Sitting of 1 July 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Humber Bridge Bill (by Order).
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  POLAND (EASTERN GALICIA).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing at the next session of the Council of the League of Nations that the question as to whether Poland, as a result of her failure to carry out the decision of the Council of Ambassadors in 1923, which granted her certain rights over Eastern Galicia, has caused that decision to lapse, should be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): My right hen. Friend does not think that a reference of this question to the Permanent Court would be advantageous at the present time.
  Mr. MANDER: Have negotiations been resumed between the Polish Government and the Ukrainian representatives?
  Mr. DALTON: We have not had any specific information on that subject since the last meeting of the Committee of Three, of which my right hon. Friend is chairman. But as the hon. Member knows, he is keeping a careful watch on any developments in connection with this question.
  Mr. HANNON: Have not the Polish Government every desire to settle this question satisfactorily?
  Mr. DALTON: I hope that is so.

  ITALY (EXTRADITION TREATY).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with reference to the negotiations that have been proceeding with a view to the conclusion of the new extradition treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government?
  Mr. DALTON: Negotiations with the Italian Government with a view to the conclusion of a new extradition treaty are in progress, but they have not reached a stage at which my right hon. Friend can usefully make any statement.
  Mr. DAY: Will the new treaty contain an optional clause with regard to the surrender of nationals?
  Mr. DALTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a specific question, and we shall then be able to look into it.

  CHINA.

    EASTERN RAILWAY (CUSTOMS).
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet ascertained whether the negotiations for the purchase by the Chinese Government of the Soviet Government's share in the Chinese Eastern Railway include the reduction of customs against Russian goods with similar reductions to British goods under our Treaty rights?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has asked His Majesty's Minister in China for a report, and is now awaiting his reply.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will postpone his statement on extra-territoriality in China until the Feetham Report is in the hands of Members of this House?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend's statement will be made when the Foreign Office Vote is put down for discussion

    1251
    in this House. This is a matter which rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite rather than with him. Copies of the first volume of Mr. Justice Feetham's report were placed in the Library three weeks ago. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive copies of the second volume, which will likewise be placed in the Library, in the course of the next fortnight. But he cannot, of course, give any definite undertaking to postpone the Debate until after the second volume has been received.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Foreign Secretary defer his final decision about Shanghai until we have had a full opportunity of considering the Feetham report?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend, of course, is very anxious to read the Feetham report, as all serious students of this problem are, but I doubt if I can add anything to the statement that I have already made.

  PALESTINE.

    DEAD SEA SALTS CONCESSION.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further communications have taken place with the French Government regarding the Dead Sea concession which was given to Mr. Moses Novamesky; and what is the present position of the negotiations?
    Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A further note from the French Government has recently been received and is now being examined.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Member yet say whether this matter is going to be taken to the Hague? Has not the condition of affairs rather changed since the original note?
    Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Government made an offer in July of last year to take the question to the Hague, but that offer has up to date not been accepted by the French Government.

    LAND DEVELOPMENT.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to make a statement
    1252
    on the negotiations concerning land development in Palestine?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No Sir, not yet, but I hope that it may not be long delayed.

    DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT.
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the appointment of a director of development for Palestine will be made; what his precise duties will be; how long his engagement will last; and the amount of his remuneration?
    Dr. SHIELS: It is hoped to make an appointment in the near future. I expect to be able to give the particulars asked for when the announcement of the appointment is made.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Member say whether this director is to be an Englishman, so as to make a balance?

    SPAIN (SITUATION).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the present situation in Spain?
    Mr. DALTON: The present situation in Spain is one of comparative calm. The elections duly took place on Sunday last, but the information available as to the results is still incomplete. His Majesty's Ambassador has reported that things were quiet in Madrid, though there was a small anti-clerical incident in one of the suburbs. There were minor disturbances in some of the provinces.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is any form of censorship still in existence in Spain?
    Mr. DALTON: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that Spain is more stable on account of so many Social Democrats being returned?
    Mr. DALTON: I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to know that, according to Press reports, the Socialist party are the strongest party in the new Parliament, and hon. Members opposite will be reassured to know that no Communists have yet been elected.
    Mr. HANNON: Arising out of the original reply, can the hon. Member state if he has had any complaints of any inconvenience to British citizens in Spain under the new régime?
    Mr. DALTON: No, I am glad to say that we have had no such complaints except—I do not want to deceive the hon. Member—that there were, of course, one or two complaints made with regard to losses of property, which have already been referred to in this House. But so far as our information goes, British subjects are travelling freely and happily in Spain under the new régime.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the system of election there was the alternative vote or proportional representation?
    Mr. DALTON: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not also a fact that the Liberal party will be the controlling party in the new Parliament?

    RUSSIA (CURRENCY REGULATIONS).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement on the confiscation of British travellers' money under the currency regulations introduced by the Russian Government last March?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has as yet only received an interim reply from His Majesty's Ambassador, who will report further as soon as possible.
    Mr. HASLAM: Has the Foreign Secretary made any protests on these confiscations of travellers' money, which have now been going on since last March?
    Mr. DALTON: Our Ambassador in Moscow has been asked to take the matter up with the Soviet authorities. He has already done so, and he hopes to send us a further report shortly as to what their attitude is on the representations which he has made.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why is it that negotiations with the Soviet autho-
    1254
    rities always take nine or 10 times the length of negotiations with other foreign countries?

    REPARATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information as to the progress of negotiations in relation to the United States of America's proposal for the postponement of inter-governmental debt and reparations payments?
    Mr. DALTON: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, negotiations are now proceeding, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a comparative table showing the effect of the acceptance of the Hoover debt holiday compared with the effect of a moratorium of conditional payments under the Young plan?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It would be premature to attempt to give any precise figures as to the effect of the acceptance of President Hoover's proposal until the technical arrangements required to carry it out have been finally settled.

    NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from which of the Powers signatories to the International Convention for the purpose of regulating the police of the fisheries in the North Sea outside territorial waters, signed in 1882, representations have been received as to the need for the reconsideration and revision of the articles of the convention?
    Mr. DALTON: A Note has been received from the Netherlands Minister inquiring whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to participate in an international conference with a view to a revision of the Convention. His Majesty's Government are at present considering their reply.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Member take an opportunity of communicating with the other Powers signatories to the Convention, so that the matter may be discussed among all those interested in the North Sea fisheries?
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: And with Norway too?

    FRENCH NAVAL PROGRAMME.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he now has further information with regard to the French naval programme for 1931–32; and whether the naval attaché credited to His Majesty's Embassy in Paris is making the usual reports?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have no further information with regard to the French Naval programme for 1931–32. The programme has been voted by the Chamber of Deputies in an amended form, but it has not yet been debated in the Senate. The reply to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the amendment mean that the large capital ship proposed to be constructed has been postponed?
    Mr. AMMON: Yes. The Chamber decided to postpone the motion to lay down a battleship.

    SUBMARINE "NAUTILUS."
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what assistance is being rendered by his Department to Sir Hubert Wilkins; and whether any arrangements are being made for an escort for the submarine "Nautilus" on her voyage north from Empire waters?
    Mr. AMMON: The "Nautilus" has been taken in hand at Devonport Dockyard for docking, cleaning and coating bottom, and carrying out certain repairs to her machinery and electrical equipment. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    CYPRUS (AMENDMENT LAW).
    Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
    1256
    whether he is aware that the legislation introduced into the legislative council of Cyprus, amending the Village Law of 1900, imposes forced labour for six days on road-making upon those who do not pay the tax required; and whether he will take steps to terminate this forced labour entirely?
    Dr. SHIELS: As I stated on 23rd June, the text of the Amendment Law to which the hon. Member refers has only recently been received and is still under examination. Until the examination has been completed, I can express no opinion as to the effect of the law and must not be understood as accepting the interpretation which the hon. Member puts upon it.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Is not the only difference this, that previously they paid if they did not work, and now they work if they do not pay?
    Major COLFOX: How do the conditions of forced labour there compare with the conditions of forced lahour in Russia?
    Mr. McSHANE: Would it not be possible for us to have a copy of the Amendment Law to which the hon. Member referred?
    Dr. SHIELS: I will see if that is possible.

  AVIATION.

    AERODROMES, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aerodromes in the West Riding of Yorkshire at the present time; whether these are regarded as sufficient for existing purposes; and whether his Department has made, or intends to make, representations to the local authorities in favour of the building of an aerodrome at Sheffield?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): There is one permanent civil aerodrome licensed for public use in the West Riding of Yorkshire; this is at Sherburn-in-Elmet. The provision of additional aerodromes would certainly be in the best interests of civil aviation, and in October, 1928, municipal authorities throughout the country, including Sheffield, were circularised in this sense. The Corporation of Sheffield have

    1257
    had the matter under active consideration, and, at their request, one or two possible sites in the neighbourhood have been inspected by the Air Ministry. I hope that the result may be the provision of an aerodrome at Sheffield.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say whether any negotiations are in progress with his Department regarding the establishment of an aerodrome in any other part of this area?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already said that negotiations have been proceeding. The only thing that we can do is to advise the corporation of Sheffield as to suitable sites, and that has been done.

    CLOSE FORMATION FLYING.
    Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what utility there is in the policy of close flying; and whether in view of the danger which it entails, he will give instructions to discontinue such formation flying?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The late War showed conclusively that formation flying was essential for the mutual protection of aircraft against the enemy and its effective development undoubtedly resulted in a marked reduction in casualties. Its practice in time of peace is therefore indispensable. The training regulations of the Royal Air Force provide for the observance of minimum distances between aircraft when flying in formation, and I can assure the hon. Member that every possible care is taken to remove the risk of collision. I may add that collisions between aircraft flying in formation have been very few.
    Sir G. PENNY: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the casualty at Chichester recently, and will he state the minimum distance required for flying in close formation?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot answer that question without notice. Of course, I know all the facts with regard to the accident mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

  INDIA.

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the proposal to increase the
    1258
    subsidy to Imperial Airways, Limited, in order to enable the company to fly the Indian section of the London-Australia air-mail route has been considered again; what would be the amount of extra subsidy required; and whether any objection is raised to such a course by any other Government?
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are contemplated for the carrying on of Imperial Airways' service to India and beyond, in view of the decision to suspend the development of Indian civil aviation?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on Monday last, from which it will be seen that the organisation at Karachi will be maintained for the operation of the England-India service and that the service from Karachi to Delhi now operated by Imperial Airways will be continued until the expiry of the present charter. It would be premature to make any further statement as to the future pending a final decision by the Indian Government with regard to the operation of an Indian State Air Service across India.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman has not really answered my question. Has the question of our paying the subsidy to Imperial Airways been reconsidered in view of the need for economy in India, and may I ask him to answer the last part of my question whether any objection has been raised?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the last point is no. So far as consideration is concerned, we have considered all aspects of the question, including the need for economy in this country.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the other part of Question 23 as to the amount of the extra subsidy required?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member is able to put down a question on that.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is on the Paper.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I must really ask for a reply. How can we get answers to questions that are down?

    1259
    I ask for a definite sum, I know that it is available, and how can I get it? There is nothing confidential about it.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The main part of the two questions has to deal with what has happened in India in regard to civil aviation. I admit that the question asked about the amount of the extra subsidy, and I will do my best to let both hon. Members know.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not now?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: On a point of Order. Information on the subject being of importance, should it not be circulated and not sent only to the two hon. Members?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: On the Estimates I gave full information on the subject.

    FINANCIAL STABILITY.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether, as one of the conditions upon which financial support will be given to India, he will insist that a preference shall be given to British goods entering that country?
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether, before granting financial support to India he will insist upon a definite undertaking that the boycott against British goods entering India shall cease?
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration, when settling the suitable conditions under which financial assistance shall be offered to India, that one of such conditions shall be the safeguarding of the liberty to sell Lancashire cotton goods in India, which is at present being denied to our traders?
    Mr. SANDHAMasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in considering the question of financial aid to India, took into account the practicability of purchase by the Government from Lancashire mills of supplies of cotton cloth, suitable for use in India, such supplies to be placed at the disposal of India on long-term credits, in order to check the decline of the industry in Lancashire?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what are the guarantees and safeguards attached to the offer of financial support from the Imperial Govern-
    1260
    ment to the Government of India; and if he will arrange for a White Paper to be issued setting out the terms of the financial arrangements which have been agreed to by the Government?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Prime Minister for what reason he proposes that financial support should be given at the expense of the British taxpayer to maintain the credit of India, in view of his refusal to use British credit to reorganise British industries?
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an estimate of the contingent liability incurred by Great Britain under the proposal to give financial support to the credit of India?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The purpose of the statement I made on 26th June was to remove apprehensions pending the settlement of the constitutional problem and the formulation of provisions which will ensure the maintenance of India's credit. No occasion for giving financial assistance to the Government of India has arisen, and I trust and believe no such occasion will arise. If it did, the consent of Parliament would of course be required, and the opportunity would then be available to discuss the conditions under which assistance could be given. As regards the boycott of British goods, I would refer to previous statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, and as regards economic concessions, I may say at once that the Government do not contemplate in this connection any measures that would interfere with the operation of the Fiscal Autonomy Convention which has now been in force for a number of years.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the important declaration made by him the other day was made upon the sole authority of His Majesty's Government, or whether it has been the subject of consultation with the leaders of other parties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot charge my memory definitely at the moment as to what the operation was, but certainly it was communicated to the leaders of the parties. Whether they were consulted or not, I am not very sure.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the very grave and far-reaching issues which have necessarily and inevitably been raised by his declaration—the merits of which I am not discussing—he will arrange for the House to have an early opportunity of debating this question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Debate undoubtedly will come if and when it is necessary to bring the matter before the House in the form of leave to make whatever grant or arrangement may be necessary in order to implement that statement.
    Mr. SANDHAM: I want to raise a point of Order. In consequence of the fact that I have a question on the Paper, No 50, applying to this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has no question on the Paper, may I ask that the questions on the Paper should be dealt with before matters affecting right hon. Gentlemen, who have no questions down?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with the questions on the Paper.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask leave of the right hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a rule of this House that when Members have questions on the Paper, and they rise to put supplementary questions, they are called upon before other hon. Members?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that there is any rule about it. I endeavour to give a preference to those hon. Members who have questions on the Paper. We are now dealing with an answer to seven or eight questions.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that his statement definitely commits this country to certain contingent obligations, in view of which the investors throughout the country are being guided, and that thus, in a way, we are being committed to—[Interruption]—the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the House an opportunity of Debate upon this question?
    Mr. THORNE: Has there been any consultation with the Opposition about this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly there would be a debate. This Government and any other Government responsible for the government of this country will see to it that any obligations incurred in relation to India's credit will not be allowed to be let down.
    Mr. CHURCHILL——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must not abuse the latitude which I have given him of putting supplementary questions.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: With regard to the question of boycott, will the Prime Minister see that no financial support is given to India unless there is a definite improvement with regard to the boycott of Lancashire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We cannot allow the credit of India, for the management of which we are very largely responsible, to be mixed up and made conditional to any other subject upon which we are negotiating in an independent way.
    Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask, arising out of the original reply to Question 50, if the underlying economic principle covered by that question will be kept in mind by the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the fact that this would be turning unemployment pay into useful economic channels?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever sympathy I may have with the view of my hon. Friend, it would be most improper to mix this question up with the problem of the security of India's credit.
    Sir F. HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in the House in which he said it will not be possible to introduce the proposed constitutional changes if financial stability is not assured, may I ask whether the Prime Minister made that statement entirely on his own initiative; or whether he had been in communication with India on the subject, and if so, will he be kind enough to lay a White Paper on the subject on the Table in order that we may be made fully aware of the whole facts of the case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a totally different subject from the one raised in the question, but, as a matter

    1263
    of fact, there are no papers, so far as I know, upon this subject to lay on the Table.
    Sir W. BRASS: Are we to understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that no conditions so far as the boycott is concerned are to be taken into account; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of financial assistance being given to India, take into account the financial position of Lancashire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The financial position of Lancashire is being taken into account; but the Government is not, and I am perfectly certain that the nation is not, going to allow people who have invested in Indian credit to be worsened by anything that may happen because there is doubt as to whether that country is going to fulfil its responsibilities or not.
    Several HON MEMBERS——
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow any more supplementary questions.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any communication from the railway companies relating to the electrification of main line railways; and can he give particulars and state what his reply has been?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have within the last few days, received a communication from the Railway Companies' Association in regard to this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. DAY: Have the experts of the railway companies examined this scheme?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes. The technical officers of the railway companies have examined it, but the reply has only just been received, and I would rather not say more at this stage.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the question of the electrification of railways has been before the House repeatedly, and that promises have been
    1264
    made from time to time of a definite statement as to the intention of the railway companies? When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to tell the House?
    Mr. MORRISON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am the railway companies. They belong to private owners, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respect their rights more than I should. The reply has only just been received, and I do not think there has been undue delay.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In other words, the private companies are much more efficient than the Minister?

    ROAD CONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN STONE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any records and can state the names of the county or other local authorities that have utilised foreign broken stone in their works during the previous two years?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have not sufficient information to enable me to give a list of the county or other local authorities that have utilised foreign road stone during the previous two years.
    Mr. DAY: Is the county of Devon one of those that have used foreign broken stone in some of their public works?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say.
    Sir W. BRASS: Has the Minister any power to insist that British stone should be used?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, not to insist.

    OMNIBUSES (STANDING PASSENGERS).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience and discontent caused by the regulation limiting the number of people allowed to stand in motor omnibuses to the number of five, particularly in sparsely-populated districts in wet weather and also elsewhere during rush hours; and whether, especially since many such omnibuses have been specially designed to allow a greater number to stand, he will have this regulation in some way modified?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Before making the regulations to which my hon.

    1265
    Friend refers, I gave careful consideration to the views of representatives both of operators of public service vehicles and of persons employed in the industry. I do not think that in general it would make for the convenience or the safety of the travelling public to increase the permissible number of standing passengers.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints to which I have referred are complaints that cannot possibly be foreseen by those engaged in the Traffic Department when making arrangements for vehicles, particularly in the rural areas, where the services are necessarily infrequent; and cannot some elasticity be allowed in the rural areas?
    Mr. MORRISON: On the other hand, one must be careful that vehicles constructed to carry a certain number do not carry a bigger number. I have to face the fact that the workpeople in the industry strongly object to standing passengers, and my hon. Friend will not mind if I take the views of the trade unions into account as well as the views of other people.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in restricting the number of omnibuses this problem becomes very acute, especially in London in rush hours, and will he invite his predecessor to stand with six or seven others on a wet day and compete with a crowd of flappers for a place in an omnibus?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is altogether respectful in his reference to the young ladies of London who use the omnibuses. I rather resent it. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has assumed that a situation exists wich he has no right to assume does exist.
    Mr. BROWN: May I refer to that point——[Interruption.]

    HEAVY OIL EXPERIMENTS, MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Minister of Transport the results of the experiments in certain towns of using crude oil for motor omnibuses?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that certain experiments are now being made with engines using heavy oil on public service vehicles, but it is not at present possible to arrive at any definite conclusions as to their results.

    TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, OXFORD STREET.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Minister of Transport the result of the special traffic regulations in Oxford Street?
    Sir G. PENNYasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement as to the working of the new traffic regulations in Oxford Street; and whether any steps are being taken to ameliorate the congestion in the side streets and to deal with the increased danger to pedestrians?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The new traffic regulations were brought into operation in Oxford Street on 22nd June and are part of a scheme which includes the introduction of traffic control signals. It is, therefore, premature to form any final opinion as to the working of the regulations until the signalling installation has been in operation for a reasonable trial period. At present the traffic is being controlled by constables on point duty in order that drivers of vehicles may gain experience of the effect of the regulations, but the additional advantages which may be expected from the accurate and co-ordinated timing of the periods during which traffic is held up or released at the various street intersections cannot be secured until the signals themselves are brought into operation. Some time must necessarily elapse before drivers of vehicles, as well as pedestrians, have become familiar with the altered conditions, and the experiment will be closely watched from the point of view of the safety as well as the convenience of all classes of road users.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is it not a fact that even with this inadequate experiment so far Oxford Street is much less congested?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have visited Oxford Street, and I think, certainly, that on the whole it has improved. There are bound to be difficulties during the first period of control, and no final opinion can be expressed until the light signals have had a reasonable trial.
    Sir G. PENNY: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ameliorate the congestion in the side streets?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is an aspect of the matter which is being watched. Of course, particularly in the early stages, some difficulties might arise, but we shall watch them carefully. The whole experiment will be subject to review after two or three months' trial.
    Mr. MATTERS: Has the Minister been made aware of the result of the new traffic regulations as shown in these papers?
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the light signals are in operation at midnight and onwards, but that vehicles pay no attention to them? Is not that a dangerous process?
    Mr. MORRISON: At the moment they are not effectively in operation at all. We are, so to speak, experimenting with them during the night hours. Certain other experiments are taking place until they are permanently in operation; but there is no serious use of the light signals so far.
    Sir W. BRASS: In view of the congestion that exists at the present time, could not the right hon. Gentleman suspend this experiment until the light signals are ready?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. It was decided that we should have this experimental period without the light signals in order that we can gradually work into them, and, on the whole, I think that is the sound thing to do.

    HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport what expenses the Crown is now liable for under the agreement to pay 75 per cent. of the legal charges incurred in promoting the Humber Bridge Bill; and whether he has formed any estimate as to the Crown liability in the event of the Bill being opposed in another place?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I presume my hon. and gallant Friend, by "legal expenses" means the total expenses, including witnesses, shorthand notes, etc., up to the date when the
    1268
    scheme received the approval of the Committee of the First House. It is not possible to give a definite figure, as this cannot be accurately ascertained, the costs being subject to taxation, but the nearest estimate of the total cost is £28,600, to which the Road Fund will contribute 75 per cent., namely, £21,450. It is not possible to estimate the expenses which may be incurred by the promoters in the event of the Bill being opposed in another place, as this is entirely dependent upon the extent of the opposition, which, until petitions are lodged, is unknown. It is not, however, anticipated that the Committee stage in the Upper House is likely to occupy anything like so much time as it did in the First House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but is there any way by which he can inform the bodies who are opposing this, the railway companies, the canal companies, and so on, with all their shareholders and others, of the tremendous expense that is being run up?

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES, LEYTOX.
    Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Leyton, in his report for 1930, states that the overcrowding in the trains from the City to Leyton exposes the travelling public to risks of infection; and whether he is prepared to take action to provide better travelling facilities from the City to Leyton?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware of the observations contained in the report referred to with respect to train services between the City and Leyton. I am, however, informed by the railway company that a recent examination of the loading of the trains in each direction on this section of the line discloses that, taken as a whole, the seating accommodation is adequate, but that it happens in some instances that while there are vacant seats in the front part of the trains, at the rear passengers are standing. I also understand that the trains are being run to their maximum length, and that owing to the volume of traffic passing over the line it is not possible to increase the service by running additional trains during the peak hours.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Was not the investigation by the railway company made at least a year ago? May I ask whether the differences in view between the railway company and the borough council and the people of Leyton would not justify an independent investigation by the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure when the inquiry was undertaken. I would remind my hon. Friend that there was lately an elaborate inquiry into the travelling facilities in East and North-East London, an outcome of which was a recommendation that much could be done towards improvement by proper coordination, which is being undertaken under the London Passenger Transport Bill.
    Mr. THORNE: Are there any negotiations for a new railway down to Ching-ford and to Romford?
    Mr. MORRISON: That might be one of the happy consequences of the London Passenger Traffic Bill. I see no other way of doing it.

    CROSS-ROADS (COLLISIONS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the increase of motor accidents, often fatal, through collisions at crossroads; and whether he will approve of a standard form of danger sign to be erected at these points?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware of any evidence that would point to the conclusion that motor accidents at cross-roads are increasing at the present time. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is already in existence a standard international sign giving warning of the approach to cross-roads which has been erected in large numbers throughout the country. I may add that I propose shortly to review the whole question of road traffic signs in connection with the provisions of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Traffic Commissioners in various areas to give attention to this matter, so as to advise him on any further means that may be taken to deal with this cross-roads question?
    Mr. MORRISON: This is not a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners at all. It must be settled in consultation between the Ministry and the local authorities, and it is actively under consideration.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting up danger signals at cross-roads in London?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, we will consider that.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has it been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that a disproportionate number of accidents at cross-roads is caused by long distance coaches working to scheduled time?
    Mr. MORRISON: In so far as that is a problem, and I agree that it is, it will progressively be brought under control under the new licensing system.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: In view of the fact that there are, unfortunately, cases of petrol tanks catching fire, can the Minister make representations to car owners on this matter?

    ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (AMENDING LEGISLATION).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House when the one-clause Bill providing for the repeal of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, will be introduced?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Bill has already been introduced in another place.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use every endeavour to expedite the passage of the Bill, bearing in mind that if it does not soon become law many thousands of children will not be able to go for their summer holidays?
    Mr. MORRISON: We have that point in mind, and I understand there is a general desire among all parties concerned to co-operate towards that end, and I will do what I can to assist.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Title of the amending Bill wide enough to allow the House to discuss additions to it?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, it is not; otherwise we should not get the Bill quickly enough.

    HEADLIGHTS (EXPERIMENTS).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport what experiments were made with non-dazzling and dipping headlights before the draft regulations on this subject were issued; whether the experiments were conducted under ordinary night-travelling conditions on busy roads; and whether an experiment on the French way of dealing with the dazzle difficulty was included?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The officers of my Department have kept in constant touch for many years with all developments in connection with antidazzle devices and have attended and carried out numerous tests and experiments both on the road and on testing grounds. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, I am acquainted with the views of the French authorities on this subject, and one of my technical officers has attended a demonstration of one of the devices of which they have approved.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not an obligation upon car drivers to turn down the headlights?
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the importance of making these experiments on the big main roads, so as to be able to see the power effect of the antidazzle devices?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think my answer indicates that that is one of the factors which is and ought to be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) will find that his point is covered by the regulations which I propose to make.

    OMNIBUS AND COACH LICENCES.
    Mr. CARTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences to omnibus companies in London have been issued and how many rejected from 1st January to 1st June, 1931?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): In the period mentioned, 2,689 omnibus licences and 1,432 coach licences (or "consents to use" under the Transitory Provisions Order) were issued by the Commissioner of Police. No omnibus or coach was finally rejected; 407 vehicles were rejected at first presenta-
    1272
    tion, but were subsequently licensed after alterations had been made, excepting one coach, which has not been presented a second time.

    TRAFFIC (MILITARY CONTROL).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider arranging for an experiment to be made in the military control of traffic on certain occasions when, as in the case of the Air Force pageant, the ordinary methods of control are inadequate?
    Mr. SHORT: The problem presented by the Hendon traffic is mainly one of road space, and my right hon. Friend does not think there is any reason to suppose that any modification of the method of control or personnel engaged at and near the aerodrome would afford a solution of the difficulties.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

    CHARGES, LONDON AREA.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport how many different types of electricity tariffs for lighting and domestic purposes are in operation in the London area; and whether any action is being taken to bring about greater uniformity in this connection?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: In the area of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority there are at least 20 different types of electricity tariffs or methods of charging for lighting and domestic supplies, and within each of these methods there are many variations. I understand that the Joint Authority is engaged in exploring the possibility of reducing the number of variations in the basis of charge for domestic purposes, but up to the present as unable to report any measure of success.
    Mr. WEST: Does not the Minister think that uniformity in charges would be very beneficial?
    Mr. MORRISON: I quite agree.

    MINCHINHAMPTON, CHALFORD AND BRIMSCOMBE.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the towns of Minchinhampton, Chalford

    1273
    and Brimscombe are not yet supplied with electricity; and whether he will urge the Electricity Commissioners to press the West Gloucester Power Company to supply these towns as soon as possible?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Electricity Commissioners have informed me that they are making inquiries into this matter; and I will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    PERU (BRITISH LEGATION).
    Major COLFOXasked the First Commissioner of Works what was the country of origin of the various materials other than steel reinforcing bars used in the construction of the new British Legation at Lima, Peru?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The following have been supplied from British sources:

    Ornamental ironwork,

    Sanitary goods.

    Electric light fittings.

    Door and window fittings.

    Wall-tiling.

    Paint and distemper.

    Grates and ranges.

    Glass.

    I have no definite information as regards the remainder of the materials used, but it is probable that sand, gravel, bricks, cement, and wood for joinery were obtained locally by the contractor. Local stocks of constructional timber and wood flooring are being used, but these have probably been imported from the United States of America.
    Major COLFOX: Is it a fact that the cement used in this building was imported from the United States of America?
    Mr. LANSBURY: It happened to be on the spot, and, as it was not a very big job, we bought it.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the First Commissioner of Works what response he has made to recent representations regarding the need for a concentration of Government offices in Edinburgh; and whether he will give instructions for new
    1274
    plans and designs to be prepared for a building on the Calton site, which will meet with the approval of the Fine Art Commission, and so make it possible to proceed as soon as practicable with the erection of the new offices there?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have received a number of resolutions and other communications, as stated by my hon. Friend. I regret, however, that it is not possible to add anything to the reply which I gave him on this subject on 16th March last.
    Mr. MATHERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the very great economy that there would be with the erection of such offices, not only economy in respect of rents being paid at present, but economy in time to people who have to go round these offices; and does the right hon. Gentleman's answer suggest that his Department is not capable of designing a building that would meet with the approval of the Fine Art Commission?
    Mr. LANSBURY: To the last part of the question, my answer is distinctly in the negative. With regard to the question of going on with the building in Edinburgh, it is subject to financial stringency.

  AGRICULTURE.

    TALKING FILMS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to make use of talking films for the purpose; of instruction in agriculture?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The educational value of such films is, I understand, now being considered by the Commission on Educational and Cultural Films, whose report I shall await with interest. For propaganda purposes, as distinct from education, two short talking films have already been produced by my Department, and the extension of this means of publicity is under consideration.

    WHEAT QUOTA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet arrived at any decision on the wheat

    1275
    quota; and whether he proposes to make any statement upon the matter before the summer Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on 22nd May last on the Motion for the Adjournment, to which I have nothing more to add.
    Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some more up-to-date information because some time has elapsed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is perfectly definite that no statement can be made before the summer Recess.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether, seeing that the Irish Free State have a clean bill of health as regards foot-and-mouth disease, he can now relax the severity of the regulations forbidding the import of cattle from Southern Ireland;
    (2) whether, seeing that the period of incubation of foot-and-mouth disease is from four to six days, and that for all cattle a six days' detention is a statutory requirement, and seeing that after this detention outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease appeared simultaneously in various places in England and at one place in Northern Ireland, he can yet state what was the cause of all the outbreaks; and will he investigate other possible causes of the outbreak, and in the meanwhile suspend the embargo against the importation of cattle from Ireland?
    Dr. ADDISON: The evidence clearly shows that foot-and-mouth disease was introduced in Great Britain by cattle shipped from Belfast on the 10th June to Heysham and Ayr. Some of these cattle came direct from premises on which, according to information furnished by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, disease must have existed since the first week in June. According to the latest information received from Northern Ireland, the origin of the outbreak in that country has not yet been established. I am carefully considering the question whether any
    1276
    modification of the embargo on animals from Ireland can now be made with safety, and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Seeing that there has been no foot-and-mouth disease for many years past, and that it might come from some imported foreign substance, such as oats or, possibly, butter, will the right hon. Gentleman put an embargo on such foreign stuffs, which might have led to the disease, until this country is completely clear?
    Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. Have you not forgotten, Mr. Speaker, to call my Question No. 48?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In my Question No. 55 I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what was the origin of the disease, and I am now simply asking whether he could not put an embargo on certain substances which might have to do with it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That really does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

    CEREAL CULTIVATION.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will be able to make any further statement before the House separates for the summer recess as to the Government policy in aid of cereal cultivation?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to-day to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood).
    Mr. HASLAM: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's answer only referred to one particular policy, namely, the quota; and are we to understand that the Government have no other policy for cereals?
    Mr. W. B. TAYLOR——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question of supplementary questions is being abused.
    Mr. BUTLER: On a point of Order. Is it right, on the question of cereal cultivation, which affects the workpeople in our arable districts more than any other, that supplementaires should be curtailed?
    Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask why I was ruled out?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not rise to put a point of Order, but to put a supplementary question, and I thought that we had had enough of them.
    Mr. TAYLOR: With great respect, I have hardly asked a supplementary question this Session. The gravity of the agricultural situation, and the entire absence of legislation, render——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been rather unfortunate in his choice of the time to ask his only supplementary question.

    IMPORTED STRAWBERRY PULP.
    The following questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir THOMAS INSKIP
    "58. To ask the Minister of Health whether the use of chemicals such as suphur dioxide or lime as preservatives will be allowed in the case of foreign strawberry pulp about to be imported during the next four weeks; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the risk of injury to health by the use of such preservatives?
    59. To ask the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the importation of foreign strawberry pulp, dressed with sulphur dioxide or other chemicals as preservatives, is about to take place; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as may be open to him to prevent such importation and, if so, what steps?"
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: On a point of Order. May I direct attention to the fact that Question No. 59, which is more or less a repetition of Question No. 58, was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, and has been transferred, without my consent, to the Ministry of Health? I beg to put Question No. 58.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, answer these two questions together. Under the Preservatives Regulations, the only chemical preservatives allowed in strawberry pulp are sulphur dioxide and sulphites. My right hon. Friend understands that the use of these preservatives, is regarded as a commercial necessity for both home-produced and foreign fruit, and, in view of the small residual amount allowed in the jam made from the pulp, he does not think that he would be justified in amending the Regulations so as to prohibit their use.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are large quantities of strawberries awaiting picking in Hampshire which cannot be put on the market owing to the competition of this chemically dressed foreign pulp?
    Miss LAWRENCE: I have no information on that point, but this I do know, that the Fruit Manufacturers' Federation are at present pressing us to allow the percentage of sulphur to be slightly increased in English jam, for the benefit of the trade
    Mr. WEST: Is it not the fact that the great bulk of this foreign pulp is imported by supporters of the party opposite?
    Mr. HASLAM: Will the hon. Lady put it to the Minister that jams made from such pulp, containing sulphur dioxide, should be labelled as such, so that the buying public may know what they are buying?

    UNEMPLOYMENT (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister when, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, he proposes to introduce legislative proposals with a view to the mitigation of unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Notice of a Measure to stimulate the development of housing in rural areas has already been given to the House. No further special legislative proposals are contemplated before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Will this legislation actually be introduced before the House rises; and cannot the Government reconsider this matter with a view to bringing before the House, before we do rise, some planned method of dealing with the conditions?
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the statement that this Government will stand or fall by its handling of unemployment, and of the statement we have just had that the only legislation that it is intended to introduce is a Measure dealing with housing, may I ask when the Government will resign?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Haslam.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister was about to reply to the first of these supplementary questions. May we not have his answer?

    POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Post-master-General if he will consider the advisability of abolishing the condition which binds subscribers to the telephone service to pay an additional quarter's rent after the expiry of the quarter during which subscribers have given notice to terminate their contracts, as subscribers are not in receipt of any benefits in respect of this extra charge and as the Department does not incur any additional expense in removing the apparatus?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): My hon. Friend is considering whether any modification of the present procedure is practicable.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the charges for the British Industries Fair, 1932, have been increased from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per square foot; and the reasons for this extra charge?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The increased charge per square foot, for space at the British Industries Fair, 1932, is due to the necessity for providing additional accommodation for the fair. This involved the leasing of the overhead buildings at the White City, and consequent increased expenditure so as to bring these buildings into line with Olympia as regards heating, decoration and other essential services. The decision to increase the charge for space was made on the recommendation of the committee elected to represent the interests of the exhibitors.
    Mr. PERKINS: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to make exceptions in the case of certain hard-pressed industries?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I should think, having regard to the latter part of the answer, that the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of the exhibitors.

    COAL (PRICES).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary for Mines what is the average selling price of coal sold in Lancashire and of coal sold for export, respectively, for the latest period for which figures are available compared with the price for the corresponding period last year?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The information asked for is not available, but the following figures may be of use to the hon. Member. The pithead price per ton disposed of commercially at Lancashire and Cheshire pits was 17s. 1¼d. during the first quarter of 1930 and 17s. 4½d. during the corresponding period this year. Export prices for Lancashire and Cheshire coal are not available separately, but the f.o.b. prices for coal exported from Lancashire ports, which includes coal from North Wales, Yorkshire and certain Midland counties, was 21s. 5d. and 21s. 1d. in the first quarters of 1930 and 1931, respectively.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It follows, then, that the operation of the Coal Mines Act is to put up the price of coal to the Lancashire consumer, and to lower the price to Lancashire's competitors.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid the hon. Member is mistaken. That does not follow from the answer.

    NATURALISATION.
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that persons with five years' residence in this country are being refused certificates of naturalisation; and what is the minimum length of residence now insisted on by his Department?
    Mr. SHORT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Five years' residence in this country is one of the statutory qualifications for an application, but does not give an alien any right to naturalisation. My right hon. Friend is sometimes obliged to refuse to naturalise an alien who has lived here for much longer than that. The second part of the question does not seem to arise.

    ASBESTOSIS.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the death at the age of 50 of an employé of the Cape Asbestos Works, Barking, and to the medical evidence given at the inquest on 16th June last to the effect that a post-mortem showed definitely that the deceased was suffering from asbestosis; and whether he will take steps to amend the medical arrangement scheme made under the Silicosis (Asbestosis) Acts, 1925 and 1930, so as to apply to packers, the occupation in which this man was employed?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has received a report by the medical inspector who attended the inquest. This shows that while the death was due to cancer, asbestosis of the lungs was also present. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered, but no danger has hitherto been apprehended from the packing of the manufactured materials, and the matter must be fully investigated before any conclusion is reached.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two doctors certified at the inquest that, had this person not died from another disease, he would have died from asbestosis? [Interruption.] Is this a laughing matter?

    CIVIL SERVICE (EXAMINATIONS, CLERICAL CLASSES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the imminence of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and the possible absorption of ex-service men to established posts in the Civil Service, the former procedure will be adopted in the matter of extension of the list of successful candidates at the open competition for boys and girls held in January, 1931, for admission to the established clerical classes; and what is the policy of the Government in respect of future open competitive examination for these classes?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not proposing to offer appointments to competitors at the examination to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in ex-
    1282
    cess of the number so far declared successful until I have had an opportunity of considering the report of the Royal Commission. I shall also await the report before considering further the policy to be adopted as regards the future of this examination.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in previous examinations those who were not successful were put on established rank while ex-service men who had carried out their work satisfactorily did not have the same advantage, and will he see that this does not occur again?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the word "successful" is misleading in that respect. I have explained on several occasions in this House that it is used in a special sense in this connection. But I have already given an assurance on what I understood to be his main request that, pending the report of the Royal Commission, I shall not take the steps to which he takes exception.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not the word "successful" mean those who have attained a certain number of marks?
    Mr. PEITHICK-LAWRENCE: No, it does not mean that. The word "successful" is applied to those candidates for whom places can be found at once. It frequently happens that candidates who would be regarded as successful in the ordinary sense of the word by qualifying in the matter of marks, are not found places at once and are called unsuccessful for that reason.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: Since there is an obvious anomaly in discharging men from the Civil Service with one hand and bringing them in with the other, could you not at least avoid going down the successful list and expanding it? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that he has a very wide discretion on this matter.

BILL REPORTED.
Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Wallasey Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Great Western Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Coventry Extension Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the Grand Union Canal Company of the undertakings of the Company of Proprietors of the Leicester Navigation the Company of Proprietors of the Navigation from the river Trent to the town of Loughborough, and the Company of Proprietors of the Erewash Canal in the counties of Derby and Nottingham; to authorise the Grand Union Canal Company to execute works; and for other purposes." [Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, &c.) Bill [Lords].]

GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, &c.) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Ascertainment of Values.)
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, after the word "erections," to insert the word "roads."
    May I ask your Ruling, Sir, whether in discussing this Amendment we may also discuss the two Amendments that follow which are in the same names and deal with the same matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection to that. The only objection is that the second Amendment is not in order. I am advised that by raising the value it might create a charge.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL - THOMSON: May I ask in what respect the Amendment imposes a charge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: By raising the value.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: While this is a very difficult Sub-section to construe, there can, I think, be no result of these Amendments except to reduce the charge. They take something out of the value but do not add anything to it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will give the matter further consideration. Meanwhile I have no objection to the three Amendments being dealt with together.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: This series of Amendments raises a very important question as to whether money that has been definitely put into land by the owner of the land shall be subject to the Land Tax or not. The proposition that the Government put forward is that the site shall be valued and taxed on the assumption that the community is to take back part of the value which it has created. Does it not necessarily follow that there should be deducted from that site value the value of improvements definitely put into the land by the landowner on which he has expended something by which in many cases he has greatly increased the value of the land? The proposition is unanswerable. In
    1292
    fact, the Government have never in any way attempted to answer it, but have only endeavoured to try to excuse it. When, on 10th June, this matter was under discussion in Committee, and we had an opportunity of hearing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) deal with the question, it was well known that the proposals of the Government were wrong. Yet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were bound to support them otherwise they could not see how the valuation could be made in a practical way. I could not help adapting the lines of Tennyson:
    "Their honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept them falsely true."
    The Amendments on the Paper to-day are much narrower in scope than the Amendments discussed on 10th June moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). He dealt with a very large number of cases where landowners have put money into their land, and the supporters of the Government very largely rode off upon the minor points, some of which raised practical difficulties with regard to valuation, instead of answering the major point where the practical difficulties are not so great. I wish to deal with the question of roads, as it is perhaps the most important of all building development in the country where roads have not been made. In that matter the learned Solicitor-General did us the honour of giving a reasoned argument and he explained exactly how, in his view, the valuation of the roads should take place. Through the whole of his argument the idea seemed to be running that it would only be a small matter and that in certain cases the tax would not be payable until a certain time, and that part of it would be put upon one little unit and part upon another little unit, and that therefore it was not a matter of really great importance. It must be remembered that in developing land the making of private roads during the past 20 years must have cost millions of pounds. This is not an exaggeration. Every pound of those millions would be subject to tax under the Bill The total taxation to be put upon roads built by private enterprise

    1293
    will be taxation which, although divided among a large number of people, will run into millions.
    I will go through the case put by the learned Solicitor-General. He explained that when a builder started making a road into back land the tax would not fall upon that road until someone other than the builder was entitled to use it. As long as the builder continued making the road there would be no taxation, but as soon as somebody else had a right to go on to the road the tax would fall on the portion of the road over which he had a right to go. I will put another case to him. Suppose a builder, instead of driving a cul-de-sac, as the learned Solicitor-General has suggested, straight into a piece of land from the east, we will say, and building houses numbered two, four and six on one side and numbered one, three and five on the other side, and selling or letting them as he went on, made a road right through to another highway on the other side. As soon as a purchaser occupied a house upon that road, he would naturally have the right to go through either highway, and the consequence would be that immediately that was done the whole of the tax would fall upon the owner of the land on the side of the road connecting the two highways. The method of development which the learned Solicitor-General indicated may not be the most useful method. He suggested that a builder might buy a field and put a road through it. There are other developments. A landowner may make a road and put up the usual sign, "These delightful eligible plots to be sold" for such-and-such purposes, and you make your pick of the various sites. A builder may come along and make his choice, but it does not necessarily mean that houses are built one after another according to the numbers of the houses to be erected in the street.
    I have in mind a case which I know well. It relates to a piece of land in my constituency of which I am a trustee. It is a trusteeship for a charity and, therefore, the land will not bear tax, but that fact does not in the least vitiate the argument, because a similar piece of land might be developed in the same way by a private landowner. Over 20 years ago this field was developed by making a
    1294
    circular boulevard between one highway and another, the inside of the circle facing on to the apex of the triangle of the two roads. It is rather a difficult matter to explain without a blackboard. A certain number of people came and selected plots. Eight or 10 houses were built upon land which probably would have held 50 or 60 houses. Development then stopped. People did not come along. The War came and made things more difficult still. After the War, it was found that the building restriction that had been put upon the land, namely, that the houses to be erected were to be of a certain high quality, made it very difficult to get the land developed. People at that time did not want to build £1,200, £1,500 or £2,000 houses, the great demand being for smaller villas at less cost. The consequence is that at the present time a large amount of that land has not been let off. The road is there. All that time interest has had to be paid on the money used for making the road, and if the proposed tax had been in force the whole of that time it would have been levied not merely upon the people who had bought houses and were living in them, but upon the undeveloped land belonging to the owner who had made the road. Under this proposal no deduction whatever can be made from the site value of the road owing to the expenditure upon the road. This seems to be a simple and a clear case where the owner is not receiving due and just credit for the money and labour put into the land.
    4.0 p.m.
    I will take another case. Roads are not immediately taken over by local authorities. Very often they will not take them over until the roads are practically built up, and when they do, they put a dedication charge upon the owner of the site in respect of the frontage and very often he has to pay large sums to a corporation for them to make up the roads according to their specification. I believe that in some cases the owner is at liberty to make up the road himself to their satisfaction, but this is very rarely done. It is usually done by the local authority and the costs are divided. A man, for instance, has bought his site and built his house, and the site value is so much. He is assessed accordingly. Then the next quinquennial valuation

    1295
    comes along. In the meantime he has had to spend, say, £100 for dedication charge. He will then have his site valued, because the road is improved, and he will have to pay the tax. That is a most flagrant case, because the man will definitely have to pay tax on the money that he has had to pay over to the corporation in making a road satisfactory to the corporation. All these cases are very unfair, and the only answer we get is that it is impossible from a practical point of view to make a valuation of what the road has cost. It may be impracticable to go back into long past history, but surely it is not without the bounds of possibility to put in some reasonable time limit and to put the onus of proof on the owner to show what he has spent on the road before he becomes liable to the tax on his own expenditure. It surely is not more difficult to value the land without the road than it is to value it without the sewers. The Solicitor-General told us that sewers have to come out. The valuation must really be based upon the ground that the owner has got or the amount per yard at which it has been sold. In that amount per yard there is put in both the cost of the road and of the sewers. The Solicitor-General says that it is necessary to take out the cost of the sewers, because they are a work which it not to be taxed, but that the cost of the road is to remain in.
    There was one point I did not understand in the Solicitor-General's speech with regard to sewers. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain what is the position if the local authority has not got a sewer near. I know that a local authority is not compelled to bring sewers beyond a certain distance, and that owners who have developed sites have had to create their own sewerage works and septic tanks, and years later have had to connect them compulsorily with the corporation's main sewers. I knew a case in which an owner had to pay to a corporation a very large sum of money towards the expense of bringing a main sewer to his land—land which did not belong to him. Is he to get no credit for expenditure of that sort? All these questions with regard to roads present an absolutely unanswerable case. I hope that the House will support this Amendment. There was a second Amend
    1296
    ment, as to which I believe there is some doubt, and I will pass it by so as not to risk offending, but the object of it was that if the road had been made by the local authority, then the landowner should not get any credit for the expenditure of the local authority. My third point is the one that leads up to the words:
    "And except any buildings, erections, and works in so far as they are necessary for the reclamation of land or the protection thereof from flooding or for maintaining the stability of the unit."
    This is not, perhaps, quite such a usual case as that of roads. The usual case is where the landowner has made an invasion of the territory of the sea, and after the expenditure of money has brought sandhills, mud flats and wastes into use and created solid ground upon which man can make his dwelling; also where the landowner, instead of making his invasion of the sea, has resisted the invasion of the sea by making sea-walls and protecting the land. These cases will necessarily occur mostly round our sea coasts. I wonder what would be the position of this country now if there had not been created round our coasts the beautiful seaside resorts and watering places to which people of all classes go for enjoyment and health. If it had not been for private enterprise in building I cannot see how we could have had these resorts at all. Even to-day one cannot imagine a little rural district council suddenly saying without any backing, "We will create a great seaside resort."
    Money spent by individual landowners has made the seaside resorts around the country. Take the case of Eastbourne. There is that little old town in the middle, the old foreshore and the ramshackle houses. That is all that there was. Can anyone imagine that the rural district council of old Eastbourne would have developed the beautiful town that Eastbourne is now, with its long sea wall and esplanades? It is ridiculous to try to imagine it. Yet expense of that sort is to receive no credit whatever from the Government or in the valuation. The proposal of the Bill is not only unjust as far as the past is concerned, but disastrous as far as the future is concerned. You will never get such development going on in the future while there are these threats of taxation. If the Bill

    1297
    passes in its present form there will be no new seaside resorts and watering places, because no one will pour out money simply to be taxed. The rural district councils representing a few little cottages down a cove, how are they to start to develop a seaside resort? It is impossible.
    These cases show that the Bill and the form of valuation proposed are grossly unfair. But, really, the most ridiculous case of all that the Solicitor-General pointed out to us in our last discussion was the case of expenditure for the stability of the land. That means that where on a hillside it is desirable to make a road for development, not only have you to make a much more expensive road by cutting into the hillside, but you get no credit at all for building a retaining wall to prevent the hillside from sliding on to the road. That again is very expensive work. It is extraordinary that if the site is a flat site and you put a wall round it, the cost is something which you deduct, but if it is a retaining wall which has cost a great deal more money you have to take the whole of the expenditure that has been made upon it and add that to the site value. It is most unfair; it is impossible to see the equity of it at all.
    I said earlier that it might be necessary to provide some form of time limit, and even to put on the owner the onus of proving the expenditure. But if these things are done, although the whole principle of the Bill is one to which I object, the grossest unfairness with regard to taxing owners' improvements would be abolished. The answer of the Government is "We must have the tax. We cannot have the tax unless we are unfair, and therefore we will be unfair. We must have the tax. We cannot have the tax without being illogical; therefore we will be illogical. We must have the tax. We cannot have it with equity; therefore we will abolish equity." Unless the Government can meet us in some way they stand condemned for passing proposals based upon illogicality, injustice and inequity.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. TURTON: It is rather amazing that a Finance Bill which was introduced with the words "God gave the land to
    1298
    the people" should contain a provision to make it necessary for God also to have given the roads to the people. I cannot find any justification for an owner of land being taxed for having made roads upon his land. I want to draw attention to one concrete instance in a place four miles from a large town in Yorkshire. There there was a plot of ground which, when the owner took it, was worth £7,000. He built a road through the plot in order that the land might be developed. That road cost £5,000, and is half a mile long. He built the road at a time when there was a prospect of development around that town. That development has now gone on at a slower rate, but he has built houses at each end of that road, which adjoins two main roads. He has built 10 houses, and as they are leasehold he obtains a ground rent from the plots of £5 per house. Therefore he has obtained a sum of £50 from his development of the area.
    The assessment of those plots and of all contiguous plots will now bring the value of the whole site up to some £20,000. Unless amended the Bill will result in this: That man has spent £12,000 on that site. He is now receiving £50 a year, and it is very doubtful whether in the near future he will be able to build more houses or receive a larger amount. The tax on these sites will be 1d. in the £ upon £20,000, that is £83 a year. That owner is being punished for his efforts; he has to lose £33 a year, although he has spent £12,000 in developing that site. I can hardly believe that the Government can justify taxation of an owner who has spent money in that way, certainly for his own welfare, but also for the welfare of the community at large. There is no justification for the taxation of improvements which have been made at the expense of the owner and for which an owners draws little or no advantage.
    In our earlier discussions the Solicitor-General drew attention to the definition of a road. I should say that that road in question in Yorkshire is not open to the public, because there are only 10 houses built on it, but it is open to the occupiers of the several houses and those who wish to go upon it. From the speech of the learned Solicitor-General in Committee I thought he intended that the

    1299
    road should not be a road under this Bill, but if one looks at the definition of a road in Clause 27 one finds that "'road' does not, in relation to any land unit, include any road which the occupier alone is entitled to use." That cannot be said of this particular road, because it is allowed to be used not only by the occupier of the unit but by the occupier of the adjoining units. The Bill's definition of "road" will not help the owner or occupier of that land, or the owner of many other such roads in Yorkshire.
    I have confined myself to one instance because it is better to get a clear view as to how this tax will work. Throughout the country the effect of this tax on improvements and on roads will mean a cessation in the development of land and the making of roads, because owners will wait until the local authority makes a road, and at the present time local authorities are not very swift to develop plans and make roads as they have very little funds with which to do the work. I view the Bill as a whole with the gravest misgivings, but this particular Sub-section is one of the grossest injustices the Government could have devised. I hope they will take some steps to exclude improvements made by an owner and remedy the injustice which will be done in cases such as I have cited.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I should have thought that on this point we should have been blessed with an Amendment from the Government, because when this question was before the Committee the Solicitor-General said that he was prepared to consider it and to put something in on the Report stage which would cover really hard cases. We do not expect very much from the old brooms on the Treasury Bench, but the Solicitor-General is a new broom, and a very effective broom, and I, for one, thought that he would have cleared this mess away. There is a great deal in the Amendment, although hon. Members above the Gangway have not gone far enough, inasmuch as they do not mention roads which have been taken over by the local authority. The Solicitor-General explained to us, when this question was being considered in Committee, that sewage and drainage which are part of a local authority's scheme can be in
    1300
    cluded in a valuation. But this cannot apply to the case of a road. It may be intelligible as far as public roads are concerned, but it is not intelligible as regards private roads. The test of a road is that it is used by a number of people. Suppose a man erects a factory and builds a road, as long as nobody else but the owner of the factory uses it, it remains a private road, but if he allows a factory to be built at the other end of the road, say a cheese-making factory, and that road enhances the value of the land, the owner of the first factory will be pounced upon. The effect of it is that as soon as a road becomes of use to the community, or to a part of the community, it becomes part of the valuation and the owner is taxed.
    I cannot believe that it is the intention that a man who buys land at £50 an acre and spends £600 on roads to improve it should, in consequence, have to pay a tax on £650. It is putting such a man on the same plane as the man who benefits by the construction of underground railways which are being built at the present time around London and which improve the value of land considerably, through no merit or labour on the part of the owner himself. I press the Solicitor-General to consider this question of roads. There will be a period of two or three years before the Bill comes into operation, and I hope during that time that the Government will devise a scheme by which this injustice can be remedied. It is not the policy even of the Labour Government to tax these improvements, and indeed, by doing so they are running counter to what they have many times proclaimed as their policy. The Foreign Secretary, who stands in an avuncular relation to most hon. Members of the Labour party, said at Cromer in 1922—
    "The Labour party holds that it is suicidal for the nation to penalise by increased taxation occupiers of land who effect improvements which add to its value."
    At Newcastle, in 1923, the same right hon. Gentleman said:
    "If a farmer increases the value of his land by erecting improved buildings or draining the land, the rates are immediately increased. That is a form of taxation with which I do not agree."
    I am glad that this Amendment has been put down by hon. Members above the Gangway, because it shows that they also have changed their policy somewhat. The right hon. Member for Croydon (Sir W.

    1301
    Mitchell-Thomson) 20 years ago was vehement in opposing the increment value tax. I am glad hon. and right hon. Members have put their names to this Amendment, because they are the same hon. and right hon. Members who introduced and passed the Derating Act. In that Measure, they never took any care to differentiate between personal improvements and other improvements. It is true they were derated to the value of 75 per cent., but rates are still laid upon improvements, although by the Derating Act they imposed rates upon other subjects which were not industrial. I press the Government that for once, on a point where the policy of the three parties is agreed, they should take the sense of the House and try to amend this Clause in a satisfactory manner.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) has referred to my statement in the Committee stage. It only shows the real difficulties of this situation. I stated:
    "I have already said about there being a very real difficulty here, and that we do appreciate it, and that although we have tried to cover what we consider the relevant and fair cases it may be that some form of Amendment can be devised which would still make the valuation a practical and a practicable thing and would yet, perhaps, cover some cases of hardship which might still be left in the Bill; and if any hon. Members in any part of the House can suggest to us words which are genuinely intended to remedy any defect that there may he, and do not wreck the valuation, then we shall be perfectly prepared to consider them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1931; col. 1101, Vol. 253.]
    The trouble is that no form of words has been suggested, as far as I know, which achieve the object. That is the difficulty. In all these cases of valuation, depending on the view of the valuer, cases of hardship may arise, and anyone who has had any experience of valuations knows that however carefully you try to safeguard the position as regards valuation, you are always liable to get cases of hardship. On the other hand, if you do what was done under the 1909–10 legislation, you might reduce the Bill to an absurdity. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is that already!"] If that is the case, the hon. Member need not worry. We do not think it is, but we appreciate the fact that time after time hon. Members opposite have tried to make it an absurdity, and that is why we have to resist so many
    1302
    Amendments. We also realise that some hon. Members are desirous of assisting in getting a good Bill, although they do not agree with all its provisions. I dealt with the difficulty as regards roads at great length during the Committee stage, and I do not propose to reproduce the arguments I then brought forward. I should like to draw attention to the form of the Amendment. It would, of course, have no effect at all standing alone, and it is the second Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, said you would have to consider as to whether it was in order, which is intended to be the operative Amendment. Apart from the second Amendment, this Amendment could have no meaning at all.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be useful if I say now that the second of the two Amendments would be in order if the words "and works" were omitted from the words it is proposed to insert.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The paragraph would then read:
    "any buildings, erections, roads, or works except roads executed by a local authority."
    That would have no meaning at all, because roads made by a local authority could not possibly form part of a unit. A road made by a local authority would be the property of the local authority and could not possibly be on a unit which belongs to someone else. Some of the arguments put forward arise from a failure to keep in mind the fact that what we are dealing with in this Clause are the precise conditions of the unit, which is a unit of occupation and not a unit of ownership. The unit under the Bill is a unit of occupation, and although there may be one owner of a building estate that estate would be many units under the Bill. The probability is that each plot or each house will form a separate unit as soon as it is sold or disposed of. When you are considering these units two circumstances may arise, either a bit of the road, half the width of the road fronting a particular house, would come into the unit, or none of it. If it is a local authority road there would be none of it in the unit; if it is a road which remains the property of the owner, which is not leased or sold, it will not come into the unit at all.
    In the great majority of cases when you are dealing with a unit which has a house upon it and a road in front of it,

    1303
    through which access is obtained to the house, a variety of circumstances may arise. In one road the plot may have a bit of the road, but in the next road the plot may end where the road begins, but all will have the common feature of having some form of access. As a matter of valuation it will not make any substantial difference whether that plot has on it a bit of the road as part of the plot or whether it has not. The only importance, from the point of view of the valuation of that site, is that there is access to it, and how that access is obtained really does not affect the principle of valuation. I think it was the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who spoke as if the cost were related to the value, in the case which he gave. He suggested that, because there were a number of plots worth £5, some of which had been sold for £5, while a great number of them were vacant plots which could not be let at all, therefore you could take £5 as the value, and multiply it by the number of plots. That assumption must be false from the valuation point of view, because, ex hypothesi, you cannot get £5 for the other plots. Anybody coming along to see what would be the amount which you would get upon a sale in the open market, would say that it would obviously not be £5, because that sum is unobtainable in the open market. The value might be £2 or £3 or £4, or whatever price were fixed upon it. There is no necessary relationship, either with what has been fixed as the price of the large number of unlet plots, or between the amount of money that has been expended upon the work and the value of the land which is served by those works. When one is considering cases that have been put up by hon. Members, where plots were small portions of land served by roads, whether the roads were made by a local authority or by anybody else, the only thing we are really considering, as in all questions of valuation is access.
    Mr. TURTON: Surely the adjacent plots will be taken into consideration in evaluating the property.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly.
    Mr. TURTON: What would be the value of a plot which is unsaleable, next door to a plot valued at £5,000?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot give an answer as a valuer. From the small knowledge I have of plot-vending methods, I can only say that, if there is any sale of a plot at £5, at the date when the valuation is made the value cannot be £5, because it is the sale-price which regulates the Value that is put on it. The hon. Member will know quite well that the actual sale prices of other plots are very seldom taken into account by arbitrators in compensation and similar cases, because of the unreliability of relating a sale which has taken place on one plot to the circumstances of all the other land which surrounds it. These matters of valuation are matters of general knowledge and information. The only real point as regards valuation is access: the removal, from the particular site, of the value of the bit of road which is on it, would not, in most cases, make any very material difference. It is not a question of adding to the site value the cost of the road, because that is not done. What you do is that you say: "Here is a site which has an access—"
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the hon. and learned Member allow me to put a question. Is not the cost of the road and of the sewers added into the price at which the land is sold and has it not an effect upon the ground rent?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Baronet is quite right in one sense. What I am trying to point out is, that the suggestion here is not that, as regards a general building scheme, you deduct the cost of the general area, but as regards a particular unit, leaving all the surrounding units in the state in which they are, you take off that particular unit the particular road which is on it. The only result of that, if it has any result, is to remove that amount of access. That is to say, we must assume that this site is approached by a road only half the width, if the owner owns the bit of road coming in from both sides. From the point of view of valuation, the removal from the unit of the bit of road will not make much difference. What hon. Members have in mind is another question altogether. They say: "I do not want you to assume that all the other units are in the condition in which they are, if the other units which

    1305
    have the roads upon them give the access." I think what hon. Members have in mind is that I want to take out of the unit the little bit of road, and I do not want the road to be there at all, on either side of the unit. I suggest that that is what they really have in mind. If the hon. Baronet is thinking that the road will affect the value of the unit as a site, I can tell him that it would have no such effect in devaluing the unit as he suggests. The only thing it would do, would be to make it almost impossible in some cases to arrive at a differentiation between, for instance, a unit which has a road just off it and a unit which has a road just on it.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: May I put this point to the learned Solicitor-General? Say the land was worth £100, and that £100 was spent by the owner in making a road and a sewer on his frontage. That land would be worth £200, and the ground rent would be based on that, or upon the price of the plot. How the valuers can, from a practical point of view, proceed without taking into consideration the price of the plot or the amount of the ground rent, I cannot see.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was dealing with the case of a unit where there was a development which was occupied by three plots. On each of these three plots the price of the land is £33, and the price of the surface and other works is £33, making £66 in all. That is a vested interest. If you remove from one of these units nothing but the bit of road on it, you will not in fact be devaluing that site to the extent of the work that has been done there, because it will be a unit with access to it, just the same as the others. It will have its sewer, drains, electric light and water and other things. The only thing is that the road in front of it will be half the width of the road in front of the others, but that is not making half the difference to the valuer. You could take away the whole road and the access, and in nearly every case that would have an effect, not on the unit itself, but on the adjoining unit.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to a point which may have escaped his notice, which is
    1306
    that he proposes to deal with that aspect of the matter in Sub-section (4).
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The point has not escaped my notice, and it will be dealt with when I come to it. First of all, I am dealing with this anomaly of cases where a road ceases to be owned and occupied as part of a unit, and eases where the road belongs to the local authority. I do not think the hon. Baronet can succeed by his Amendment in doing what he has in mind, namely doing away with all access to the site altogether, and not merely removing that part of the plot which is on the site.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General if what he really means is that, in valuing a plot, the cost of the road will not be taken into account in the valuation? If there is a ground rent of £5, and half of that is due, to roads and sewers it will not be treated as if it were £2 10s. and then multiplied?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot answer that.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: This is the "Disappearing Road Act."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: All I am suggesting is that all he takes off any of the units by his Amendment is the road, and nothing else. He is not taking out sewers or services. In cases where there is no road, there would probably be a smaller ground rent, but he would not be taking off £2 10s. of the £5 ground rent. That is why I suggest that, whatever be the object of his Amendment, the Amendment does not carry it out.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: The object is clear, at any rate!
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite appreciate that the object is clear. The existence of the question of how you are to treat the surrounding plots, is a very good reason why when the House comes to that Amendment I shall also with good reason show how those plots should be treated.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has always been ready to give us an answer on the merits of the case, but there are one or

    1307
    two considerations in this answer with which we are not satisfied on this side of the House. We want to put the case, to see if he can look at it from the point of view which seems of importance to us. I take first of all the argument that he himself has adduced, dealing with the case of several plots along a road. If I am right in understanding the position, it was this. One of those plots would be a land unit. It would contain one-half of the road ex adverso, and all that would happen, if this Amendment were passed, would be that that particular bit of road would be considered non-existent, and access to the plot by road could only be made as far as the boundary of adjoining plots. That is quite true. Even so far as that is concerned I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a good deal of difference would be made. Many of us have practical knowledge of streets of houses which have been built and when a plot has been sold or feued the purchaser or feuer has acquired the road to the extent of one-half ex adverso. If that half of the road were removed the house would be to a large extent uninhabitable because it could only be reached with great discomfort. To replace that half of the road would involve an expenditure in a great many cases equal to one-half of the whole of the land value of the plot. We know these facts from actual accounts of building that is taking place. While the Solicitor-General was speaking I made a rapid calculation. I took out the amount of money expended on the development of an estate as a whole. When the land was developed, it was worth about £7,300. The cost of the road making came to about £3,400, or nearly half. Making all allowances for corners and for places where there would be no special access road required, I came to the conclusion that although not quite half of the value of the average plot would be due to the cost of making half of the road to it, it would be very nearly one-half, say about nine-twentieths instead of ten-twentieths. In other words, the real value of a plot of land would be much reduced if you could assume that the portion of road immediately opposite it was not there.
    1308
    Let me put this point to the Solicitor-General. In his criticism of the Amendment he asked if it was intended to remedy and not to wreck. We do not suggest that we like the Bill. We have never concealed the fact that we dislike it. But this Amendment is not intended to make the whole valuation scheme impossible. It is an endeavour to do what is difficult to those who have not the resources of a Government Department at their disposal, namely to produce something which may be accepted or at any rate be acceptable as a basis for remedying what we regard as a distinct injustice. As far as the second of these three concatenated Amendments is concerned, it is quite true, of course, and we realise it, that in most cases where a public authority makes a road, that road could not be part of the land unit. But that does not destroy the plan of the first Amendment and the second Amendment was only put in there in case some such possibility might exist as that of a road constructed by, but not owned by a public authority.
    Supposing that there are these difficulties which have been indicated with regard to individual land units where a building estate has been cut up, we put it to the Solicitor-General that where there are cases of hardship, we have a right to look to the Government to devise a way out of those difficulties, if the way which we propose proves not to be practicable. I admit, at once, that the moment you begin to deal with a building estate as a congeries of land units, you make the matter infinitely more complicated, but that is not our fault. We are not the makers of the machinery incorporated in the Bill. I think it would be better if the building estate were treated as being developed as a whole and, if we tried to make some allowance for the whole cost of roads, and then allocated the allowance so made over the different parts of the estate and on the different land units. I am only putting that forward as a suggestion after listening to the Solicitor-General. What we on this side are concerned to emphasize is, that the responsibility rests with the Government to meet what is, on broad principles, an admitted injustice and one likely to produce bad social results.
    I do not think that the Solicitor-General could or would deny that there

    1309
    are hard cases, but I am not going to deal with hard eases like those of villages, such as Thorpeness which was completely constructed out of the marsh by its owner and on which that owner received no profit at all. I do not want to rest my submission on individual hard cases. I would much sooner rest it, as the Mover of the Amendment did, on great classes of land throughout the country which in the aggregate are of immense importance. With regard to those classes of land, there cannot be any doubt that some allowance ought to be made for improvements made by owners. It is perfectly obvious that money expended upon roads represents a kind of improvement which has a value different from that of houses on individual plots. But road improvement has a value of its own and road-making should be encouraged and not discouraged. Take the case of an estate which I have had analysed. The site was worth about £1,000 an acre and the cost of making roads was about £500 an acre. Half the value of that developed site was not due to the community, or to any cause other than the enterprise of those who developed it. The allowances made under Schedule A meet to a limited extent the case of building upon a developed estate, but they certainly do not meet the case of road making. As the Bill stands, the more a person spends in road making on a developed estate, the greater the burden which he ultimately has to bear and the heavier the tax upon him. The obvious result is to make every person who develops an estate bend his wits to the task of doing as little road making as possible and from that there is a further inevitable result.
    I have dealt already with the unfairness of this proposal. Let me now deal with its social results. I know, having ascertained it since this Bill entered upon the Committee stage, that the Solicitor-General is a genuine believer in some form of land taxation of this kind. For that reason I ask him, in the interest of his own principle, to consider whether something cannot be done to meet our case, not only because of the unfairness involved, but also from the point of view of social results. A tax of this kind will cause everyone who has anything to do with the development of land to try to escape it as much as
    1310
    possible, by doing as little road making as they can "get away with." It is almost a platitude to state what one result of that will be. It was once said that only Scotsmen could produce a platitude and pass it off as a discovery and I do not pretend that this is a discovery. I suppose it could be described as a glimpse of the obvious. But the fact remains that, as a result of this course, you are going to prejudice nearly all development in the future which is not carried out by local authorities.
    What does the Solicitor-General consider to have been almost the worst feature of suburban housing in past years, before town-planning became operative. In connection with the Poor Law Commission, we had to make inquiries throughout the country on this subject We came to the conclusion that all these serried ranks of houses, built on parallel roads, with right-angle roads connecting them, like rows of little boxes, had as bad a social effect on the population as the slums. Those conditions may not have been as bad for the health of the people as the slums, but they were worse for the minds of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of the dull uniformity of these long continuous streets. If hon. Members go about our great towns making the inquiries which I had to make for the Poor Law Commission in those days, they will find that that is a result which no social investigator would deny. Living in a slum may be bad for health, but there is certainly more interest and excitement in a slum than in those long dismal streets and the deadly dullness of the parallel rows of houses. Compared with them, we all welcome the new type of garden suburb. Going in and out of our big cities, I have looked at these new suburbs, and I expect that the Solicitor-General has done the same. Some are better than others; some are very good indeed, but one common characteristic of them is that they have gardens round them which makes them more human than the serried ranks of streets.
    Necessarily that feature involves a lot more road-making. There is no question about it. The amount of road in proportion to each house is infinitely greater in the modern suburb than it ever was in the old streets. If we place a burden upon the person who puts his working capital into making roads

    1311
    and developing the ground, we shall be reversing the whole garden suburb process. I do not say that you can extinguish it. Of course you will not do so. There are Housing Acts and Town Planning Acts to help it, but the influence of this proposal is bound to be strong and it will be exerted in a direction contrary to the whole process which is going on under the Housing Acts and the Town Planning Acts.
    If people are going to save money on the roads, then they will build outwards as far as they can on the main roads already existing, and thus we shall have the dismal result of ribbon development which everyone deplores. Everyone who has done social work knows how desirable it is that people when they get out of the towns should be able to get within sight of country fields and green trees as soon as possible, though it is not so easy in the case of London to do so, even along the main roads. But ribbon development spoils the country near to the towns, both for the people living in the towns and for the people living in the country. Again, but for this proposal I believe that in the future development of building estates, instead of having straight lines of roads, the tendency will be to follow the natural features of the ground and make the layout pleasanter than it otherwise would be. This proposal will tend to drive people back again to the old straight roads at right angles to one another, disregarding all the natural features, and crowding the houses more closely together. That will be its inevitable result.
    5.0 p.m.
    It may be, as I have said, that the second part of our Amendment would be unnecessary, but there is still time to make some alteration in the Bill as it-stands. I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but those who have done any work on this subject have this question very much at heart, and, as the Solicitor-General has objected to this Amendment on one or two other grounds, I may be allowed briefly to answer those objections. He has said that in principle you cannot dissociate the roads in one of these estates from the main road which passes by it. He took the instance of a housing estate off the Great West Road. I suggest as a matter of substance, and not as a debating point, that the hon. and
    1312
    learned Gentleman could not establish that contention before a Judge whose business it was to get at the essence and substance of the question. Take the case of land near the Great West Road worth £1,000 an acre when developed, half of which value is due to the development of the side roads. The influence of the Great West Road is already discounted in the fact that it has gene towards the creation of the rest of the value of that land. You have allowed for that already. If the existence of the Great West Road adds to the value of the side roads, the contrary is now the case. They are cross entries in the debtor and creditor account between the builder and the community, which cancel out. Broadly speaking, there is nothing substantial in that objection. Nor is there anything substantial in the objection that when it passes out of the hands of the person building and it is bought by someone who occupies it, it does not matter to them who has built the road. What happens is, that you have development cramped and distorted to the extent that this tax takes effect, and that extent may be quite considerable. We are trying to make the Bill a little better and not to kill it by an Amendment. We have not tried to think of something which will make the working of the Act impossible. I do not think that it would make the working of the Act impossible if you put a time limit beyond which you are not to go. A time limit has been inserted in the Bill to the effect that we can go back 10 years in order to find out the purchase price. There ought to be a time limit, otherwise I think the Solicitor-General, if he really believes that he is going to build Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land, is going the wrong way to work by putting a tax on the improvements that people carry out when they are trying to develop estates in the best way under modern conditions.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Might I be allowed to put to the Solicitor-General, in as simple form as I can, a difficulty that many of us feel in regard to this particular point? I am not attempting to make a speech attacking the fundamental principles of the Bill. The Solicitor-General may remember that I did mention this point about roads in

    1313
    the course of the speech that I made on the Second Heading. I am really concerned how the Bill will work out in certain cases, which are not uncommon. I will put the matter, according to my present understanding, in extremely simple terms, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong. If you take a land unit and proceed to ascertain its value under the Bill, one of the things which must very often be quite a material element in making that unit valuable, and which every valuer would regard as an important element, is the presence of roads, if not inside the land unit at any rate bordering immediately upon it. Nobody can doubt that that is so. As I understand the Bill, it proposes that the same value is to be put whether the adjoining road has been made by the expenditure of the owner or has been made by public expenditure.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Solicitor-General agrees. Then we may take it that this is a Bill which proposes to put the same value in pounds sterling upon a land unit of a particular size and position which owes a material part of its value to the presence of an adjoining road, without allowing for the difference where the road has been made by the expenditure of a private owner or has been made out of the expenditure of the community. With that, I think, the Solicitor-General agrees.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
    Sir J. SIMON: He indicates that that is so. The next thing that occurs to me is this, and may I illustrate the difficulty? I put it purely by way of analogy, by considering the words which immediately follow in paragraph (a, 1) which have to do with a sea wall or an embankment or something to keep floods out of a land unit. If what the Solicitor-General has assented to is right, it seems to me to follow in exactly the same way that unless the occupier of the land unit behind the sea wall is also the occupier of the sea wall, even if the sea wall has been made by the owner out of his own pocket the value to be put for the purposes of the tax on the land unit behind the sea wall
    1314
    is to be exactly the same whether the sea wall has been made out of public funds or by the owner of the land. That seems a very difficult thing to justify. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right when he said that those who were responsible for the Act of 20 years ago—may I say, because I occupied at that time the position which the Solicitor-General now occupies, that I look with genuine admiration on the way that he helps us in this Debate—put in a provision which says that in arriving at value you deduct
    "Any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works executed, or expenditure of a capital nature. … incurred bona fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land."
    That ought to be allowed for. I could understand the Solicitor-General saying: "I do not want to have a very complicated Act, because it will be very difficult to work it," but there is such a thing as plain justice. How can it go forth to the country that the admitted principle of this Finance Bill in this respect is this: "True it is that this plot of land owes part of its value to the fact that there is an adjoining road, but for the purpose of the tax upon it it does not matter two-pence whether the road has been made by the owner of the land or by the ratepayers of the country."
    May I be allowed to put the matter in a slightly different form, and in a way which appears simple? Take the case of an area which, when it has been developed for building purposes, will be big enough to accommodate quite a number of houses, not necessarily crowded together. It will ultimately produce quite a number of good building plots. It may be in connection with an area so large that until the roads are made through it and across it no building plots which are created within its boundary will be saleable. The owner of such an estate, which may be ripe for development, may, and very often does, let the whole of the area on a lease for 99 years or something of the kind to a second person who will himself make the roads, the sewers and other communications before he proceeds to offer the different building plots to the various builders, and the like. Is it not a very difficult thing to justify that you should

    1315
    say to such a building owner or to the man who takes over for a consideration the building lease: "You may spend your money on these roads if you like, that is your look-out, but when you have done so, although it is proved to demonstration that it is only by spending your money on these roads that the plots have acquired their value, we mean to tax those plots exactly as if the roads had been made at the public expense"?
    The simplest of all cases to take—it is a case which the Solicitor-General and I constantly use when we are discussing such things in another place—is to assume two cases side by side. Assume the case of a building plot of a certain size, a certain value and with certain amenities, which owes a material part of its value to the fact that roads have been made on it or around it by the owner of the property. Assume a second case of an exactly similar plot, of exactly similar size and of exactly similar value, where the roads adjoining and leading up to it have been made at the public expense. Is it really the principle of this Bill that the value to be put on these two identically similar plots which in one case is due to the expenditure of the owner and in the other is due to the expenditure of the public, is to be exactly the same?
    Mr. LOCKWOOD: I should like to reinforce the arguments of the last speaker by giving, for the benefit of the Solicitor-General, particulars of some practical experience in the development of land. I should like to say, at the outset, that my remarks and the remarks of the last speaker and other remarks that I have heard to-day are in no way directed to destroying the Bill. They are directed to putting into the wording of the Bill such provisions as will make the Bill practicable when it comes to be worked. I have listened to the remarks of the Solicitor-General in answer to arguments from this side on a previous occasion and I become bewildered when I think of what the consequences will be when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and has to he construed. Even the certificate upon which the learned Attorney-General stated, a few days ago, we could not build the House of Commons, might be worth or might provide the money with which it could be built. The Solicitor-
    1316
    General seemed to have some difficulty with that matter the other day. In regard to the question of roads, I will give a practical illustration which will show the difficulties, the inequities and injustices of the attitude of the Solicitor-General in refusing to consider the Amendment.
    I am interested in an estate development in Morecambe. We purchased several fields abutting upon a main road. They were ordinary agricultural holdings, consisting of six enclosures. There was only one road abutting upon the land, a main road, and we had to incur precisely the kind of expenditure which the last speaker so clearly pointed out. Before any question of sale arose we had to make a series of roads. We made three entrances into the land, we made cross roads and we made crescents. We did everything to make the estate a modern developed building estate. What did that entail? Let me say, for argument's sake, that we purchased the land for £3,000. We have taken out of our pockets at least £2,000 for the making of roads, channeling and sewering. The consequence is that the value of that land is at least the original purchase price, plus the whole of the expense, and the interest outstanding, on the development. Now, the Solicitor-General comes along and says: "Not only will you pay tax on the value of the land as you purchased it, but I am going to tax you on the value of the cost of the roads."
    Let us for argument's sake say that the total cost was £5,000. What is the consequence to an individual who takes such a site, not from any sordid motives of extraordinary profit but in order to make a development in that area? The consequence is that he is going to be taxed on the whole of the £5,000. If the owner of that estate had only paid £3,000, he would have been taxed upon that, and if he had kept the balance of £5,000 in his own hands in the form of War Loan or any other form of property of that nature, he would have escaped the tax. I would remind the Solicitor-General that property in the eyes of the law takes many forms. Here is a clear illustration of an injustice. Perhaps it would not be so serious if the matter stopped there, but the effect of this inequity will be to stop developments of the nature of which I have spoken. If for that reason alone the

    1317
    Solicitor-General ought to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment, which would not only bring about more equity but would preserve in our system of taxation a principle under which development would not be hindered.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has stated our case very clearly, and I only wish that some of his colleagues had given us as much assistance on this Bill, in which case it would not have passed its Second Heading. We are trying to prevent the Bill being placed on the Statute Book, but we are not, by these Amendments, trying to reduce it to an absurdity, but to rescue it from its present absurdities and to promote it to a condition in which it will operate with rather less injustice. The case with regard to roads has been spoken of by several previous speakers, but on the question of improvements, making up levels, building retaining walls, and so on, I would remind the hon. and learned Solicitor-General of what he said on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I have not refreshed my memory as to his exact words, but I think he said that the site would not be a site at all until the owner got busy on it and made improvements. I should have thought that that was a dangerous argument for him to use, be-cause he maintains that the value is being created by the community.
    It seems most inequitable that allowances should not be made for improvements of this nature. In this Bill, as soon as you endeavour to introduce any element of justice, equity or common sense, the argument is at once used that the Bill is unworkable. That has been the argument on the opposite side, and particularly by the learned Solicitor-General—that unless you inflict gross in justice on a large section of the community, this Bill is reduced to an absurdity. I think that is a most powerful argument on our side. I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman would repeat the remark which was made by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour last night, that the force of circumstances has driven him to dishonest courses. I press these Amendments, because I consider that if they are not persisted in, great injustice and inequity will remain in the Bill.
    Lord ERSKINE: The case put forward by various hon. Members on this side in regard to these owners' improvements has not been met by the Government. The Solicitor-General always speaks very well and gives arguments which are well thought out, but he does not always produce arguments which are exactly to the point, and it is a very high tribute to his intelligence to say that the arguments that he brings forward are usually some answer where a real answer is impossible. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), whom I see in his place, desires to see all owners' improvements taxed. In fact, I think the pure milk of the single taxers' creed does not allow of owners' improvements being left out.
    We heard this afternoon that the Solicitor-General, on an earlier occasion, I think in Committee, suggested that if words could be found which would not wreck the Bill, he in his turn would be prepared to consider those words and to meet our case. I suggest to him that it is not as a rule the Opposition which should put forward words to meet what is obviously a gross injustice. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has already said that the Opposition have not got the advantage of the great ability of the Civil Service or of the Government draftsmen behind them, and although I think we, on this side, make rather a better show with our Amendments than sometimes hon. Members below the Gangway on this side do, nevertheless it is not fair for the spokesman of the Government to say," We really admit that there is an injustice here, and if you, the Opposition, can put forward any words which we think will suit, we are prepared to consider them."
    The Government should go a good deal further. A great many hon. Members opposite who have been listening to the Debate must have realised that there is a ease to be met here and that there are injustices that will occur. I do not think that any Government should really defend one of its first-class Measures, as this undoubtedly is, by saying, "We realise that under our proposals there will be great injustices to a large number of people, but unless there are injustices, we are afraid the Bill will not work."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord must not misquote me in that way. I am sure that I said nothing like that.
    Lord ERSKINE: I realise that if we take the actual statements made by the Solicitor-General, they do not quite bear that interpretation. I was not actually referring to any individual remarks of the Solicitor-General, but to the general idea which has run all through these Debates that "We know that in certain cases this Bill will work unjustly, but because the Bill will not work unless it works unjustly, we are sorry, but the population have got to bear the injustices." Although I do not say that the Solicitor-General said that in actual words—he is far too clever to say anything of the sort, because that would wreck his Bill—nevertheless, during the whole of these Debates that kind of argument has been in the background.
    Hon. Members opposite who have been in this controversy for many years will, I am sure, agree that the old Undeveloped Land Duty had a very great deal to do with the tremendous slowing down of housing operations in this country before the War, and I understand that that is generally admitted, even by the authors of the Act of 1909–10, but from the remarks that we have heard to-day from this side of the House, I am not at all sure that the taxation of these owners' improvements will not have the very detrimental effect on the development of sites and, therefore, on the development of housing, that the old Undeveloped Land Duty had from 1909 to 1914. The right hon. Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Leif Jones) gave a great many examples which went to show that you would not have so much development if you were going to tax all the money that the owners of sites put into those sites to make them more valuable, because obviously you would not have so many people prepared to venture their money in sites if they knew that the more money they spent in developing sites, the more they would be taxed. Therefore, in my view, