium had been paid for thirty years, and now the risk is maturing. That is not the case. Not merely has it been maturing the whole of this time, but practically half the risks have been already covered. I am talking of settled property as a whole. In individual cases that is not so, but taking settled property as a whole, half the risks have already matured. What proposals do we make now? The proposal we make now is that we shall return, not half the premium, but the whole of the premium, and that for the moment the risk ceases to be covered by the premium—a word which is not mine, but used by hon. Members opposite—we are really going to pay back the premium with interest. I say that puts settled property exactly in the same position as free property. That is our contention. My two contentions are, first of all, that no Parliament can treat a Finance Act as a contract with the people who have been taxed. It has never been accepted by a Chancellor as a theory. The very words used by the right. hon. Gentleman now about this Clause were used in 1853 about Mr. Gladstone's proposal to tax settled property at all. They were used in this House by Mr. Freshfield, a member of a firm of solicitors, who took the solicitor's view about settled property. He said: "Here you are, you have received money in the way of the stamp upon the settlement, and entered into a contract with these people, and you now deliberately go and tax them, and put a succession duty upon settled property." He used the very arguments used by one or two hon. Members opposite. He said: "Had they known this, they never would have made those settlements." It was probably true, but supposing Mr. Gladstone had adopted that view in 1853, settled property would never have been subject to any duty at all, certainly not for a great many years, until every settlement had been exhausted. Therefore I do not think it possible to maintain that view. Subject to that contention, we have done everything we could to meet the exceptional position of the case, so that settled property should not be in a worse position than free property. I have gone beyond the pledge that I gave yesterday, and have inflicted a much more serious loss on the

    571
    revenue than that pledge involved. Within the limits the Government laid down, I have gone as far as I could to meet the case put forward by owners of settled property. I should like to come to the general arguments put forward by the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Clause used an argument in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not follow him. He argued that landed property ought not to be subject to the same taxation of Death Duties as personalty. I thought it very significant that the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt that line of argument. In that respect he showed great discretion, because ho would find it impossible, when his time came, to follow the exalted principles of the hon. Gentleman behind him. The hon. Gentleman said that the reason why landed property ought not to be subject to the same Death Duties as personalty was that land is subject at the present moment to heavier contributions for rates than personalty. Is not that true of capital? Is not that true of machinery? These are not settled property, but they are subject to exactly the same Death Duties as stocks, shares, and so on.
    Mr. ROYDS: My argument was not that settled property alone, but that all land should be relieved. I include buildings, landed property, realty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman was surely addressing himself to the Clause, which raises the question whether settled land property shall be subject to the same taxation as any other property. Factories are very rarely settled, machinery is not settled, and these forms of property are subject to exactly the same taxation in respect of rates as ordinary landed property in the district. As a matter of fact, the rates are very much higher. Take collieries. There are not many cases where collieries are settled. They have to pay the same contribution in respect of Death Duties as land in the ordinary sense of the term, and they have to pay much heavier rates. The hon. Gentleman said, "Here you are increasing the burdens on agricultural land."
    Mr. ROYDS: Including collieries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman forgets that most of the money which is being raised is being devoted to
    572
    the purpose of relieving the burden of rates. In so far as it is not raised for that purpose, it is raised for the purpose of the Navy. The hon. Gentleman may object to lands contributing its fair share towards the burden of the Navy. If ho does not, somebody has to contribute it, and if land is to be exempt it means that every other class of property must contribute a larger proportion. Land is to get its share, and more than its share, of the relief of taxation. Landed property, factories and machinery, are to get their share of the protection of the Navy. The hon. Gentleman's view is that land ought not to contribute towards the expenditure which is to be used for that purpose.
    Mr. ROYDS: I said nothing of the sort. I said that, in my opinion, land was at the present time paying much more than its share, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to mulct it in a heavier sum still.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But what is the proposition of the hon. Gentleman? Is he not objecting to imposing any further contribution upon landed property, including collieries and factories, as I understand? Somebody has to contribute to make up this money which is to be expended on the Navy and the relief of rates. Unless we increase the burden upon land, equally with other property, it means that we must increase the burdens still further upon personalty and other sources of income. The hon. Gentleman says, "I object to lands being taxed." That means that somebody else has to make up the deficiency. I say that land ought to contribute its fair share—its equal share, certainly.
    Mr. ROYDSrose—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member, who has made his speech, not to interrupt. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is going a great deal beyond the Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry, but when you were not here statements were made to which I was replying. I will not pursue that point further. Reference was made to the Stamp Duties. I take it that that matter would be equally irrelevant, therefore I will not pursue it. The hon. Gentleman then dealt with the breaking up of estates. I do not know whether that is relevant. If it is, I should like to say a word about it. The hon. Gentleman

    573
    suggested that this proposal would have the effect of breaking up estates, and that that would be a bad thing in itself, I do not agree with him at ail. I think it is a good thing. That is my view, as the hon. Gentleman has challenged me on the subject, and I say that the State ought to be prepared for that and to step in. [An HON. MEMBER made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.] An hon. Member interrupts me. If he has anything to say he will have an opportunity presently if he does take part in the Debate. I hope he will be a little more articulate than he is now. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Royds) said that this proposal would discourage settlements. I am not alarmed at that—not in the slightest degree. I do not think that that is a bad thing in itself. I am not prepared to defend the system by which a man can arrange for all time that one member of a family shall receive an income. I do not think it is the business of the State to go out of its way to perpetuate a system of that kind. If it can be arranged, that is a matter for the family itself. But that the State should go out of its way to discriminate in its taxation, to give better terms in order to encourage a notion of that kind, is, I think, thoroughly anti-social, thoroughly anti-economic, and a thoroughly bad thing for the community. I am only putting that proposition because the hon. Member himself challenged a debate upon it. I think I have dealt, in so far as the points made by the Member are relevant, with practically the whole of them. I have defended this on the grounds I have given. Hon. Members themselves admit that the present settlement Estate Duty gives an advantage to settled property. I say that it is a perfectly unfair thing as between settled and free property. I say that the estates which now go down in families without settlement pay their fair share of taxation, and that those which go down settled do not pay their fair share. It is unequal as between the same classes of property, and it is utterly unequal as between realty and personalty. It is because I think it is right that they should bear their fair and equal share, that I support this proposal.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I do not propose to discuss this on the ground that it is equal or unequal as between real property and personal property, or to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the lines that he has laid down as to whether it is desirable or not desirable to encour-
    574
    age settlements. A discussion on this subject would be extremely interesting, but I think if these arguments were really pursued, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would probably call us to order. The real point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to avoid and to prevent the House from considering is this: whether the State is entitled to go back on a bargain which it has made with the subject, or whether the State is not so entitled? Hitherto we have always thought that a bargain was a bargain. We thought in our simple philosophy that that concluded the matter. We thought that when between free individuals a bargain was made the Courts would enforce that bargain—unless it were an illegal bargain or a gambling contract—then there are special exceptions which prevent these contracts being enforced—that the State would use its legal machinery to enforce this bargain. Here the State is proposing to do something which is not sticking to its bargain at all. It is cancelling a bargain because one party to the bargain has tired of it, and thinks it ought to be revoked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in mitigation of this great breach of bargain that it cannot be judged on insurance lines. He has said that it is quite true that the State has accepted the premium for that bargain, but that at least half the risk has been run, and therefore, for one reason or another, the State is entitled to cancel this insurance bargain and to pay back the premium without interest from a date that the State chooses. In justification of that alteration of position as between the State and the subject, the Chancellor says that the risk has greatly increased.
    It was a very interesting defence. Let us see how the right hon. Gentleman would deal with a similar case if it were a bargain between himself, a private individual, and an insurance company. Suppose when the right hon. Gentleman was younger, say, at the age of thirty, some insurance company had insured him at a premium equal to £2 15s. for the sum of £1,000 payable at death. Suppose that premium were a lump-sum premium, not a yearly premium. The former is a common form of insurance. Suppose, therefore, in lieu of paying the annual premium of £2 15s., the right hon. Gentleman had paid £300, as premium for the insurance of £1,000 at his death. I submit that that case is parallel with the case we are now discussing. Supposing then the insurance

    575
    company had said to him, twenty years after, when he was fifty, "It is true that we received a premium from you of £300, but the risk has altered; you are now fifty years old, and the risk has increased; we will not take you now at £300; if you were to be insured over again the risk would be worth £600." They might say, "Well, we will be generous. We will give you back your £300, not with interest from the day you paid it. You must not expect that; half of the risk has been run. You might have died at thirty-five, or forty, or forty-five. We will give you back your premium. Do not say that we are not keeping our bargain, and we will fix the date from which the risk is to run, and we will cancel the bargain." How does that differ from the proposition we are now discussing? Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer defends his position to-day by saying half the risk is run, and therefore he will pay back the premium. Does any hon. Member think that that is not a fair illustration of what is happening under this Clause? Because if there is any doubt, one can draw the parallel quite close. What is happening here is the State has the interest at 2 per cent.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want to talk about Stamp Duty. As a matter of fact the subject has not only paid 2 per cent., but the Stamp Duty is 1 per cent. now, though it used to be a half per cent. However, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want the Stamp Duty to be taken into account, we will leave that alone. The State has received 2 per cent., according to the Chancellor's own statement, as insurance premium, as against the payment of a lump sum called Estate Duty on a certain given event, namely, the death of certain people. This is indistinguishable from a life policy in an insurance office. If the insurance office were to repudiate its bargain, and if the learned solicitor opposite acted for the claimant, anyone can imagine the tones of indignation in which he would denounce that breach of the bargain by the insurance office. Yet it will be his painful duty now to get up and say, "Although this would be utterly and absolutely wrong in the case of a life insurance office, governed only by the ordinary dictates of common morality, we claim on behalf of a Liberal Government that we are entitled to do it," and he will defend it. There is no justification for the Clause as it stands. It is quite true there
    576
    has been some modification, but what does it mean? It means that they will not steal £100 from people with whom they have made a bargain, but they will steal by this slight modification, £90. We ought to be thankful for the slight modification, I suppose, but it does not touch the Clause which is a repudiation of State liability, and a breach of honesty which would be condemned by any honest man.
    Mr. PETO: I think that part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he dealt with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is the most amazing we have ever heard from the Front Bench on any financial question in this House. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman tried to argue that because a bargain had been made a generation ago, and because we object to the repudiation of that bargain, it was an argument that no alteration could ever be made in the tax of one generation because another generation might take another view. That would have been absolutely relevant to the question of whether the Tea Duty should be reduced from 5d. to 4d., but it is absolutely irrelevant to the argument put forward by the Member for West Birmingham. In this case there is a deliberate bargain entered into in which the subject had the option of taking one course or another. Inducements were held out to him, and the decision was taken according to the legislation of the time. Supposing this had been a question of a tariff. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the United States, and says that they altered their tariffs. He need not have gone into a specific case of that kind, because it is well known in this and every other country that a tariff may be imposed from year to year and the details of that tariff are liable to be changed at any time in the interests of the community at large.
    The whole question is that the essence of a bargain exists between the taxpayer and the State in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says he has not been so unfair as has been made out, and he says that 50 per cent. of the people who took that option have found that they have made a good bargain because the estate under that settlement has already passed. But what remains of the other 50 per cent.? What does that argument amount to? That you only propose to defraud the 50 per cent. of the people you entered into the bargain with, and you take the attitude of being on a

    577
    highly moral plane, and say that you are perfectly justified in leaving the other 50 per cent., who have already paid up the consideration and now find that they have paid it for absolutely no value received. The last argument the right hon. Gentleman used was that in 1853 the same thing was argued. It was, he said, the same thing as Mr. Freshfield argued, that because a Stamp Duty had been paid on settlement the State was precluded from putting any other duty on settled estates. That was certainly not a strong position to take up, and that is not the case put forward by the Member for West Birmingham at all. It is said that because there is some duty charged in stamps or otherwise upon settlements, therefore, the State cannot charge another duty. The proposition is wholly different. It is that because these settlements were entered into you are not now entitled to take away all the advantages you then offered in consideration of the Settled Estates Duty which you then imposed.
    That is a totally different question. In one case it is a question of two distinct taxes. Mr. Deputy-Speaker has ruled that the question of stamps is irrelevant on the ground that it is a wholly different duty, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings forward that question as being analogous to the present case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "Why not place some further burden upon land and upon settled estates? What is the purpose of the present Budget? It is that in so far as it is not going to the support of the Navy, it is going to the relief of the rates." Let us consider that proposition for one moment. There are £9,000,000 in round figures to be found for the relief of rates. I understand that five-sixths of that sum will go to the relief of urban rates, and there remains one-sixth, £1,500,000 for rural rates. In exchange for that £1,450,000 is to be given up. The net result of this great Budget for the relief of rates, so far as agricultural land is concerned, will amount to £50,000 a year. It is proposed to rescind a perfectly fair and clearly understood bargain which was entered into, and for which consideration was paid because half, or possibly half of those who paid their money may have got something from the people who now say they are going to repudiate the other half of the bargain. What is the initial inducement offered? Because a net sum of £50,000 a year may ultimately be available for the relief of rural rates, we are to go back upon the bargain that was
    578
    made in respect of settled property, and are to sacrifice a great deal more than money—the honour of this Assembly.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have had some hesitation during the course of this Budget in supporting this Settlement Estate Duty, but after the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night I think the House must find itself in a very different position. We had a very querulous speech from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and, if it had remained where it was last night, this concession would not have been made at all. These attacks on the Government indirectly stating that they are nothing but a body of thieves, who repudiates contracts, merely for the purpose of penalising one section of the community as against the other, are not calculated to get the Government to take the view expressed from those benches. Hon. Members say that this is a dishonest Clause, but let the House approach the question from the common-sense point of view. Why is it necessary to take this step? The hon. Member who moved the omission of the Clause said that no further taxation ought to be put on land, that no further taxation ought to be put on factories, and thta no further taxation ought to be put on collieries. Where is he going to get his money from? The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) said that this was a case similar to that of a man who goes to an insurance company and makes a bargain with them. Surely that is not an analogous case. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so, but I do not agree with him, and I did not agree with him with regard to the Licensing Duties. When the Licensing Bill was passing through this House the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the duties were altered he would do his utmost to get them rescinded when a Liberal Government came into office. Therefore, the law was clearly established in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield. There was no analogy, nor is there any analogy in the case of Tariff Reform, because anyone who votes for hon. Gentlemen opposite on the understanding that they are to have a preference will know that if this party comes into power there will be no preference.
    Therefore, I do not agree with either of the propositions thus put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the case of the insurance company is different. A man who goes to an insurance company does so of his own free will. He

    579
    enters into insurance for the purpose of getting certain benefits Parliament imposes a duty in the form of an Estate Duty or Settlement Estate Duty, for the purpose of raising revenue; and the man, whether he likes it or not, has to pay. Parliament having increased very largely the Estate Duties, we find ourselves in this position. People who have settled their property are in an extremely favourable position. The whole question turns on this. A man having entered into what the hon. Member terms a bargain with the State, ought Parliament to say that that bargain cannot at any time hereafter be broken? [An HON. MEMBER: "With that particular individual."] Yes, with that particular individual. I think it would have been better if the Government had reserved all existing settlements. But then they had to get the money, and one has to have regard as to where they get it from.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: You are not entitled to rob the man.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: You are not robbing him, because, by the Amendment which the Government accepted last night, you are going to put him in no worse position than he was before. You are going to give him back his money—I think he should have been given 4 per cent. instead of 3 per cent.—and you are also going to put him in no worse position. I think, taking account of the large sum of money that had to be raised, and bearing in mind that the money in going back in relief of local rates—[An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot break a bargain!"]—I do not recognise it as a bargain, because the State has to deal with all these questions having regard to the interest of the State as a whole. From time to time the Estate Duties have been increased until they have been brought up to a very high figure, and certain people have been placed in a favourable position, and have escaped the duty by paying 2 per cent. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, having regard to the large sum of money which had to be raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard, too, to the fact that he is paying back this money and is putting these people in a position no worse than they were in before, having also given them the benefit of insurance during that period, I think we may—although with some hesitation—vote for the Government proposal.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to make another speech on this question, but I cannot help expressing my sympathy with the hon. Member opposite who, as an honest man, has been trying his best to defend this proposal. Even now I do not think he really appreciates quite what the proposal amounts to. If he is not convinced that the owners of settled property are now, under the amended Clause, put in the same position as they would have been had this duty not been imposed, I think I can claim he should follow us into the Lobby.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If you can show me that they are not I will.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I can show that they are not put in the same position. A man who under the existing law—I am assuming that this Bill will not become an Act—paid Settlement Estate Duty on succeeding to an estate made a payment in consideration of which the State gave him a certificate franking the estate from payment of further Duty during the settlement, as an individual bargain with him. That frank the State now withdraws. That is what we consider a breach of contract and going back upon a bargain. The hon. Member says that by this Clause, as now drawn, the man is going to be put in the same position. He is not. In the first place, had this Clause then been in existence he would have insured his life at the age he succeeded to the property. This is not an imaginary case, because within a few days of this Clause appearing on the Paper I received a letter from a gentleman who is tenant for life of settled property, and who said "I am by this put in a most unfortunate position. I succeeded at the age of about thirty to this settled estate, and I could have insured my life then at a comparatively low figure. I am now fifty-four years of age, and I cannot insure my life except at a premium more than double, which I cannot afford, to cover this."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: He has the capitalised value of the insurance premiums in his pocket.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not necessarily. That is not a fair view to take. That may have been spent on the estate or in any other way. He has had that income free to dispose of. So far as the estate is concerned, it cannot be covered against this duty on the same terms it would have been covered had this Clause been in existence at the

    581
    time he succeeded. May I put it to hon. Members from the point of view of those who are interested in settled property, a point of view which may, perhaps, be new to them. Those who own landed property do not look upon ownership in the same light as those who own personal property, or as being simply an individual matter. The family to which they belong, their predecessors, have owned that property, perhaps, for many generations They have a life interest in the property and desire to hand it down to future generations and to do their duty by it while they have it. They look upon a duty of this kind, not so much from the point of view of the way in which it hits the individual, but from its effect upon the property as a whole, and as a family possession. This is a blow at the property at every point. The object with which this insurance has been paid is to keep up the property. Those who have owned property under these terms look upon the claim of the estate to expenditure for maintenance as the first claim upon the income. Their own personal expenditure comes in after that.
    The effect upon these settled properties of this enormous increase in the duties, which has not been insured against, and, because this Clause was not in existence, could not be insured against at the time the Settlement Estate Duty was paid, is not so much to injure the particular individual who has to pay the tax, but to withdraw the life-blood of the property, and to preclude the next successor, who who will have to pay this enormous duty, from expending the necessary sums to maintain the necessary capital expenditure required by the property. Therefore, when you are doing this you are injuring not the individual only, but the property and everybody upon it, and you have not placed him in the same position, because he cannot insure on the same terms as he could before.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: He cannot eat his cake and have it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly not; but a man may eat his cake, and he was entitled to eat it, under the bargain he made with the State, and had the State not made a definite bargain with him to grasp his property he would not have eaten the cake. There is another effect of this which to my knowledge is occurring in actual practice.
    582
    Who do you think are going to suffer? The younger children of the tenants for life of settled property. The owners of settled property, who have been not eating their cake, but saving up out of their income some of the cake for the younger children, find that the bargain which they had made with the State is broken, and a very large sum will have to be paid by their successors. Under these circumstances, the successor will be unable to do his duty by the estate, and individuals in that position have actually altered their wills, and been obliged to do so, depriving their younger children of a large proportion of the savings which they had made for them, and devoting that money to enable the eldest son to do his duty by the property when he succeeds. This House is acting very unfairly towards individuals when it has franked the property. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument applies at all as to the right of the House to alter legislation. No one has contested it, and everyone will agree that when the State alters a rate of taxes, when a tariff is imposed or taken off or altered, all kinds of business and financial arrangements will be affected. People may complain, but there is no breach of a definite individual bargain or consideration of which money has been paid between the State and any individual. The case is absolutely different. Parliament always must have the absolute right to alter any taxation, whether to diminish it or to increase it, and cannot be hampered in that by the question of whether this or that particular individual interest is going to be prejudiced or benefited. I entirely admit that, but those alterations cannot be made retrospective in regard to definite bargains which the State has already entered into with individuals.
    If I wanted to reinforce that I have only to take a case in point of this very Clause, when in the Budget of 1909–10 the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the insurance rate from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. and did not make it retrospective. He did not say to the people who had made the bargain at 1 per cent.: "I am entitled to make you pay 2 per cent." He only said to those who had not entered into the bargain, "Those who make this bargain with the State will have to pay 2 per cent., and not 1 per cent." In that he

    583
    followed definite precedent that this kind of legislation cannot be retrospective, and that is the whole point of our bitter complaint. We do not approve of the extra burden put upon agriculture. I agree, not that there ought to be no burdens on agriculture, not that the burdens on agriculture or land or collieries ought not to be increased, but they ought to be equalised over the whole area, not that you should take this or that or the other tax, but taking the whole area of taxation, the burdens ought to be equally divided between one kind of property and another, and it is no justification of this tax to say that if you do not put it on, someone else will have to bear it, unless you can show that if other people had to bear it their total burden would then be greater in proportion to their ability to pay than that which is being paid.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is what the hon. Member who moved the omission of the Clause said.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. Member said. That is something very different. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as usual, misquoted the argument of his opponent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not wish to be offensive, but it is the case. It has been done over and over again. It is constantly done. [Interruption.] I do not wish to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attitude. I wish to be perfectly fair to him. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he?"] He said he had to go, and my hon. Friend referred to his necessary absence. I do not wish to complain of his absence, but I do complain that when he refers to arguments used he does not fairly repeat the phrases in which those arguments were put forward. I do appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House that it is not necessary for this tax to go back upon a bargain definitely made with individuals. I cannot, and nobody on this side of the House can, absolve any individual Member on the other side. Party loyalty does not justify this dishonest action, and every Member on that side who, after hearing this Debate, supports the Clause must know that he is supporting a de-
    584
    parture from honest principle, and supporting a precedent which this House may some day regret. It is one which, so far as I am aware, has no Parliamentary precedent.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) obviously thinks that this Clause is so easy of defence that five minutes is abundant time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who guillotined it?"]
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to speak. I am very sorry.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The hon. and gallant Member evidently thinks that five minutes is abundant time to answer the various arguments adduced against the Clause. I had the advantage of hearing the whole of the Debate, both in Committee and on Report, and I think the Debate to-night, with one or two exceptions, has been of great assistance in helping me to form my opinion on this Clause. I refer particularly to the speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment, and whose speeches travelled over new ground and gave new matters for reflection. I would like to say, if I may, with all respect, what a contrast it was to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) as compared with the violent and vituperative efforts of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans). There is one remarkable fact about this Debate, and that is that, with only one exception, no Member who has spoken on the other side of the House has suggested that the proposals we have made for replacing the duty and replacing the interest are not in themselves a fair and just equivalent for the protection which is now withdrawn. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not deal with it all. What he dealt with was the question that occupied the minds of most of the hon. Members opposite, namely, whether or not we are breaking a bargain, and not whether we are putting people back into the position in which they were before. This phrase about people breaking a bargain is, surely, one of the most misleading phrases ever used in regard to an alteration in an Act of Parliament.

    585
    The very essence of a bargain is that a man is at liberty to enter into, or to refuse to enter into it, as he pleases. The imposition of Estate Duty was rot optional, and the Settlement Estate Duty was not optional. Every settled property settled by the will of a person who died after 1894 was, whether he liked it or not, bound to pay the extra burden which the Settlement Estate Duty imposed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham gave an illustration of a case that could never arise, because he suggested that a man who was at liberty to make a settlement would there and then pay the Settlement Estate Duty, and by doing that would frank the settlement to the last hour when it existed. In point of fact, nothing of the kind exists, and the man making a settlement, whether he made it now or then, would never pay any Settlement Estate Duty at all, nor would he undertake to do it. The Settlement Estate Duty is only payable when death occurs under the settlement, or when a man by his will having disposed of his property, disposes of some, or the whole of it, by way of settling it. I do not want to make too much of this, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham could have given an illustration which I would be glad to give and deal with, if time permitted. The real thing is this. We are now readjusting the deduction which the Act of 1894 imposed,
    and we recognise that it is perfectly impossible when you are imposing or changing duties to depend upon the unforeseen and wholly immeasurable accident of death, and so when we impose them or change them there will always be inequalities as between man and man or between estate and estate. There must be irregularity, but what we submit is that as far as possible we have attempted by this Budget to do two things: to place settled and unsettled property upon the same footing—that is our avowed object, and it is one that we know is unpalatable to hon. Members opposite—and at the same time to prevent any person suffering any financial disadvantage from any payment of duty which was made at an earlier date.
    It being Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th July, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'estate' ["in cases where estate duty or any of the duties"], stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 197.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Dillon, John

    Adamson, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Doris, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Chapple, Dr. Wiliam Allen

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Armitage, Robert

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Clough, Wiliam

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Field, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Barnes, George N.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crooks, William

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Cullinan, John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Boland, John Plus

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Bowerman, Charles W.

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hancock, John George

    Middlebrook, William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rowlands, James

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Molloy, Michael

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morgan, George Hay

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morrell, Philip

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Muldoon, John

    Sheehy, David

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hinds, John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Shortt, Edward

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hedge, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Sutherland, John E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sutton, John E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Malley, William

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    King, Joseph

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pratt, J. W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Radford, George Heynes

    Wiles, Thomas

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, Michael

    Williamson, Sir Archibeld

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Donald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Yeo, Alfred William

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Manfield, Harry

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    William Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Meagher, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bird, Alfred

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Boyton, James

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Butcher, John George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Campion, W. R.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Dixon, C. H.

    Barnston, Harry

    Cassel, Felix

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Cave, George

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Fell, Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    588

    589

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

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

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Macmaster, Donald

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gretton, John

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

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Swift, Rigby

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Moore, William

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

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

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

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurenco

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

    Nield, Herbert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

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

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Horne, Edgar

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Quitter, Sir Wiliam Eley C.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Younger, Sir George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Keswick, Henry

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Royds and Mr. Fitzroy.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
    Amendments made: In paragraph (a), after the word "where," insert the words "before or after the passing of this Act"; after the word "Duty" ["where Estate Duty or any"], insert the words "has been paid"; after the word "have" ["have been paid"], insert the words "either before or after the passing of this Act"; after the word "paid" ["have been paid"], insert the words "or are payable."
    At the end of the Clause, add the words:
    "and, in addition, a sum equal to simple interest on the said amount of Settlement Estate Duty calculated at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, up to the date of the occasion, shall be paid to the several
    590
    persons, or their representatives, who would have been entitled to the income arising from that amount, if that amount had on the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, been added to the capital of the settled property, and shall be divided amongst those persons, or their representatives, according to the several interests they would have had in that income."
    After the words last inserted, add the words,
    "and (c) Section eleven of The Finance Act, 1900, as amended by section fifty-nine of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall not operate on any such surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition as is mentioned in the said Section eleven made by any person between the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, so as to make any Estate Duty payable on the death of that person which would not have been payable but for this Section."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

    Enactments Repealed.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Statutes Repealed.

    57 & 58 Vict. c. 30

    …

    The Finance Act, 1894

    Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section five; sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one.

    10 Edw. 7. c. 8.

    ..

    The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.

    Section fifty-four and the Second Schedule as respects persons dying after the fifteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen; Section sixty-seven; in sub-section (1) of Section sixty-nine the words "not exceeding in the case of land "one-eighth and in the case of houses "one-twelfth part of the duty of an "amount equal to the annual value."

    1 Geo. 5. c. 2.

    …

    The Revenue Act, 1911

    Section eleven.

    Amendment made: After the word "five" ["Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section five"], insert the words "in Section seventeen the words 'the rate of the Settlement Estate Duty where the property is settled shall be two per cent.'"—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday) and to be printed. [Bill 340.]

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    OXFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. (By Order.)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: This Bill raises a question of very great public importance. Although it may, in some ways, be a convenience to the Oxford Corporation, it is in other ways so much to the disadvantage of the public that the House, I feel, would be justified in refusing it a Third Reading. This is a Bill to ratify an agreement between the Oxford Electric Tramways and the Oxford Corporation. My point of objection is that this confers an entirely novel monopoly upon the Tramway Company—that of running an omnibus service for thirty-seven years. It is a very serious matter that the House should ratify an agreement of the kind, and I think we should hear from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has examined the Bill very carefully, the reasons that he thinks
    592
    would justify the House in passing such a Bill. I hope that he will give those reasons, and that he will show that this is not to be made in any way a precedent for other Bills. This Bill is objected to by a number of the citizens of Oxford, who would have lodged petitions against it had it not been that the Corporation had themselves lodged a petition against the Bill in its original form, which subsequently they withdrew, and at that date it was too late for any other party to lodge a petition against the Bill.
    In that way the Bill became an unopposed Bill. Although technically unopposed, it has aroused very considerable opposition in Oxford, for there are those there who consider that their interests have been handed over to a company for what is perhaps an inadequate consideration, and in any case for too long a period. The company already, by agreement, maintain the surface of the roads over which the tramways pass, the tram surface, and in addition pay £800 yearly to the rates. Under this present agreement they will continue to pay the £800, and they give the Corporation certain control in fixing the time-table and the routes. But they are relieved of a very serious obligation of reconstructing the tramways under conditions which have been made very difficult by changes since the Act of a few years ago. The company, therefore, are getting a very good bargain under this Bill, while the public are being bound for 37 years. I think the House ought to take the position that the Corporation has no right to bind posterity to that extent. It may

    593
    be said that the citizens of Oxford are responsible for this, because they have elected their Corporation. When they did so, they had no idea that this Bill was going to be brought forward. It has never been before the citizens of Oxford. It has been brought forward as a Company's Bill, not as a Corporation Bill; and therefore there was no opportunity for a poll of the citizens. I feel we shall be acting in the public interest if we refuse to pass the Bill because of the exceptional monopoly that it confers which is to the disadvantage of Oxford, and because it may be a very dangerous precedent for other cities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I shall occupy the time of the House for only a few moments whilst I put a point or two with reference to this Bill. I should myself feel very reluctant indeed to support any movement or Motion that interfered with the freedom of local authorities or their rights to govern themselves. But there are some very exceptional features in connection with this Bill which justify the interference of this House even at this late stage in the history of this Bill. We are asked to read, for the third time tonight, a Bill which is vitally different to that which was read a second time in this House without any opposition, because on the Second Reading of this Bill there was then no reference in it to the agreement which now appears in it. The Bill which we read a second time did not confer upon the Oxford Tramway Company a monopoly of running motor omnibuses for a period of thirty-seven years. That agreement appears for the first time in the Bill on this occasion, when we are asked to read it the third time. I desire very respectfully to submit to the House that this is a question which does not effect the city of Oxford alone, but raises a principle of public policy of the first importance. I desire to remind the House that this provision is contrary to the spirit of similar legislation so passed. I think we should search in vain for any parallel to this Bill, and it is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Police Clauses Act of 1847 and the Public Health Act of 1875, which secured freedom to municipalities from those monopolies by providing that licences should be issued for one year only.
    I therefore submit that this proposal in the Bill is contrary to public policy, and I desire to supplement the questions that
    594
    have been addressed to the Chairman of Ways and Means by asking him if he would be good enough to explain why this provision, granting a monopoly for thirty-seven years, now appears in the Bill for the first time. I think I am also right in saying there has been no opportunity of testing the feelings of the citizens of Oxford in this matter, because the Bill is not the Corporation's Bill and therefore there was no opportunity for a poll being taken. In view of the provision that now appears in the Bill there is a very strong movement of protest at Oxford, led, in part, by some of the most distinguished members of the University, and, in part, by some of the leading citizens in the city of Oxford. I desire, further, the remind the House that when this agreement was being discussed in the Town Council of Oxford a very serious division manifested itself with regard to the wisdom of granting this monopoly. In the division in the council as to whether this monopoly for thirty-seven years should be conferred or whether the monopoly should be granted from year to year only twenty-four members, out of a council numbering sixty, voted for the monopoly and nineteen members voted against the monopoly for thirty-seven years. It is well for us therefore to take note of the fact that this Bill comes to us with the most determined opposition from the city of Oxford, and I feel, in view of the principle of public policy which is raised, that I am justified in moving the rejection of the Bill.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Viscount VALENTIA: This Bill seems of such a domestic character that it is almost unnecessary that it should occupy very much discussion. The question of tramways in Oxford has been before the Corporation of the city for the last ten years. Various systems have been suggested, but all of them have failed, and at last it is clearly the wish not only of the Corporation but also of the citizens of Oxford that they should have a new form of transit, and that form should be motor omnibuses. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) spoke of the opposition there was to the agreement in this Bill from the city of Oxford. I have the honour of representing the city of Oxford and I am constantly there, and I must say that I have not discovered that there is any very serious opposition to this Bill. Within the last three weeks an expression of opposition has come from Professor

    595
    Geldart, a distinguished member of the University who is about the only person who has expressed any strong opposition, but even he has no sympathy for the tramway system, and he has signed the petition in favour of the motor omnibuses.
    The agreement, so far from being against the interests of Oxford and too much in favour of the Tramways Company, I should say is favourable to the city of Oxford and gives no advantages to the Tramways Company. The agreement in the schedule was drawn up by counsel employed by the City Corporation of Oxford and it was presented to the Tramways Company with a notice that no alteration would be accepted in it. It is favourable to the city which secures adequate payment on the part of the Tramways Company who hand over the tramways free of cost to the Corporation, who will restore the roads. There axe conditions as to routes, fares and stopping places and half rates for labourers going to and from their work. It is true that the agreement is a long one, but considering the obligations and the liabilities of the Tramways Company and the amount of money spent on their part some consideration is due to them in making an agreement such as this, and we are giving them a sufficiently long term to recoup themselves for their large outlay for starting motor omnibuses in the present form. They are paying an adequate price to the city. The scheme was carried by a large majority in the council and it has the consent of a large majority of the ratepayers of Oxford. Professor Geldart, in a report on the agreement between the City Corporation and the Tramways Company, says that the company will not be under any obligation to pay rent or rates in respect of the tramways for the maintenance of the surface of the roads. That certainly is not the case, as the company have undertaken to pay £800 a year, the same payment that they now make.
    The agreement provides for a most adequate service of omnibuses along routes in Oxford, many of which do not pay and are not likely to pay to any extent. The agreement prescribes a time-table, settles fares, allows workmen to travel at ½d. per mile, and generally exercises a control over the whole service set up by the promoters. Both the citizens and members of the University are desirous of being rid of the tramways question and of the tramways
    596
    themselves, and are to-day almost unanimously in favour of a service of motor omnibuses. The rejection of this Bill on Third Heading to-night would mean a considerable loss of money, not only to the company but also to the city of Oxford, and would lead to the introduction of a new Bill next year and put both parties to the agreement to perfectly unnecessary expense. It has been examined by a Committee of this House and it has passed with only a very slight Amendment. It is usual for this House to support its Committees when a Bill comes up for Third Heading, and I hope the practice will be adhered to on this occasion.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I have been appealed to by one or two Members who have spoken, and I do not like the House to proceed to a Division without answering the points, if I may be permitted to do so, which have been put to me. This Bill came before me as Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee after a petition had been withdrawn and the City Corporation and the company had come to terms. When the Bill first came before the Committee, we did not like the agreement as it stood, and we made suggestions for an improvement in it in the interests of the Oxford Corporation and the city of Oxford. Both sides agreed that those alterations should be made, and, after the proposals had been carefully examined, the Committee was unanimous in passing the Bill and reporting it to the House for Third Heading. The hon. Member asked me the opinion of the Committee as to the period of thirty-seven years, which I understand is the point to which most objection is taken. That naturally was a point to which the Committee directed its chief attention, and the Committee passed it, for this reason. It is hardly correct to say that anything in the nature of a thirty-seven years' monopoly is imposed by the Bill, for the City Corporation gets a control over the motor omnibus service in their city through this Bill which no other town in the country has at present.
    I should like to see a good many other towns in as favourable a position. They have secured powers as to prescribing routes and stopping places, the nature of the cars, time-tables, the times at which cars shall run, and very favourable conditions indeed as regards workmen's cars at half fares. They can also insist on the company covering routes which may not

    597
    in themselves pay, but which may pay when merged in the system as a whole. Further, the Corporation can terminate this agreement at any time if these conditions are not fulfilled. To those who are in favour of municipalisation I can only say that this is the next best thing to municipalisation that I have ever come across. I may add that when the Oxford Corporation had before it a scheme of municipalisation it was unfortunately thrown out on a poll of the ratepayers by a huge majority. The Committee of this House which examined this Bill was unanimous in its favourable decision upon it, and I think the House will now do well to give it a Third Reading. Reference has been made to the numbers voting in a certain division in the city council itself. On that point I would say it is not for this House to revise an act of local government unless we are convinced that the local governing body has done something flagrantly wrong. We have given them duties to carry out and ought to respect their decisions even if
    they are come to by only small majorities, because it is for the people in the minority to convert the majority. I may say further that I think the division the hon. Member referred to was taken on the agreement in its unrevised form and not in the favourable form in which it is now presented to the House.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should like to ask whether the Oxford Corporation will be entitled to license other motor buses, if application is made, to run within the city boundaries during the term of thirty-seven years?
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Not unless these people fail with some of the conditions that have been laid down. When that happens of course the Corporation can.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 85.

    Division No. 198.]

    AYES.

    [11.40 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

    Hinds, John

    Armitage, Robert

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dowar, Sir J. A.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Dillon, John

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Doris, William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Barnston, Harry

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kelly, Edward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Field, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Bowden, G R. Harland

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Boyton, James

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Butcher, John George

    Gretton, John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Cave, George

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gulland, John William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Manfield, Harry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Clough, William

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Meagher, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

    Molloy, Michael

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Crumley, Patrick

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Muldoon, John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tryon, George Clement

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Nield, Herbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Watson, Hon. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Webb, H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Royds, Edmund

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

    O'Malley, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesborough)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Starkey, John R.

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Worthington Evans, L.

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Pryce-James, Colonel E.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Valentia and Mr. Fiennes.

    Reddy, Michael

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Adamson, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Hodge, John

    Rowlands, James

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Barnes, George N.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sheehy, David

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Joyce, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Chapple, Dr. William Alien

    King, Joseph

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Clynes, John R.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Crooks, William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Cullinan, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Delany, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duffy, William J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Hancock, John George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Radford, G. H.

    Whitehouse and Mr. C. Duncan.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Question put, and agreed to.

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT [RECOMMITTED] BILL.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT [RECOMMITTED] BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Incorporation of Lands Clauses Acts.).
    2.—(1) The Lands Clauses Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be
    600
    incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:—

    (a) The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to Land Tax and Poor Rate), shall not be incorporated with this Act:

    (b) In the construction of the Acts incorporated with this Act the Council shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act:

    601

    (c) All claims for compensation made upon the Council under this Act, or any Act incorporated with this Act, shall, if the person claiming has no greater interest in the land in respect of which compensation is claimed than as tenant from year to year or as a leaseholder for any term of which not more than eighteen months remain unexpired at the time at which the claim is made, be determined in manner provided by Section one hundred and twenty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845:

    (d) In settling any question of disputed purchase money or compensation under this Act the court or person settling the same shall not award any sum of money for or in respect of any improvement, alteration, or building made or erected, or for or in respect of any interest in the lands created, after the twenty-ninth day of July nineteen hundred and thirteen, if, in the opinion of such court or person, the improvement, alteration, or building, or the creation of the interest in respect of which the claim is made, was not reasonably necessary and was made or created with a view to obtaining or increasing compensation under this Act

    (2) The powers of the Council for the compulsory purchase of lands under this Act shall cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    The object of the Amendment is to say that the work is to be carried out in two years instead of three. It is a small Amendment, but I hope my hon. Friend can see his way to meet me upon that point.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I cannot promise to take the Amendment here, but I undertake that it shall be very favourably considered when the Bill reaches another place.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  COUNTY TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  FEUDAL CASUALTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro) rose.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."
  Mr. BOOTH: I object to legislation passing without at least getting some explanation of what it is about.
  Mr. MUNRO: This Bill was introduced last year in a very similar form by my predecessor in office, and having been introduced and read a first time was printed and circulated. It was then considered by practically all the important legal societies in Scotland. Representations were made by these various bodies. They were submitted to the representative Committee from whom the Bill originated and so far as the Committee thought proper, effect was given to these representations. The Bill comes before the House now, not merely with the Scottish Office at its back, but also with the imprimatur practically of all the legal societies of importance in Scotland who have considered the matter. According to the strict feudal law no transmission of a feu in Scotland was possible without the consent of the superior of the feu. That was relaxed by a series of statutes and the superior became bound to receive a new proprietor of the feu on payment of a certain fine. The amount of that fine or price was what is called in Scottish law composition. Composition represents a year's rent of the subject, subject to certain deductions. This arrangement was found very difficult, and it was unpopular with the proprietors of the feus. Accordingly, in an Act of 1874, a certain amount of relief was afforded

  603
  both to the superior and also to the proprietor; but there was no compulsion in that Act. The purpose of this Bill is to engraft upon the existing law of Scotland a scheme for the compulsory and equitable extinction of casualties, and that within a reasonable time. To do that a scheme has been devised which will operate automatically, but at the same time I think quite fairly and at a minimum of expense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] As the extinction is compulsory it has been thought proper to compensate the parties. The principle of compensation follows the principle of the Acts of Parliament which have preceded this Bill, and it will be found in Committee that that principle operates fairly from the point of view of the superior and the point of view of the proprietor.

  WINE PRIVILEGES (DISCONTINUANCE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  BURGHS REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    BUCKINGHAM PALACE CONFERENCE.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to raise a question arising out of some answers of the Prime Minister this afternoon to which I think I can refer without touching on the subject matter of the Conference, on which the questions arose. The reason why I want to raise it principally is that I think after all the Private Member of this House is entitled to a little more information about what is arranged either by our own
    604
    Front or between our own Front Bench and the Front Bench opposite. I should like to call the attention of those in charge of business that when the original statement was made to this House it was made in such a way that no discussion could arise upon it, and only questions could be put, which of course could be closed down by yourself, Sir, going on to other business. I do not object to that: I think that is a form of the House that can be used. But I want to point out that it prevented us at that moment from discussing the particular point.
    The second point I have to raise is this: Members of this House know that the question was with regard to the publication of facts in particular newspapers. I do not mind how they got the information. It may have been by a newspaper coup, or it may have been given away. That does not concern me. But what does concern me is that I have yet to know, and this House has yet to know who are the Members who are attending that Conference. In so far as I have been able to ascertain, all the information that I can glean is from the columns of the daily newspapers, and from illustrations which appear in the halfpenny illustrated papers, presumably gleaned at the gates of Buckingham Palace. I do think that we are entitled to obtain our information in some other way, and to know, from the Prime Minister, who is attending that Conference. I put a question to the Prime Minister to-day as to whether those attending that Conference had laid down any conditions as to what position they should take up in entering upon the Conference. The Prime Minister said he could not say. Apparently he could say with regard to a good many other things, and I do not know why we should not be told whether the Conference is being held unconditionally or under certain conditions.
    I wish to protest as a private Member of this House that we should get our information with regard to those who are attending this Conference from the columns of the newspapers, and no responsible Minister has yet told us who are attending that Conference. There is no record of it or any record I know of in this House of Commons, and I think we are entitled to take note of the fact. I also asked the Prime Minister why it was being held in Buckingham Palace. I put that question because this House in which we sit is also a Royal Palace, and as this Conference is composed of Members of the House of

    605
    Lords and of the House of Commons, I should have thought seeing that it differed from all other kinds of Conferences, with you, Sir, presiding at that Conference, that it would be much more appropriate that it should have been dissociated altogether from the domestic Palace in which it is being held, and held in this Palace where I think it is fitting all such Conferences should be held. The fourth point, and the last, I want to make is that the Prime Minister told us from the Front Bench this afternoon that he assumes all responsibility for the Speech which has appeared in the Press. I want to be quite clear about that. I do not want to elaborate on that point to-night because presumably at some other period we shall have the opportunity of discussing the whole affair, but the Prime Minister made it quite clear that it was by the unanimous vote of the Conference that that Speech was published.
    I should like to know if the Cabinet itself considered that Speech, and approved of it being published or whether the publication depended entirely upon the unanimous vote of the Conference, which is not the Cabinet, and which does not represent all the opinion in this House, and which contains Members of whom we entertain different opinions. I want to be quite clear that at the present moment the Cabinet has not allowed this Conference to supersede it in directing those in authority as to their position on the Irish Home Rule Bill. I think those are questions which a Private Member is entitled to have answered. I do not mind the Prime Minister saying that he was not going to be here to-night. He is a very hard worked man at present, a man who has a great many responsibilities, and do not complain of his absence, but probably somebody else on the Front Bench can reply on these points. I should like to emphasise that a great deal of the misconstruction and misconception arising on these points would be cleared up if the private Member in this House was taken more, not into confidence, but at any rate given the information to which they are entitled as Members of this House from that Front Bench, and these questions would not require to be put. I do not want to say more than that. I think the House will agree I have carefully avoided raising the issue of the Conference, and that nothing I have said in these remarks can in anyway be deemed to be interfering in any sense with what is going on, but is simply an attempt to assert the right of the
    606
    Private Member to information so far as it can be given on those important points.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I will make it my business to convey to the Prime Minister the effect of of what my hon. Friend has said to-night. My hon. Friend is aware that the Prime Minister could not be here, and he will realise that it is for the Prime Minister himself to deal with the matters to which he has called attention. I do not think it can fairly be said that the Prime Minister does not make every effort to give all reasonable information to the House on matters which it is proper for the House to know, and I feel certain that anything the Prime Minister can properly add to what, he said at question time will be in due course added. He stated that there was nothing that he could add at the moment, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the Prime Minister would not have said that unless he had good reason to do so.

  CROWN PROPERTY (COTTAGES).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to call attention to another subject, of which I gave notice at Questions to-day, namely, to call attention to the unsatisfactory condition of certain cottages on Crown property. It is a question of considerable importance, and the answers of the President of the Board of Agriculture were of a very unsatisfactory character, because in his reply to me to-day he said that there was no need of intervention by a Government inspector. I should like rather to amplify the condition of the particular cottage to which I called attention. In this particular cottage there is no through ventilation of any kind. The walls are covered with black damp, and there is no staircase and a step-ladder leads up to what is called the sleeping accommodation. There is no closet of any sort, either inside or outside the house. The only convenience is a chair or a sort of night-commode in the kitchen. That is a most unsatisfactory and insanitary state of affairs. I can vouch for the truth of this statement, because I sent a gentleman to the place, and he told me that the condition is as bad as it can possibly be. Such a cottage is absolutely unfit for human habitation. One agricultural labourer told the gentleman whom I sent over that when he was a lad this cottage used to be a pig-sty. He added that it was only fit for pigs to live in at present, and that Lloyd George ought

  607
  to know about it. There is another cottage on the same farm in nearly as bad a condition. The only thing that can possibly be done with cottages in this condition, and what any private owner would be compelled to do, is to pull them down and build up-to-date cottages. When I asked that a Government inspector should be sent down, I do not think I was asking too much. There ought to be some sort of inspection of these cottages. It seems to me a wrong principle that Crown property should not be subject to exactly the same conditions as apply to the property of private owners in this respect. Crown property does not come under the sanitary by-laws, and no sanitary inspector can enter it. That is manifestly wrong. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to place all these cottages under the control of the local authority, whether it is the county council or the rural council. The Government are bringing in a Bill on Friday dealing with the housing of the working classes, and I would urge them immediately to set to work to put their own house in order.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, in the first place, that these cottages should be open to inspection. I informed him at question time that the whole of the cottages had been inspected more than once already this year by the Crown Receiver. The Crown Receivers are men who are experienced Government inspectors. They apply to these cottage not only the standard of the local authorities but a standard very much higher. I have not been able to identify the cottage to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I must repeat what I said at question time that the whole of the buildings on this farm have gone into a bad state of repair during the tenancy of the recent tenant. He went into bankruptcy, and his affairs have been a source of considerable trouble to the Crown. During the time he held these buildings the Crown expended a good deal of money on them. He held them under a repairing lease. The Crown from time to time had them inspected, and most of them had been kept well in repair.
  But the cottage that the hon. Member referred to had been empty for some time, and is now empty. From his description of it one might imagine that it had been occupied by human beings.
  608
  Nothing of the kind! It is not meant to be so occupied. It has been kept empty during the time that arrangements have been made for its entire reconstruction. Long before the hon. Gentleman took up the case the matter had been discussed, and we had decided to do these repairs that, according to the description of the hon. Gentleman, are obviously necessary. A new staircase and scullery was to be added, new floors, new fireplaces had to be fitted into every room, there were to be new partitions, new windows of a much larger size—we were practically reconstructing the whole place! I think the hon. Gentleman can have no complaint to make either against the Department or the Crown Receiver, for they are making a thorough good job of a rotten place. The hon. Member never gave me the name of the cottage, but I have given him the worst cottage on the whole estate, and have told him what we are doing. He also complained of another cottage, and here also he did not give the name.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: It is on the same farm.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only other cottage on the same farm which is not provided with three bedrooms, and is in a similar condition to the first, is one which I understand is on what used to be called the Old Farm House.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: That is the one.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: When that came into our hands we found that it was not in good order. As soon as the tenants went out I ordered—on the report I had got—the following repairs: Five new windows to be fitted, repairs upon the plaster, provision of an extra earth-closet, etc. That covers both the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that after a detailed examination of the whole of the cottages on this estate—and there are a large number—there is not one of them which would not be a credit to the most benevolent landlord. Under the circumstances I think he has not been very well advised to take the instances he has as proof of bad Government management. In conclusion, I would say that the standards up to which the cottages are kept on the Crown estates in every case exceeds those which are required by the local authorities. We have had a Return made under the direction of the Crown Receivers of every cottage on Crown properties. We have gone through it carefully,

  609
  not only with the idea of examining into its condition, but of seeing how far those who live there are provided with sufficient space. We have in some case made rearrangements, and we have prevented some of the tenants taking in lodgers where there could be no provision for lodgers. We have done everything we could to see that the accommodation provided for them is properly used. I venture to say there are no set of cottages covering a very large area that could compare favourably with those Crown cottages. They certainly do no discredit to the Crown Receivers, who have carried out their work admirably.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to assure the House that the Crown is doing its duty as landlord. I also think the prima facie case produced by my hon. Friend is one well worthy of the consideration of the House. The conditions described was one that called for grave suspicion and consideration on the part of those who have housing in the country at heart. There is one matter about which I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I understand, according to his statement now, that the Crown is not subject to, as I thought was the case, to the ordinary sanitary laws of the country on the general principle that the Crown is not bound by Statute unless expressly named therein in these circumstances I fail to understand the answer he gave me at question time. I asked him if that was so, and he replied the Crown was subject to the laws and customs that affected property belonging to private individuals.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure I did not say that; it is not the case. What I did say was we did comply with the hygienic requirements—that was the phrase used by the Noble Lord himself—and in most cases exceeded these requirements.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard me. I did say hygienic law, but he said the Crown was subject to all the laws and customs. I am sorry to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, and he will not misunderstand me when I say he used the phrase, as he will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, "All the laws and customs." He may have used it unintentionally and did not moan to assert it, and indeed it is not the case. Of course, I accept his statement. But it is a matter of very serious consideration that that condition of affairs should continue to exist. The right hon. Gen-
  610
  tleman assures us, and we accept his word, that the present condition of the cottages of the Crown are satisfactory. Of course, he does not know personally; he has to rely upon the reports of his officials. I am sure they are excellent officials, but at the same time it is not a satisfactory state of things. The whole principle of our sanitary laws is that it is in the interest of the public as well as of the individual occupier that the cottage should be kept in a proper sanitary condition, and we have given the sanitary authorities certainly very extreme powers to see that sanitary conditions are properly observed. You may have a careless receiver—I am not in the least suggesting anything against the present receivers—you may have a corrupt receiver. Such things must happen as long as human beings are human beings. Under these circumstances it would be more satisfying if Crown property was subject to the ordinary sanitary laws and sanitary inspection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that. I do not think it would be possible to make that change in the Housing Bill, but I hope he will consider in future legislation that that change should be introduced. If my hon. Friend has done no other good he has done great service in calling the attention of the House to that condition of the law.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to thank the hon. Member for Holderness for bringing this question forward. I heard the answer given by my right hon. Friend and I do not think he quite meant what he said. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's intention was to state that in the management of their estates they tried to comply with the same regulations of the local authorities which were applied to private landowners. I remember a case in which the Earl of Ellesmere had some alterations to make in an old house, and I discovered that he did not need to submit his plans to the local authority. But although the Earl of Ellesmere was not compelled to submit those plans ho did submit them, although legally and technically the local authority could not have asked for them. That was the way his lordship treated a humble district council. I am sorry to say that I do not think local authorities always receive that consideration in these matters which private owners invariably show towards them.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Twelve a.m. Thursday, 23rd July.

  Drainage Boards (Ireland).
  Drainage Boards (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Act.
  Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Act.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
  ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
  East and South African Protectorates (Fair-Wages Clause).
  East and South African Protectorates (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Main Roads Expenditure.
  Main Roads Expenditure.
  Out-door Relief, West Ham.
  Out-door Relief, West Ham.
  Delayed Telegram.
  Delayed Telegram.
  Light Horse Breeding Abroad.
  Light Horse Breeding Abroad.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ISLE OF THANET GAS BILL.
CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

NORTHWICH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
WADHURST AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported, with amendments.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 22) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow
SOUTHEND GAS BILL.
BRECON AND MERTHYR TYDFIL JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment; and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSOLIDATION BILL.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL. (No. 185.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 23) BILL. (No. 186.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed: and referred to the Examiners.
BEIRA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
SKEGNESS GAS BILL.[H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
To be read 2ª To-morrow (The Earl Beauchamp).
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2ª on Wednesday next.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 25th day of June next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill he now read 2ª; agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Deal Order.

ADMINISTRATION OF LAND IN SCOTLAND.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the Annual Reports of the Scottish Land Court and of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and to move—
"That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have now had more than two years experience of the Scottish Small Landholders Act, 1911, and a great deal has taken place under its provisions. There has been a very great deal of litigation and of cost both to the public and to private individuals, and many things have happened which I think I shall be able to show your Lordships require that there should be some inquiry into the administration of the Act. Your Lordships will remember the principle of the Scottish Small Landholders Act. It was to take away small holdings in Scotland up to £50 from the management of private owners and to place them under the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture, which were constituted by the Act—in other words, to administer all Scotland under £50 by means of a central authority. This question is not merely a Scottish question. It interests every part of Great Britain, because, as your Lordships know, the Government have announced their intention at no distant date of proposing a Land Court and similar administration
60
for England, and not merely for holdings of £50 but for all holdings of every kind, and that, of course, would extend also over Scotland.
The appointments to be made under the Small Landholders Act were, of course, of the very first importance; it was necessary that those appointments should be filled by persons perfectly impartial, who had not in any way committed themselves to extreme views, and certainly who were not attached to any political party. As the Act was passing through this House Lord Pentland, who at that time was Secretary for Scotland, was warned over and over again by many noble Lords that the working of the Act and the amount of public confidence which it obtained would materially depend upon the character and the antecedents of the persons who were appointed. Lord Pentland promised us over and over again that his Land Court should be a thoroughly impartial and independent Court. He said that it would consist of skilled agriculturists, of valuers, of people who were acquainted with such subjects as what a fair rent should be and what compensation there should be for taking this or that bit of land.
How were those promises fulfilled? We know that the gentleman whom he appointed as head of the Land Court and to whom he gave the position of a Judge was a person who had expressed very decided views with regard to land questions. He had expressed them before and he has expressed them since his appointment. Of the other four members of the Court, we know that three were persons of Radical opinions politically and that they were all persons who held very advanced opinions on the question of land. They proceeded to discharge their duties. The powers which were placed in the hands of the Land Court were unheard of up to that time; they were very large indeed. In the first place, the Land Court decides all questions of fact and there is no appeal. On this point those of your Lordships who have looked at the records will have seen that there were complaints both of the way in which the evidence was received and also of the decisions of the Court. Your Lordships know, in dealing with land, that if you wish to be successful you cannot merely attempt to manage it by the words of a

61
Statute. The persons who carry on the administration must be possessed of practical knowledge and of common sense.
I am not going to-day to deal with individual cases, because I think individual cases are very often matters of argument. I am going to deal with actual facts as they have occurred and not make many criticisms of my own upon them. Let me give you an instance in which, in my opinion, the. Court displayed what I may call a want of common sense in dealing with the question. There are a species of allotments familiar to Scotland which are known as lotted lands. Those lands were allotments let in connection with particular houses. They were voluntary allotments, and were intended, as everybody knows, for the use of the occupiers of the houses. But in a strict technical sense lotted lands came within the provisions of the Small Landholders Act and in that case the Land Court held that they were to be dealt with as if they were statutory holdings. The result is that owing to these decisions the possession of the land has in ninny cases been separated from the inhabitancy of the house. The intention was, of course, that this so-called lotted land was to be a sort of convenience to the inhabitant of the house, and the understanding and practice which prevailed up to that time wits that when the man gave up his house he gave up the lotted land at the same moment. But the Court dealt with this matter in a different way. W hat is the result? In the first place these lotted lands will naturally disappear, because no one will create more lotted lands simply to place them at the disposal of the Land Court to be managed in any way that the Court sees fit.
Then there was another question. I am going to mention to your Lordships two cases. I only mention these cases because they are finished cases; they have been actually decided by the Court of Session on appeal. The first is the case of a man who lived near Polmont Junction, not far from Edinburgh. He possessed a small farm that he had bought from Lord Zetland, which had been in the possession of his family as tenants for many years, and on which he intended to end his days. He was a carpenter, engaged, I believe, at Falkirk, and he wished to follow his occupation for a few
62
years more. In these circumstances he let this farm to a tenant for a period of six years at a rent, which was agreed between them, of £45. When the time came to give notice of the expiry of the tenancy, this man gave the tenant notice. The tenant appealed to the Land Court, and the Land Court—your Lordships will find it at page 187 of the Report of the Land Court—held that although the lease had expired, yet the man was a statutory tenant and was entitled to a further period, and they fixed that period for two years longer, although they said that the rent for this prolonged period was to be £25 instead of £45. They gave this reason. They said—
"Resumption of an entire holding at a short date has never yet hem authorised."
That was in face of a specific lease for six years, for a purpose of which both landlord and tenant were quite aware. The Land Court go on to say—
"In the whole circumstances of the present case we think it would not be equitable to authorise resumption earlier than Whitsunday, 1911. As regards the landlord, there is no urgency for resumption."
That case was appealed against and was taken to the Court of Session, and the Court of Session decided that this action of the Land Court was wrong from the very beginning and the decision was reversed.
There is another case which happened just lately, that of Shepherd v. Yool. Your Lordships will find it at page 135 of the Report of the Laud Court. The tenant held a mill and land. The rent of the mill was larger than the rent of the land. He appealed to the Land Court on the ground that he was a statutory tenant because he held the land, and the Court decided that the use of the mill, although the rent of the mill was greater, was ancillary and supplementary to the use of the land, and therefore they made him a statutory tenant. That case was taken on appeal to the Court of Session, Lord Strathclyde, the present Lord President, presiding. The Court decided that that decision, too, was entirely wrong. So much, my Lords, for the first duty of the Land Court with regard to matters of fact, involving to a certain extent matters of law.
The next duty of the Land Court is to fix fair rents and to revalue rents at the expiry of what is known as the septennial

63
period—that is, the period for which the rent had been fixed by the Court before. First they have to fix fair rents—that is to say, for persons who apply on the first occasion to the Court to fix a fair rent. These transactions which I am mentioning now took place in the year 1913. The total number of first fair rents fixed was 525. Of these they reduced 507; they left unaltered 16; and they increased two. This is stated at page xxxiii. They say—
"The old rents of these holdings … amounted to £5,398, and the fair rents to £3,515, the reduction being thus almost 35 per cent. The arrears dealt with amounted to £1,407. Of this sum we cancelled £1,029, a little over 73 per cent., and ordered the balance of £378 to be paid."
That is what they did with regard to first fair rents.
The Court was also called upon to revalue rents which had been fixed by the Crofters Commission seven years before, and I may remind your Lordships that Lord Kennedy himself was chairman of the Crofters Commission. What did the Land Court do there? In regard to revaluations, the total number of rents fixed was 556. The number of rents which they reduced was 502; the number of rents unaltered was 51, and the number of rents increased was three. And your Lordships will remember that those rents had been fixed by a public authority seven years before. During those seven years the prices of all agricultural produce had risen, as we know; yet the Land Court revised their former findings—because, after all, the Land Court is only the continuation of the Crofters Commission—and reduced the rents which they formerly fixed. This is the way in which they describe it—your Lordships will find this also at page xxxiii—
"We revalued on the expiry of a septennial period 527 holdings in the seven crofting counties."
Of course, it could be only in the seven crating counties, because the former Act extended only to crofter counties and not to the whole of Scotland. They proceed—
"The old rents of these holdings amounted to £3,187, and the first fair rents as fixed in various years by the Crofters Commission to £2,544. We made further reductions in these cases and fixed the new fair rents at £2,096, being a reduction of 17½per cent. on the first fair rents."
64
For those decisions and the principle upon which those rents were fixed there is no vestige of a reason given. I must say that this is really placing the whole country in the hands of five men as against whom there is no appeal whatsoever, and who do not even consider themselves obliged to state the principles on which they act.
But there is another form of rent which they were entitled to fix—namely, what is known as equitable rents. These were the rents paid by persons who in Scotland are called statutory tenants, and who. I may explain, are really the present tenants but whose rents were also to be submitted to this Court. But when the Act was passed there was this distinction made with regard to equitable rents. So far as fair reins and the revaluation of rents were concerned there were no directions given to the Court at all, but in this case of equitable rents there was a very distinct direction, which I will read to your Lordships—
"In determining the rent the Land Court shall, so far as practicable, act on their own knowledge and experience, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, including the rent at which the holding has been let, the proposed conditions of the renewed tenancy, the improvements made by the landlord and tenant respectively, and the then condition and value of such improvements: and shall fix as the rent to be paid by the tenant the rent which, in their opinion, would be an equitable rent for the holding between the landlord and the tenant as a willing lessor and a willing lessee."
That, so far as words can go, appears to me to be a direction to the Land Court that it was to be a fair rent in the ordinary market sense of the term. But what has happened? The Court have ignored this altogether. They have treated equitable rents in exactly the same way as they have treated fair rents and revalued rents, and the result has been this. Of first equitable rents the number dealt with was 175. Of these they reduced 164; they left unaltered eight; and they increased three. And when I say they increased three, I am bound to point out that the highest increase throughout the whole of these figures was £5 and in some of the other cases only a few shillings. This is the same thing expressed in money. They say—
"The old rents of these holdings amounted to £3,307, and the first equitable rents to £2,447, a reduction of almost 26 per cent."

65
That represents the whole of the dealings of the Land Court with rents up to the present time, and unless Parliament intends that absolute despotic and uncontrolled power is to be given to five men to fix rents at any figure they choose, there ought to be some inquiry as to the principles on which this Court proceeds. I should have thought that they themselves would proprio motu have given some account of their proceedings.
I pass from the Land Court to the Board of Agriculture. The duty of the Board of Agriculture is, under the Act, to create and equip new holdings and enlargements of existing holdings. Their duty, as laid down by the Act, is in short this—to prepare a scheme, a full and definite scheme, to submit it to the owner of the land, and, if they cannot arrive at an agreement with him, then to apply to the Court for an order to take compulsory possession. How has this been performed? Nearly all the schemes have been without details and indefinite. When persons whose property has been affected have asked for information it has been refused. I know a case in which the Board volunteered in the first instance to give information, but they did not send it. Then when it was asked for they hesitated, and finally they said they were not going to give information as to the applicants and so on, of which they said they had a full list, but I have good reason to know that they had nothing of the kind. They said they would not give the information because they did not think the owner was friendly to themselves.
With regard to this, I cannot do better than read to your Lordships the statement of the Land Court with regard to these schemes. I forgot to say to your Lordships that the Land Court is to act in these cases as a Court of Appeal between the Board and the persons with whom they have any dispute. If your Lordships will look at page xxx of the Report of the Land Court you will see this—
"Much of our time during the year has been devoted to the disposal of applications at the instance of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
They go on to say that they had a large number of applications, and they proceed—
"The preparation of such a large number of applications necessarily involves much labour, and not a few of the schemes show that they were prepared without sufficient consideration
66
of details. We receive an application for a compulsory order to constitute so many holdings. When the case is heard the promoters present an amended scheme, the number of holdings being reduced or increased according to circumstances, and the boundaries as shown on the original plan materially altered. Further alterations are frequently suggested or required by the evidence led in course of the hearing or at the inspection, and every substantial alteration of this kind or transformation of a scheme necessitates the preparation of a new plan. We were much hampered in our work for the want of plans arising from this cause, and several large schemes which were ready for disposal at the end of last year had to be carried forward for want of receiving amended plans. Much time was also devoted to schemes involving only one or two new holdings or one or two enlargements. These small schemes often raised as much opposition as schemes for a whole farm might raise, while the claims for damage alleged to be caused by these small schemes, if carried out, are often out of all proportion to their utility—"
No truer words, my Lords, were ever written—
"Even if carried out, there is no appreciable addition made to the number of small holdings by such schemes."
But that is not all. Listen to what they go on to say—this is at the bottom of page xxxi—
"We do not know, however, how many of these schemes will be carried out."
They proceed to mention one on a farm in the County of Argyll, and they say—
"The case was called at three different diets of hearing. It was warmly advocated by the Board, and as warmly opposed by the proprietor, Mr. T. M. Macdonald. We inspected the farm, and after full consideration we issued an order authorising the constitution of four new holdings… It was afterwards intimated to us that the scheme had been dropped."
Just think what an amount of money has been wasted both for the public and for this unfortunate private individual; and yet the Board, at the time when they were pressing this scheme, did not even know whether they were going to carry it out. But what their reason may have been for not carrying it out I do not know.
Surely your Lordships will be of opinion that there really ought to be some inquiry. In the first place, the amount of litigation under this Act is endless. And what is the reason for the greater part of the litigation? It is this. Under the Act of 1897, which was a voluntary Act, many proprietors in the Highlands did their best to act in concert with the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board. The result

67
was that there were many schemes made which, when they came to be worked out, have proved to be utter failures, as I have on several occasions had to point out to your Lordships. When those proprietors are told that a large proportion of their remaining land is to be taken and to be turned into more of these settlements, is it reasonable to suppose that any set of men would be in favour of such a scheme or that they would not oppose it to the utmost of their power?
Take the case of the Lews. At the present time the greater part of the Lews is in small holdings, and the Board have applied for—I have not with me the exact figures—something between 20,000 and 30,000 acres more to be cut up into small holdings. At the present time that land is some of the only land which produces any rent, and if that land is cut up the number of small holders will be greatly increased, the rates will be enormously increased, and the rateable value of the island will become so much less. Can any of your Lordships wonder that the unfortunate Major Matheson, who in past days did so much to facilitate the operations of the Crofters Commission, has been absolutely driven for self-preservation to oppose any extension of these schemes? Further than that, there is the cost of these schemes. I am not aware that there is any check of any kind or sort upon the Board with regard to the schemes that they put forward. I do not know what means they take, or whether they take any means—I shrewdly suspect they do not—to ascertain or even to make an estimate of what the scheme is likely to cost. The result has been, as I will show your Lordships in a minute, that the cost of many of these schemes has been out of all proportion to the benefit which could possibly be received.
When an order has been made and the land is to be taken, then conies the question, What is the compensation to be paid? The compensation in all cases of reasonable size has to be paid in the fairest manner that you can possibly conceive—namely, on the decision of an arbiter appointed by the Court of Session. I remember quite well when Lord Pentland was speaking on this matter in this House he used to talk of an appeal from the Land Court to the Court of Session as an appeal from a higher to a lower Court. Let any of your Lordships go into any
68
part of Scotland, or read any newspaper that you like, or speak in any marketplace that you like, and see what is the opinion which is held with regard to the Land Court. I have here a few of the cases which have been before the arbiters. Let me say tins with regard to the arbiters. One argument which was put forward very forcibly in this House against an arbiter appointed by the Court of Session was that you were going to lose time, that it was going to be a source of delay. All I can say is that the arbiters have been greyhounds as compared with the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture. Every case, so far as I know, which up to the present time has been referred to arbiters has been decided by them in less than three months, well within the specified time. I need not say anything with regard to the arbiters appointed by the Court of Session, because we know perfectly well that that Court would select the best possible persons in Scotland for this position.
Let me give your Lordships a few cases they are all, so far as I know, that have been decided up to the present time. The first case is that of Lindean, Mr. Scott Plummer's property. Fourteen new holdings are provided. On that land there were a considerable number of persons before; I cannot say how many, but I expect not less than fourteen. The amount of compensation which has been awarded in that case is £8,588, and, remember, that is not to provide for the fourteen men; it is to have permission to take possession of the land on which they will be located and which will have ultimately to be equipped for them—needless to say by whom—it will be by the long-suffering British taxpayer. Your Lordships must not suppose that in Scotland we act in the same way as you do in England. Not a bit. In England the small holding which is taken from a county council is an economic holding, and the man has to pay the rent, and so on, of the land; but in Scotland it is entirely different, because the whole of the equipment of the holding—the drains, fences, and matters of that sort—is provided and made a free gift to the holder by the British taxpayer. Indeed, the holder has gone so far as this, that he bitterly complains of the British taxpayer because the British taxpayer declines to find the money for stocking his farm. The next is the Harrietsfield case the property

69
of Miss Scott, of Anerum. There the number of holdings was 7, and the compensation that has had to be paid is £4,750. The next case is that of Bollencrieff, the property of Lord Elibank. There the number of holdings was 30, and the amount of compensation which has had to be paid is £8,000. The next is the case of Barguillean, the property of Mr. T. M. Macdonald. I do not know how many holdings are to be provided there, but it is a small matter, the amount of compensation being only £102. The next case is that of St. Martins, the property of Captain W. M. F. Macdonald. In his case, again, I do not know how many holdings there are, but the amount of compensation is £1,436. The next case is that of Clyth Mains, in Caithness. There the number of holdings is 12, and the amount of compensation £4,006.
The last case that we have up to the present time is that of Lady Gordon Cathcart at Ormielate, Bornish, and Milton—somewhere about 30,000 acres of land. In her case the amount of compensation to be paid is £13,049, and there are there 77 holdings. But I must say, with regard to that last ease, that that does not include all the cost of this holding, because the Board, as I am informed, and I believe it to be true, have actually themselves agreed to pay compensation to the tenant who is evicted for breaking his ten years lease and for taking over his stock. I think the stock was valued at £5,000, and part of it has been disposed of for £2,500. But including that; £5,000 the Board have agreed, I believe, to pay him a sum of £10,250. This sum, added to the £13,000 odd, makes over £23,000. Then there is Lady Cathcart's costs, which I suppose will be £1,500 or more, because she has been put to trouble without end and has been obliged to get expert witnesses and heaven knows what. So that in this particular ease, before they get into possession of the land, the Board will have spent something between £25,000, and £30,000. These figures appear to ale to constitute nothing short of a public scandal. What I want to know is this. Is there nobody who has any control over this Board? Apparently the Board make no estimates, and, so far as I know, there is no control over them except the control which comes ultimately from the Scottish Secretary finding his pocket empty. I do not know that the Scottish Secretary has any control
70
over the Board. I do not know that he has any over the Land Court. The Court is said to be an independent Court. The Board, too, seems to be a pretty independent Board. But the result to the British taxpayer is something which I am sure your Lordships would never have believed if you had not heard it.
In order to show that there is some case for inquiry, it has been necessary to quote at some length from these two Reports, but I have purposely, as far as I could, omitted cases. What I have gone for are classes of cases; and if your Lordships grant this Motion I believe that before the Committee I should be able to establish, not merely such things as I have said to-day, but a great many other matters of which there are complaints and which really demand inquiry. I have no wish to condemn the Court, or to condemn the Board. I do not wish, any more than any one of your Lordships, to condemn anybody unheard. All that I desire is that these facts should be investigated. As your Lordships know, on various occasions I have produced other cases, and to the lest of my knowledge I have never had one of them disputed. For these reasons I vesture to hope that your Lordships will grant the inquiry for which I ask.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion which has been made by Lord Camperdown. My noble friend said that he was not quite clear whether the Board of Agriculture was above the Land Court. I think it is evident that the Land Court is the superior body, because they have to give the judgment, and the Board of Agriculture have to carry out the judgment given by the Land Court; but I do not think there is an appeal from the one or the other. I should like to emphasise what my noble friend said with regard to what took place when the Small Landholders Act was passing through your Lordships' House. Again and again the Secretary for Scotland was asked by us who was to be appointed to the presidency of the Board, and again and again the information was slurred over or refused. Then at last, when we heard who was to

71
be appointed, I can only say that we received the name with the greatest disappointment and distrust, and the way in which the Act has since been carried out has fully justified that feeling on our part.
I would recall to your Lordships' attention the paragraph in the Act of 1911 which directs that, in the fixing of an equitable rent, a rent shall be fixed which, in the opinion of the Land Court, would be an equitable rent for the holding between landlord and tenant as a willing lessor and willing lessee. At page xxxiii of the Report of the Land Court, they state that they have fixed first equitable rents for 259 holders. They go on to say—
"This extended to 4,419 acres arable, and 4,367 acres outrun in individual occupancy. The township common grazings dealt with ex-tended to 9,836 acres, and the general common grazings to 12,925 acres. The old rents of these amounted to £4,888, and the first equitable rents to £3,626, or a reduction of almost 26 per cent."
If you analyse this innocent little paragraph you find that the average of the 259 holdings comes out at 17 acres arable and 17 acres, or very nearly 17 acres, outrun—that is apart from the privileges of the township common grazings and the general common grazings—and the first equitable rent fixed by the Land Court comes out at £14, as compared with the old rent of £18 7s. 5d. If we deal for a moment only with the arable land, the equitable rents average 16 s. 5d. per acre. The Report does not show any value put to the township common grazings or the general common grazings, but if we put on them a value of £600, which your Lordships will allow is a very small amount, and subtract that from the first equitable rents of £3,626, the average rent per acre is reduced to 13 s. 8d. Your Lordships will understand that in what I have said so far I have been dealing entirely with what are known as equitable rents—that is, the case of the statutory small tenant; the provision and maintenance of suitable holdings is incumbent on the landlord in the case of these holdings.
Let me turn to the Report of the Board of Agriculture. It seems that they had serious difficulty in equipping new holdings during the last year. At page x the Board state—
"The Board have been seriously exercised about the effect of the recent rise in the
72
cost of building upon the initial expense of providing the dwellinghouse and steading for which the small holder assumes liability."
And in the next paragraph, at the top of page xi, the Board say—
"On some of the larger holdings of about 50 acres or mixed holdings of 80 or 90 acres or more, the cost of complete buildings will range from between £650 and £750, varying in different districts. The cost of the building equipment of smaller holdings varies from £40 to £450 or £500, but as the Board desire that the new holder should directly assist by labour or otherwise, the actual expenditure upon holdings does not represent the whole value of the completed buildings."
I think we can fairly assume, in the case of the larger holdings of 80 or 90 acres or more, that there is a considerable outrun and grazing, and therefore that smaller buildings and equipment are required than on ordinary arable holdings. But if we take the 50 acre holdings, and take the average cost of the complete buildings as ranging between £650 and £750—say £700—the cost of providing buildings alone conies to £14 per acre, and that, as the Board themselves point out, does not represent the whole value of the completed buildings. The paragraph I have read points out that the cost of building equipment varies from £40 to £450 or £500. It is clear that the figure of £40 can only allude to a small holding in connection with which some small repairs are required. As for the other figures, the information is hardly specific enough to be of any value.
But if we turn to page 9, Appendix No. 6, of the Report we find a plan showing a cottage, the smallest cottage which the Board supply, the cost of which is £180. The cost of the rest of the equipment, steadings, and buildings that would be required for a 14-acre holding would be another £100 at least. There you have a total of £280, or a cost of £20 per acre. For still smaller holdings, of course, the cost of equipment would be in proportion materially increased. With an 8-acre holding, the cost would be at least £30 per acre. But even after the houses, steadings, etc., have been built, there is a considerable additional outlay required for roads, water supply, fencing, and different other things, which would add largely to the cost per acre. It is quite impossible for the landlord at the present time to borrow money under 4 per cent., and the security has to be exceptionally good or

73
else the rate will be considerably higher. Therefore it is clear that, after an allowance for rates, maintenance, and depreciation, he cannot possibly charge less than 5 per cent. for the outlay on equipment. It follows, therefore, on the basis of the figures which are supplied by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, that the provision of buildings alone involves to landlords a cost of 14 s. per acre in the case of a 50-acre farm, rising to 20 s. per acre for a 14-acre holding, and to probably 30 s. or more per acre for an 8-acre holding. I have already shown your Lordships that the equitable rents fixed by the Laud Court are 13 s. 8d. per acre for the land fully equipped. Therefore it will be seen that Lord Kennedy and his colleagues do not allow the landlord even a reasonable interest on the cost of buildings and equipment, and nothing at all for the rent of the land and nothing wherewith to meet rates and management and cost of maintenance. It is a simple little sum that I have given you, and it is perfectly easy for any one to work out the figures from these Reports. In this calculation no allowance for the cost of equipment other than buildings has been made. If it had been, the inadequacy of the rents would have been more striking.
In the Appendices of the Report of the Land Court there are cases of sixty different holdings for which the Court have fixed equitable rents ranging from £1 to £5. The average area of the arable land on these holdings is a little over 4 acres, and the average rent is £3 ll s. 8d. If, in combination with these figures, you take the fact that the smallest cottage built by the Board costs £180, you will see that in order to get 4 per cent. the landlord would have to let it at £9 per annum. It is clear that generally speaking the small holdings, even at the old rents, have been main-tamed by the landlord at a considerable sacrifice, and upon whatever principle or lack of principle landlords proceeded in fixing the rents in the past it is obvious that the new equitable rent has no connection whatever with equity. The whole thing up to the present time has been a systematic spoliation of the landlord, and a corresponding popularisation of the small landholder. I think I have proved out of the Reports of these two bodies that the rents put upon the small holdings are most certainly not economic.
74
But there is one further point to which I would like to call attention. By this system a man who becomes a small-holder cannot possibly hope to get on, because once he is fixed he becomes part, proprietor, at an events, of his holding, and there he must remain, because it is difficult for him to realise the value of what he has got in the holding. Up to the present time and I am sure most landlords in Scotland, have been in the habit of giving a small holding to a small man, probably the foreman of a tenant farmer, and if he does fairly well out of that holding and a larger holding becomes vacant, he is put on to the larger holding and some one else takes his place on the small holding; and so they go on, in continual rotation, increasing the value of their holdings as they make money; and I am glad to say that I know one striking case where the tenant began as a small holder of 5 or 10 acres, and is now the owner of a farm of at least 120 acres.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): Lords, I have on more than one occasion bespoken your sympathy in replying to the noble Earl opposite in reference to questions connected with land in Scotland. The land question in Scotland, particularly in the congested districts and in the poorer districts, is very difficult and complicated. It is not in my own Department, and I am not connected with its working from day to day or from week to week. On this occasion I ask for your special indulgence, for I did not know what points the noble Earl was going to raise; I could only guess. I have been spending very laborious days, not over the Hebrides in the North Sea, but over the New Hebrides on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, where the considerations are very different except that in the long run they are liable to come down to questions relating to land. At the same time I should like to recognise the fact that the Scottish Office always place all their resources at my disposal, and if it may be that I do not answer anything satisfactorily it will not be due to any lack on their part. I want, first of all, to refer to a question which was only incidentally touched upon by the noble Earl, and that is the Ret urn for which he asked on June 24 last. I refer to it because I want to ask him a question. The figures have been got out for the Return, but those figures, instead of going

75
up to the end of December, are carried on to the end of March of this year. I want to ask the noble Earl whether he will accept it in that form?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to answer him now. I will if he likes.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord. I may say that nobody in this House is more sensible of the difficulties under which he has necessarily to suffer than I am. The Report goes up to December 31, 1913, and the exception which I took to it was that the finance only went up to the previous March 31. Now I really cannot sufficiently thank the noble Lord, because he proposes that his financial information is to go three months further than his Report. Of course, I have no objection. But I confess that I am a little surprised to hear that it is so easy to do it, especially when I was told before that it was absolutely impossible.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not know that the noble Earl was told that it was impossible before. But the reason that I ask him to accept it in this form is that the accounts have to be made up to March 31. We have them, but they are not audited.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For the purposes of Parliament audit does not matter. Of course, you have to have them audited subsequently. But really what Parliament wants to know is, what are your receipts and what is your expenditure. Whether the accounts are audited or not, it is quite clear that receipts are receipts and expenditure is expenditure.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not want to spend time over this, because there are a good many other matters to deal with to-day. I may say that, taking the question of rents and annuities in arrear, this Return when it is presented will show that the condition in Kilmuir as to arrears is rather worse; but I am authorised to say that the Board are now going to take more energetic proceedings in order to try and get some of these arrears cleared off. The position in Glendale is much better than it was two years ago; the arrears of annuities have decreased from
76
£844 to £147. In Barra the arrears in 1912 were £38; in 1913 they were £130, and this year they are £125; and out of that £125;, £90 is an arrear in respect to the shooting rent. Seafield I dealt with quite recently. In Syre the position has very materially improved, but that is largely due to the fact of the estate being resettled and the small holders having now become landholders. The arrears there have been reduced from £871 in 1912 to £344 in 1914; out of that £314, £262 is an arrear of rent with regard to shootings and the lodge, and does not arise in reference to the small landholders. There is one other remark which I want to make in reference to the other part of the Return for which the noble Earl moved—that part which asked for figures showing the losses on the resettlement of certain estates. On June 24 my noble friend Lord Beauchamp said, in reference to Barra, that the loss in that case might be seen in a certain footnote in the Report recently issued by the Board of Agriculture. I may say that that information was supplied to him in error. The difference between the original cost of land in Barra and the 20 years purchase of the landholders' rents, as refixed by the arbiter, is £3,655.
The noble Earl attacked the personnel of the Land Court. I did not know that he was going to do that, and I do not; propose to deal with that question to-day. He complained of the reductions which the Land Court had made in the rents, and he complained of the despotic power that has been given to them by legislation. Well, in regard to these matters there are, no doubt, other people connected with Scotland who take a very different view. I will not pretend to decide which view is correct; but what I say in regard to the Land Court is this. They have worked excessively hard under conditions which have not been easy; they had to organise a new Department. Besides schemes; they have dealt, as your Lordships know, and indeed complain of the fact, with a very large number of applications for fixing fair rents and fixing equitable rents. This work is naturally disliked by the landlords; it cannot fail to be disliked by them. The equitable rents and fair rents have been reduced, and arrears have been dealt with; and even if an Angel of Light from above had come to do work of this kind he could not possibly, in doing it, have secured the sympathy of the landlords. I do feel, my Lords, that

77
we are not in this House a Court of appeal against the Land Court. When the noble Earl dealt with cases on points of law which have been taken from the Land Court to the Court of Session, he mentioned first of all the case dealing with lotted lands, and unless I am entirely mistaken the judgment of the Land Court in that case was affirmed by the Court of Session.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Lotted lands come within the Act according to the strict terms of the Act. But what said was that anybody who was administering that Act from the point of view of common sense would have dealt with lotted lands as the originating donors of the lofted lands had dealt with them—namely, would have treated them as part of the holding.
LORD EMMOTT: I am inclined to think that there may be a good deal to be said for the noble Earl's opinion in regard to that matter, although I do not understand it fully.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
LORD EMMOTT: But what I say is this, that this was an appeal on a point of law taken to the Court of Session, which decided in favour of the Land Court. That is no argument to be used against the Land Court. Out of eight appeals which have been taken against their decisions six, as referred to in the Report which is before your Lordships, have been decided in their favour, and two, of which the noble Earl spoke have since the publication of the Report been decided against the Land Court. The noble Earl further complained that various members of the Land Court had given personal expression to opinions of a partisan character even after they were appointed members of the Land Court. All I can say is that if members of the Land Court have taken that action I sincerely regret it. Apart from any question of propriety, it must be perfectly plain that the expression of partisan opinions must interfere with the smooth working of an Act which in itself is not the easiest of Acts to work. Before I forget it, I would like to refer to the argument used by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Saltoun. It is quite true, if it costs 14 s. per acre to erect buildings and steadings, even on a considerable holding, and if the equitable rents are reduced to
78
13 s. that there is apparently an anomaly; but I must remind your Lordships that the original rents were, according to him—I have not worked them out myself—only 16 s. 5d. Therefore the anomaly is almost as great when rut compare the original rent before reduction as it is with the reduced rent.
Now I want to say a few words about the cost of these schemes. The method by which the cost is arrived at has raised in the past, and does raise at the present moment, a question of very acute controversy. The reference to the arbiter in case of dispute, which was inserted in your Lordships' House when the Act of 1911 was being passed, has formed the subject of difference between the two Houses, and, I am afraid, may form the subject of difference in the future. The experience of the working of that particular section has not added, apparently, to the affection with which those who opposed it in the House of Commons regarded it in the past.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I say that that section was inserted in this House by Lord Pentland?
LORD EMMOTT: Yes; it was inserted as part of a bargain for the time being, as I understand. It was not inserted by Lord Pentland because he desired to insert it; he was pressed to do it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: He consented to it.
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the noble Lord can hold by both those arguments at the same time; either there was a bargain in the other House or there was not.
LORD EMMOTT: I am not going into that question before the Bill comes up here from another place. I understand that a question will be raised as to what the understanding was. I am not familiar with the question myself. The pages of Hansard do not throw much light upon it; but I am certain it will be carefully examined when the Bill comes up here, and I would prefer not to deal with it at the moment. The noble Earl complained that the Board of Agriculture made these schemes in a very haphazard fashion without attempting to count the cost. I do not think that is the case, but I must

79
point out that the Board of Agriculture is quite unable to know in the first place what the cost is going to be. Remember that under this section of which I speak, as altered in the House of Lords, there are practically three references. There is the reference in the first place to the Land Court, then there is a reference to the Court of Session to appoint an arbiter, and then there is the rather formidable process of arbitration itself. That at any rate adds to the cost of the transaction the expenses of the arbitration; and in the cases decided, as the noble Earl has pointed out, a large sum has been added "in respect of depreciation in the value of the estate" "in consequence of and practically attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings." I am there quoting from the Act itself. The result is that landlords claim—I am not expressing any opinion on this point—that the value of the new holdings is reduced to something like twelve or fourteen years purchase, instead of being, as it was when they were farina, twenty to twenty-five years purchase, and they claim for that difference. The landlords also state that the new holders are more independent, less subject to control, and that that diminishes the value of the estate.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And more difficult to collect rents from.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes; and that also, if the noble Earl wishes. And the arbiters have allowed heavy compensation for loss of selling value and general depreciation. On this question a test case is being taken before the Court of Session; it has not yet been decided, and therefore I will say no more about it. Also compensation has to be paid to the tenant. In some cases in congested districts it is impossible, where there is a very large demand for land, to wait until leases fall in; and where a farmer has to be dispossessed, of course, compensation has to be paid to him. The noble Earl mentioned two cases of compensation payable to tenants. I have the figures here of two cases—one of those mentioned by him. In one case, the case of Hynish, there was an arbitration, and the compensation awarded was for an unexpired period of seven years.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is the case of a tenant, is it not?
LORD EMMOTT: Yes, compensation to the tenant. I am not speaking of landlord's compensation now. The compensation given to the tenant was six and a-half years purchase, or thereabouts. The arbitration expenses were £500, or another one and a-half years purchase. The value of the sheep stock—and in this case the sheep stock was taken at an acclimatisation value—was £2,656. Therefore I agree that the compensation is very heavy. But in another case, the case of Lady Gordon Cathcart's farms—the three farms which the noble Earl mentioned—the compensation was £10,000, and all but £2,700 of that was for sheep, but the sheep were not taken at acclimatisation value; I understand they were at valuation prices.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What I heard was that the value of the sheep was £5,000, and that a considerable portion had been resold for £2,500; that would mean the difference between acclimatisation value and so on. I can only speak front private knowledge; therefore I cannot say positively that I am right, but I have understood that the sum paid for breaking the lease, which was for ten years, was £3,000.
LORD EMMOTT: The sum is £2,700 It was a sum agreed upon. There were no arbitration expenses in this case. It was agreed upon at £2,700, and the remainder of the £10,000 was payable for sheep; and, as I ant informed, that was not acclimatisation value but the ordinary valuation price. As the noble Earl has said, the result of compensation both to tenant and landlord in cases where both have compensation is very serious financially. Take the case of the farms that have been bought recently from Lady Gordon Cathcart. The amount allowed for depreciation in respect of shooting and fishing and depreciation in capital value—I am not taking the buildings now—is £6,849, or nearly twelve years purchase of the rent of the farm. Take another case, which has attracted a great deal of attention—the Lindean case. In that case there is a profit on the letting value if allowance is made for the value given for the buildings, and yet, in addition to that, £4,600 is allowed for depreciation of the selling value of the estate, or over twelve years purchase. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether this is right or wrong—I understand that the whole ques-

81
tion in the first place is to be decided by a superior Court—but I do say it is a very serious addition to the cost of this purchase.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
LORD EMMOTT: There are a good many other matters in the Act of 1911 as to which I understand there is agreement that they should be altered. The Board cannot insist on the production of a lease. The result is very often that a landlord may re-let during the time when negotiations are actually taking place, and sometimes a scheme has to be thrown on one side on that account. Of course that is not right, and by general agreement that is a point which will have to be put right in future legislation. Again, there is no definition of a scheme, and the result is that unreasonable claims are often made for particulars which, at any rate in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, ought not to be demanded from them. But in regard to these matters probably agreement can be arrived at. I think it was the noble Earl who referred to particulars having been refused in certain cases. I always listen to anything he says with great respect. He knows much more about this question than I do. But in regard to this particular matter I am told that the Board submits a list of applicants and discusses them with the proprietor, and practically never insists on an applicant to whom the proprietor reasonably objects.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether the noble Lord is on particular case just now, but the particular case I mentioned I certainly saw myself. The Board in the first instance volunteered to give a list of applicants—and, of course, they ought to have done so. Then after that when it was requested that it should be sent they declined. In another case, in the case of the Lews, they absolutely refused information with regard to particulars, and an action for suspension, for interdict, was actually entered against them. Then they sent the information and paid the costs of the interdict.
LORD EMMOTT: There may have been mistaken action here and there, but evidently what I have stated is the ordinary pratice—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It ought to be.
LORD EMMOTT: Is the ordinary practice of the Board of Agriculture; and I think, as they have told me that, your Lordships may take it that in most cases that practice is carried out. The noble Earl has asked for a Committee of Inquiry. His Majesty's Government cannot agree that the time has come for a Joint Committee, and I regret to say that they cannot consent to an Inquiry. In dealing with this matter in your Lordships' House I have never concealed my own opinion that this is an extraordinarily difficult question. It is a question on which, when you get down to the fundamentals that lie at the root of the case, there is a very real difference of opinion between people who are acquainted with the question even as to the equities of the case. But it does seem to His Majesty's Government that the facts of the case and the reasons for the differences that exist are well known to antagonists who take different sides in regard to this question, that they can be argued out here or in another place, and that no need exists for a Joint Committee such as that for which the noble Earl has asked.
*LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this particular section of the subject, but I must submit—and in my protest I trust I shall be supported by others with greater authority—that the time has come when Scotland should be represented in this House by an official member who is thoroughly cognisant of facts about the land and who can give us answers about the many details of which that very complex question is made up. In marking these remarks I do not want to say anything to detract the courtesy or knowledge displayed by the noble Lord who has replied on many occasions, but I think the dignity of Scotland demands that we should have a representative in this House, who can speak with authority and personal knowledge.
The noble Lord raised the point of the cost of the schemes, and then the question of equity. Could not one put almost in a sentence the reason why this small-holdings scheme for Scotland has broken down? It is this. For Ireland Parliament considered £100,000,000 necessary for the settlement of her land question; in Scotland you think that a mere dole of £200,000 a year is going to get you out of all your trouble. When this matter was brought up in this House, many noble Lords on this side

83
pointed out the inadequacy of this sum, in view of compensation, the taking over of sheep stock, legal and travelling expenses, and the whole question of dealing with the existing tenant as well as the establishment and equipment of these small-holdings which, as has been pointed out by Lord Saltoun, must always amount to a considerable sum. I think, if you did away entirely with the landlord's compensation, you would not be able ever to get the establishment of these small-holdings under something like £1,000 a small-holding. This being the case, I think the first criticism we make is that the money provided is not sufficient; we say further that you have not made these schemes as cheap as they might have been because you rejected the Motion pat forward on this side of the House for "settlement by consent." I am sure there is not a single noble Lord here experienced in dealing with land who is not fully aware that if you can arrive at a settlement by consent in dealing with matters connected with land it is invariably very much cheaper than going to an arbiter or before a Court. For the Government to have objected to settlement b consent and then complain about the cost of the schemes is. I think, most unfair.
Another reason why these schemes are so costly is on account of the subordinates of the Board of Agriculture. In the Report of the Land Court, on page xxx, there is some very adverse criticism of the method of preparing these schemes, and I am sure that, any noble Lord who has any local knowledge in Scotland would agree that most of these men have been appointed for purely political reasons; most of them have no knowledge of land, most of them have no standing in the county, and every act of theirs is viewed with the greatest suspicion. A further reason for the cost of small-holdings is connected with the taking of small parts of farms. You have the loss of rent and value which occurs to the proprietor and tenant arising from cross cropping and putting the land out of gear, selling stock and erecting fences, which necessarily conies to very considerable stuns; and, as is pointed out in the Report of the Land Court, these small schemes add enormously to the cost and add very few people to the soil. In the majority of cases you put down two small-holders, but at the same time you displace an equal number of agricultural labourers. There are many other reasons why these schemes
84
cost a great deal more than they ought to, of which not the least is the cumbersome method of procedure. The attack which is made on the compensation to landlords is a thing which may gain political credit, but I do not think it is doing much good in Scotland; there they say that von are trying to cover faulty administration by cheating the landlords of fair compensation.
Mention was made of the case of Lindean. I happen to know something about it. Lindean is a case in which you say the compensation was excessive. I dare say it was. But had the Small-holdings Commissioner taken the trouble to go to another farm which the owner of Lindean pointed out to him and which would not hurt the property nearly as much as the one which was taken almost opposite the house, the land might have been had for much less compensation. This I have been told by the proprietor, and I have his leave to quote it. I understand that the Small-holdings Commissioner admitted during the case that he had not taken the trouble to find out where the other land was. I believe the records of the Court will show that to be a fact. Then there is one further matter which, in addition, adds to the cost of smallholdings—namely, the Land Court. If we had, as we ought to have, a fair Court like the original Crofters Commission, which had the confidence of both sides, the opposition to the smallholders on the part of many landlords would not be what I regret to say it is at the present day. I am certain the majority of landlords in Scotland wish to co - operate in the matter of small-holdings. It is only the suspicions of the methods by which these schemes are carried out that make the matter so difficult.
Now I should like to say a word about what the noble Lord calls the "equity" of the question. He stated that we had attacked the Land Court on the question of the reduction of rents, and that naturally there were different views as between landlord and tenant on the subject of rent. I quite agree. But I wish to make this point. At a time when agricultural depression was at its highest we had the Crofter Commission, a body who were appointed to fix fair rents, a body who had no sympathy for land-

85
lords. Now how is it that, notwithstanding that the price of everything that the crofter sells off his croft has gone up 50 per cent. and in sonic cases 100 per cent., the rent is reduced by 17½ per cent? This percentage of reduction of rent, mind you, is in certain cases in addition to improvements which have been made by the landlord. And this 17½ per cent. is, therefore, comparing like with like, a higher figure than that given in the Report. I will mention one or two facts. Black-faced wool in the last fifteen years has been as low as 4½d. a pound; it was sold last year for 9d. a pound; and at a scarcely less price to-day. The stick—your Lordships no doubt know what that is—has gone up one-third, and in many cases one-half in value. These are the things on which the crofter makes his profit. Sheep in the same way, now that the new method of farming is adopted with cast ewes and taking a crop of crossed lambs from them—sheep were selling 8s. higher at last wool market, and 2s. higher this market. This is a thing which has gone on for years, and is the reason in the open market for agricultural land being let at a higher figure. The Report of the Board of Agriculture in this connection says that, "The general improvement in the price of stock and agriculture produce, while promising for the success of small-holdings," etc.—showing clearly that it is proved that there has been an increase of value in the last few years. Yet, notwithstanding that, as I have said, the rents have been reduced by 17½ per cent.! That, we say is not equity; and, unless the Government prove to the contrary, we must either say that the Crofters Commission did not give fair decisions or that the error lies with the present Board.
Again on the question of equity, What is going to be the, future policy? Several cases have been quoted ill which the rents have been reduced to such an extent as to pay no return at all for the land, and a bare three per cent. interest on the buildings. If you think it is right to take the whole of the land from the landlord you ought to let him have some proper return for the buildings he has put up. There is no equity in this; and it is likely to deter—in fact, it has already deterred—landlords from spending money on their small holdings. I notice from the Report of the Board of Agriculture that you have only
86
made loans to tenants to the tune of £5,500 this year. If the landlord is not going to do his duty in equipping the holding properly the public will have to pay, and I submit that it would be one of the most foolish and dangerous policies ever adopted to "choke off" the landlords from doing their proper duty.
My Lords, if I criticised the administration of the Board of Agriculture I would do so for three reasons. In the first place, it has done absolutely nothing for forestry in Scotland. Except issuing a small pamphlet on the beetle—a particular pine weevil—it has done nothing for forestry in Scotland, except, perhaps, that it has appointed an official. The encouragement of forestry was one of the promises made by Lord Pentland. The cost of settlement being what it is—in some cases up to £5,000 per additional family on the farm—it is obvious that if you invested that in forestry you would be able to provide for many more families. For every one thousand acres-1 state this on the authority of well-known experts—you could keep ten families; 1,000 acres could be planted for under £5,000. My second criticism would be that the Board of Agriculture has not faced the question of the Lews, the biggest and most clamant question for settlement today. The state of the outer islands is a crying shame to the civilisation of the whole of Scotland. In their Report the Scottish Land Court state that no schemes have been made for the Lews by the Board of Agriculture.
A third criticism of the Board of Agriculture would be their administration of their own property in the village of Gig. There the people are in a worse condition than on any privately owned property in Scotland, with the exception of the Lews. There has been a great deal of clamour in another place on the subject of Rosyth. I have visited both Rosyth and Gig. On the latter property you have still got cattle housed under the same roof as men; you have dung from the cattle and human excrement lying there and even flowing into the very rooms where the people are living; you have houses there far worse than any Kaffir houses I have ever come across. No steps have been taken that I am aware of to better this state of affairs, notwithstanding that the Board of Agriculture

87
has had two years' rule. These three questions are matters quite outside Party politics. The question of forestry is not one which the landlord is interested in more than the people. The question of the Lews demands immediate attention. And, finally, it is a standing disgrace that on your own property at Gig you have men housed with cattle, a form of housing every landlord, even the poorest, has put a stop to.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think any one can have listened to this discussion without a feeling of profound uneasiness as to the manner in which our recent agrarian legislation has operated in Scotland. Some of us, when these Bills were before the House, made no secret of our apprehensions. I am not going at this time of day into the principles on which that legislation was founded. For myself I may say that it has always seemed to me to be, on the one hand, a defensible thing that the State should come in for the relief of the small and helpless holders who presumably are not able to help themselves and who have been in the habit of doing themselves such improvements as have been executed upon their farms. That has always seemed to me to be quite a distinct proposition front the proposition that the State should step in and come to the assistance of farmers who, except for the fact that they pay a rather lower rent, are absolutely undistinguishable from their neighbours who had previously been regarded as without the scope of these Acts of Parliament. I do not desire to call these things into question to-day. I will only say this, that if you are to interfere in cases of this kind it seems to me that you cannot be too careful to see to it that the administration of the law is carefully conducted and carefully watched, and, above all, that the personnel whom you entrust with these powers and duties is very carefully selected.
My noble friend Lord Camperdown, think justly, reminded the House of the pledges given to us by Lord Pentland as to the care which it was intended to exercise in the selection of the officials who were to man this Scottish Land Court. That Court is given enormous powers. They have the power of fixing rents without reason assigned; there is no appeal from their decision; and, so far as I am able to ascertain, they are not in the least hound to have regard to market prices. It is for them
88
to conjecture what the value of a holding is likely to be within the term of years for which they are empowered to fix the rent. My noble friend behind me said; I think very justly, that when you set up a Court of this kind you ought to make it your endeavour to choose officials who will command the confidence of both sides, and whose antecedents are of such a nature as to put them on a kind of pinnacle of impartiality from which they will deliver decisions which will be respected by all concerned. I do not want to enter into the question of the fitness of individuals, but it is a matter of notoriety that little regard has been paid to these conditions in the selection of the personnel of the Scottish Land Court.
Then my noble friend dwelt with some force upon the manner in which the Board of Agriculture has prepared thee schemes which we have been discussing this evening. I am hound to say that from the description given by m noble friend it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the work has been done in. I should say, a very amateurish and bungling fashion. I do not think that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite really contended with much energy that there was no fault to find; but he dwelt rather, and I think dwelt quite correctly, upon the great difficulty of the task which these gentlemen have to perform. But I am afraid we are driven to the conclusion that it has been performed in a very infelicitous manner.
The case of the Lews was mentioned by my noble friend behind me. Your Lordships have seen the figures, and you know what an immense expenditure has been incurred upon those islands, with the result that, after all, the people are very badly housed and occupy their land under thoroughly uneconomic conditions, which so far as we are able to judge are not in the least likely to improve. The result of the whole of these proceedings seems to be that there has been an immense waste of public money, a great, unsettlement amongst all the parties concerned, owners and occupiers, and I think to that must be added that the effects upon agriculture as an industry have been extremely bad. In these circumstances I think my noble friend Lord Camperdown was justified in asking for some inquiry into the action of these tribunals. He has been officially informed that such an inquiry is not to be granted, and I do not

89
imagine, with the House in its present condition, that he is likely to press his Motion to a Division. But we all feel that an inquiry sooner or later will be necessary, and I think that the discussion which has taken place this evening has usefully pre-pared the way for such an investigation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with one or two more words. I have certainly not been able to gather from the speech of the noble Lord opposite that he had any real objection either to the statements that I made or to the facts which I produced. He said that his reason for declining to grant an inquiry was that these are matters which we can argue out in the two Houses of Parliament. I am very anxious to agree with the noble Lord as far as I possibly can, but really how can these questions be argued out in the House of Commons? Take this one. Rents which were fixed by the Crofters Commission seven years ago are again fixed and are cut down 17½ per cent. We ask, What is the reason? How can you argue that out in the House of Commons, and how can you argue it out here? It is not a case for argument; it is a case for inquiry. With regard to most of the other things it seems to me that the same remark applies. I do not intend, however, in the present state of the Muse and at this period of the session to insist upon an inquiry, but this whole question is not at an end. We know that there is a Bill in incubation in the other House of Parliament which proposes to give much larger powers to the Board and much larger powers to the Land Court. Well, it stands to reason that it will be necessary to make a very strong case after what has happened to-night, when really the case which has been made against them has not been seriously disputed, for giving any larger powers to those bodies. At the present time I do not wish to press for this inquiry, and I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

VOLUNTARY MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to difficulties in early treatment of mental eases, and to present a Bill. The noble Earl said: As your Lordships are probably aware, there is a great growth apparently of lunacy. I say "apparently," because
90
some critics think that the growth is partly due to more cases being certified. I think it is the opinion of practically all medical men that there are a great many cases in which symptoms of mental instability, if treated at an early stage by proper supervision and care, might never develop into certifiable insanity. Of course, every one of your Lordships would agree that if such treatment could be given, and if it should achieve the result of curing a lunatic, if I May put it so, before the person becomes a lunatic, and prevent the person from being under the stigma of having been certified a lunatic, and also save the consequent expense, it would be a very desirable result.
Under the present state of the lunacy laws people who are well-to-do who find themselves in a condition of mental instability are able to go as voluntary boarders to licensed houses and mental institutions, and from figures which have been supplied to me I understand that 400 of this class did so last year. But that course is not easily open to poor people. There is also a very great difficulty, which applies both to rich and poor, with regard to placing any one in that condition under the care of a doctor or some suitable person in a private house. The reason for that difficulty is Section 315 of the Lunacy Act, which makes any person subject to prosecution who harbours in his house an uncertified lunatic. Your Lordships will understand that if any one is treating a case which is on the borderland, which one doctor might hope would not develop into certifiable lunacy but which some other doctor might think was certifiable lunacy, the medical man who treats such a person with a view to preventing his becoming a certified lunatic runs a risk of prosecution tinder Section 315. That naturally makes doctors very unwilling to receive such patients, and when they do receive them they always run a considerable risk.
This matter has been considered, I may say, by a Committee on which there was represented the Medico-Legal Society, of which I had the honour to be president last year, and there were also representatives upon the Committee from the British Medical Association and the Medico-Psychological Association, and they considered and drafted this Bill, which is really for the purpose of avoiding the difficulties entailed by Section 315 of the Lunacy Act, which, as I have said, makes

91
it difficult for a doctor to treat such cases as are on the border-line. In the treatment of these cases at the present moment one of two things has to happen. Either you have to let the persons in this condition go on until they become worse and are really certifiable lunatics and are henceforth under that stigma—and who are put to the very considerable expense consequent upon removal to an asylum, and so on—or the persons have to be treated by some one who takes the risk to which I have referred.
I have some figures showing the possibility of early treatment producing a good effect in these cases. In the London asylums last year, of all those who were discharged as recovered, 7½ per cent were less than one month under treatment, and 33 per cent. were less than six months under treatment. So it is obvious that, even in the cases of people who have been certified, treatment may produce very good results, and treatment which is adopted at an early stage may altogether prevent its ever being necessary to certify these people at all. I might mention to your Lordships that in the course of discussion we spoke of this as a Bill to deal with "incipient insanity," but Dr. Mercier, a great authority on these matters and perhaps also somewhat of a purist, objected to that, expression, holding that a person was either sane or insane. As a matter of fact, whether a person is sane or insane is one of the most difficult matters that doctors have to decide, the dividing line being so fine.
The Bill is now called a Mental Treatment Bill. I am sorry to say that this title also was objected to by the same authority, because he said that it conveyed something in the nature of a Christian Science treatment. The effect of the Bill amounts really to this, that such cases as those I have indicated may properly be treated in licensed houses by approved persons where a doctor is given an authority for mental treatment. It will be a kind of preventive treatment. It will be entirely voluntary—that is to say, the patient will be under no compulsion to remain, and may leave or give up the treatment at any time. I do not say from the legal point of view that that is exactly a good feature. Of course, in this matter I speak as a layman, though not without some experience of asylum treatment. But it was
92
generally thought, I think probably rightly, that lawyers and Parliament, and probably the lay Press as a whole, would not stand any question of compulsion in these cases and would be afraid of anything like compulsory confinement. Therefore the Bill is purely voluntary. But where a medical practitioner is prepared to give this authority for the reception of such a patient in houses which would be under the inspection of what is now called the Board of Control—probably more familiar to your Lordships as the Lunacy Commissioners—then the patient may be treated safely without the doctor being under the danger of a prosecution under Section 315. That is to say, if at a later stage it turns out that the patient is in fact certifiable, it will be a sufficient answer to say, "I had an authority to treat the patient as a case not mentally certifiable." There are provisions for the proper ways of reporting the reception of patients, any change of address, and so on.
It is hoped that this measure may be the means of keeping out of our asylums a very large number of people who, under the law as it now exists, have to be certified for want of any adequate treatment without such certification. As it was put in one of the discussions which were held on this subject, the present law leads to the same sort of result as would happen if no medical man were allowed to treat scarlet fever until the patient had reached the stage when the scaling particles were being thrown off. I think that really covers the whole of the provisions of the Bill, beyond the fact that there is a power included for local authorities to make provision for treatment of cases of this sort in licensed hospitals and in public asylums. I need hardly say that at this stage of the session I do not propose to carry the Bill any further. It is merely desired by those interested in it that it should be presented to your Lordships in order that it may be printed and discussed in and out of Parliament. Medical men, of course, differ to sonic extent as to the details. Therefore I propose merely to lay it before your Lordships and the public in order that it may be considered. I beg to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1ª (Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.(No. 187.)

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Barnard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL, OF DONOUGIDIORE in the Chair.)
Clause 1:
Compensation for disturbance in connection with sale.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, where the tenancy of a holding is terminated after the passing of this Act by notice to quit given after that date—

(a) in view of the dale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof; or

(b) by or at the request of the purchaser of the holding before the expiration of one calendar year after completion of the purchase of the holding for any reason other than the wrongful act or default of the tenant in relation to the holding;

the tenant shall be entitled to recover compensation in terms of, and subject to the provisions of section eleven of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, except that the notice by the tenant of his intention to claim compensation required by that section may be given at any time not less than two months before the determination of the tenancy.
(2) Compensation under this section shah not be payable in any case to which the Small Holdings Act, 1910, applies.
(3) In the event of any difference arising as to any matter under this section the difference khan, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, to this clause I have placed on the Paper an Amendment which has for its object the exempting from the operation of the Bill of land sold in order to pay the duties which fall due on the death of the owner of the property. I may say at the commencement of my remarks that I am entirely in favour, when land is sold, of the tenant being most liberally compensated for all his improvements, and, indeed, of his losing nothing in any labour or improvement that he has put upon the land in the past. But this Bill is to a
94
certain extent an amending Bill to the Act of 1908, and in addition to compensation for improvements, compensation has to be paid fir losses to the tenant which he may undergo through having to leave his holding. It practically compensation for disturbance.
I am one of these who believe that in most instances a tenant ought to receive this compensation, but there are cases where it is extremely hard upon the landowner who has to find a large sum of money for the State that he cannot treat with his property in the best way he can. I have always argued, and I believe it has been argued by almost the whole Party with whom I generally act, that Death Duties, especially when raised to the high point at which they are at the present moment, must have the effect, not only of injuring the person who has to pay the taxes, but of causing loss and inconvenience to other persons as well, and undoubtedly they have caused loss and inconvenience to tenant farmers, I know that when we first were hold enough to say this, our statement was laughed at. I have here an extract from a speech made by the Prime Minister in another place when he held the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he dealt with this matter in almost a jocose manner. He laughed at the prophecies made by the Conservatives at the time of the passing of Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1891, and he quoted the ease of a nobleman who said that he would be ruined, but when it came to the question it was found that all the economies he had effected amounted to, in his own words. "I have put down my pew." The right hon. gentleman went on to say—
"I am not at all sire that a revision of the Death Duties ever had so prejudicial an effect as that on the spiritual welfare of the upper classes. I doubt very much whether they have all curtailed their contributions to the weekly offerings. But I am satisfied, after a great deal of investigation, that we may without injury to property, without checking the accumulation of capital, and without injustice to any human being, reconsider the scale of duties imposed in 1894."
I should like to call your Lordships' attention especially to the phrase, "and without any injustice to any human being." These heavy duties primarily fall upon the person who has to pay them, but it is also perfectly certain that a great deal of injustice and inconvenience is

95
suffered by members of the community. Farmers and others whose farms have been sold have suffered injustice, as have other people who have lost their employment.
I cannot conceive how these large sums of money can possibly be found nowadays unless a man effects large economies or realises part of his property. The moment he tries to effect economies he has to cut down expenses. Probably he has to reduce his wages bill, and those who have to go are those who have not very much to do and get pretty good wages for doing it. Naturally they stiffer a good deal of trouble and annoyance in finding other places, which may not be so lucrative. Take the case of any other form of property, say, a great industrial concern. The fact that the head of the business is no longer there to look after its affairs naturally has a tendency to make the shares fall, and if, in addition to that, his heirs have to sell a large block of their holding in the shares of the company the shares will fall in value and every one of the shareholders will suffer loss and inconvenience through the selling of those shares. There are, of course, other instances which will occur to your Lordships. But it is perfectly certain that when large sums of money have to be raised on the death of individuals it is not the heirs alone who suffer loss and inconvenience.
I fully admit that tenant farmers, when their farms are sold, will suffer loss and inconvenience just as well as other people, but I hardly think it is fair that, at the very moment a man has to realise his property in order to find large sums of money for the State, incidentally his property should be depreciated to a considerable extent. Compensation under this clause is so nebulous that it is very difficult to tell to what the compensation will amount, but I should say myself that it would certainly depreciate the value of the property five per cent., and I believe this Bill will certainly have the effect of rendering null and void a good many of the valuations which have already been made throughout the country. I do not wish, as I have said, that this compensation should not be paid in most cases, but I do think that we ought to take into consideration the grave injustice to
96
individuals when they are called upon to pay these Death Duties, and I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will give this Amendment his favourable consideration. The promoters of the Bill already specially state that this compensation for disturbance is not to be paid to a farmer who is turned out in order to make room for small-holders.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): May I point out to the noble Earl that the Small Holdings Act of 1910 entitles a man whose farm is purchased for small holdings to be compensated in exactly the same way as it is proposed to compensate him here.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It is said in the Bill that "Compensation under this section shall not be payable in any case to which the Small Holdings Act, 1910, applies," which looks on the face of it as if this compensation for disturbance was going to be specially cut out in the case of a farm taken for small holdings.
LORD LUCAS: No.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If an exemption is to be made, there is a much stronger case for making it when land is sold in order to pay taxes to the State than there is when a man's property is to be taken from him in order to make small holdings. Certainly as I read this clause it seems to me specially to leave out small holdings from the operation of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS: I am sorry if I did not make myself plain to the noble Earl. The man who has his farm bought for small holdings is compensated under the Small Holdings Act of 1910 in precisely the same way that it is proposed in this Bill to compensate men whose farms are sold over their heads. The first class of man is now getting the compensation which this Bill proposes to give to other farmers.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not profess to be a Parliamentary draftsman, but certainly to the uninitiated it would appear from the Bill that no payments were going to be made in compensation when land was taken for small holdings.

97
However, I will not press the point if the noble Lord tells me that I am reading the Bill wrongly. I submit that if compensation is to be paid it should be paid by the Treasury. They are the people who get the money. The estate may be already considerably burdened; yet from one-tenth up to one-quarter of the capital value of the estate has to be paid over to the Treasury. Most men have to realise in order to pay the Treasury, and if any injustice is done to the tenants it would be very easy for the Treasury, which gets the money, to pay some of it back to the dispossessed tenants. I am aware that the tenant will suffer a certain amount of injustice, but I believe that if an Amendment such as mine were inserted the cases where it would occur would be very few indeed compared with the large number of sales now going on all over the country.
Before we embarked on these new theories and during the time of depression when agriculture was in extremis we had no doctors stepping in to cure us. Now that the clouds have somewhat passed away we have a host of would-be doctors arriving, all anxious to amputate the men, both landlords and farmers, who for thirty years have faced the storm and lived through those years of depression. It is on account of that, far more than for any other reason, that these sales are taking place throughout the country, and I am certain that if agriculture were given a rest from these no doubt well-intentioned but rather foolish reformers it would be much better off. My Amendment is one which should receive consideration, because when a man is called upon to pay large taxes on entering into his property every facility should be given to him to sell to the best advantage. At present you are saying to one class and to one class only, "No, you are not to sell your property to the best advantage." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, after ("payable") inert ("(a)")
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after ("applies") insert ("or (b) In connection with the sale or offering for sale of the whole or part of a holding passing on a death within the meaning of sections one and two, subsections (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment with a view to provision of any duty payable under Act of Parliament on the occasion of such death").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend and quite understand the difficulties in which owners of agricultural land are sometimes placed when they have to pay heavy Death Duties and are compelled to sell farms in order to do so. But I think my noble friend is somewhat mistaken as to the scope and object of this measure. This Bill does not introduce the principle of compensation to a tenant who receives notice with a view to his land being sold. Whether we agree with it or whether we do not, that principle was settled by Parliament in 1908, and for two years after that time it was supposed that that applied to every case. It was only, as I explained to your Lordships the other night, when the case of Clewlow v. Briscoe was heard by a County Court Judge that it was found out that in the opinion of that Judge notice to quit with a view to a sale was not "inconsistent with good estate management." Had it not been for that County Court judgment there would have been no necessity for this Bill.
I have consulted my friends ill the House of Commons who are the promoters of this Bill, and I find that on both sides of the House they regret very much that it is impossible for them to accede to my noble friend's suggestion. I regret equally to say that I feel entirely in the same position. The law has given farmers who have to go a certain right, and we feel that if in one particular set of circumstances they are not to have that right it would be very unjust to the tenant farmer community. I have, perhaps, as great an association with tenant farmers as most of your Lordships, and I have the highest respect for them. I value the way in which they have stood by the landowner and done everything they could to make the association of landlord and tenant pleasant. For that reason I feel bound to lose no opportunity of doing all I can to assist them in every way.
I by no means agree with my noble friend that giving notice to quit with a view to sale depreciates the value of property. I have made some inquiry on the subject, and I find that auctioneers of eminence are divided on the subject. I happen to know, for example, that in many cases when an auctioneer gives advice as

99
to the terms and arrangements to be made for the selling of a farm he does not think it necessary to put the tenant under notice. My noble friend was not in the House the other afternoon or he would have heard the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition himself say that he bad sold land and had not found it necessary to give these notices. And I have in my possession at this moment particulars of a farm in Shropshire which it was hoped that I would purchase at auction, and I notice that the tenant was not under notice to quit. At the same time I may say that I have had similar notices with regard to a considerable amount of agricultural land in the North of England, which I arranged to bid for. The tenants in those cases were all under notice to quit, and before finally settling upon whether I should bid for the land I consulted my agent. I said, "As a matter of practice, supposing you buy the land do you mean to act on the notice to quit and turn the tenants out?" He replied, "I mean to do nothing of the kind." Therefore vacant possession by no means, in my judgment, possesses the enormous value attributed to it by some.
One other thing I should like to mention. This Bill has been passed by the universal consent of all Parties in the House of Commons. If an Amendment is inserted at this stage it is as good as sealing the doom of the Bill; and I do not think, if my noble friend will permit me to say so, that the tenant farmers in this country, in spite of the kind words which he used towards them just now, will thank him for a step which, rightly or wrongly, they will consider as depriving them of a valuable privilege which Parliament intended to confer on them in 1908, and which it only now proposes to confer on them because of its having been found, owing to the County Court case to which I have referred, that they have not got it. In the circumstances I cannot see my way to accept my noble friend's Amendment, and I hope the House will not insert it.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I would appeal to my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. It is forty years since I was first chairman of a Chamber of Agriculture, and I have never known of a Bill which met with more unanimity
100
than this one. It is only a matter of justice that this Bill should be passed, and it is very unlikely that if it fails to pass this year it will get into such a favourable position in another year. I cannot myself see what the difference is to the tenant whether an estate or a farm is for sale for one reason or for another. Whether it is in order to raise money for Death Duties, or whether it is to raise money for racing debts, or to raise money for anything else, I do not see what difference there is to the tenant with regard to the notice for sale. I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, because I believe that it is in the interests of landlord and tenant that the Bill should pass. I might add that auctioneers now as a rule are becoming dispossessed of the idea that vacant possession is necessary. I believe that this Bill indirectly will have the effect of preventing that action in the future in regard to these sales.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the position which Lord Barnard has taken up with regard to this measure. As far as the Government are concerned, they would much prefer to see the Bill go through in its present form. We regard this Bill as dealing with what has been admitted by the House of Commons and by this House, when it passed the Second Beading, to be an undoubted grievance under which the tenant suffers; and I think it would put this House in a rather illogical position, having once admitted the grievance and admitted the need for repairing that grievance if we said that in certain classes of sales, where the grievance exists in the same degree, the tenant is not to receive compensation. As the noble Lord who spoke last said, it does not make the least difference to the tenant what the cause of sale is. After all, this is a Bill to assist the tenant, not a Bill to assist the landlord; and the tenant is entitled to just as much consideration whatever the motive of the landlord may have been. Therefore if we accept the noble Earl's Amendment we shall find ourselves in what seems to me to be the extremely illogical position of having admitted the grievance under which farmers suffer in this case and then of deliberately excluding a certain portion of them from the remedy which we are prepared to offer to other farmers.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who is responsible for this Bill has stated so dearly and completely the case against this Amendment that I need not trouble your Lordships by a repetition of his arguments. My noble friend behind me (Lord Ancaster), from whom I am sorry to differ because I know how much attention he has paid to these matters, dwelt with force upon tile hardship which may be occasioned to an owner of land who is compelled to sell by the heavy taxation to which we are now liable if he were not permitted to sell his land under conditions which would secure for him the top price which the market would produce. But I think he fixed his eye too much on the point of view of the landlord. Really the proper point of view with which to regard this question is the point of view of the tenant. We are not concerned with the motives of the landlords; wit are concerned with the injury sustained by the tenant; although in this case the motive of the landlord in selling subject to notice to quit may be perfectly legitimate, the injury done to the tenant by his dispossession remains exactly the same. I was glad to hear front my noble friend that, in agricultural circles a feeling was growing that this practice of selling with vacant possession was not a desirable practice to encourage. I hope that as a rule owners of land who find it necessary to sell their estates will sell them as going concerns, and if there are to be any rearrangements of the map let them be done by the new owner. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not think fit to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, after what has been said I wish to withdraw my Amendment. I fully realise, of course, that I have been speaking on behalf of landlords who have to sell their
102
property owing to taxation, and that the farmers are in favour of the Bill. But as regards the justice of my Amendment I am absolutely unrepentant, and I ant certain that the elect of this Bill will be to depreciate property and spoil the valuations which have been made at great expense throughout the country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3ªTo-morrow.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL. (No. 188.)
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. (No. 189.)
Read 1ª, and to be printed.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 24th of June last) and to be printed.(No. 190.)

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL—(DEAL ORDER).
Report front the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select. Committee on the York Corporation Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill so far as relates to the Deal Order; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred, to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock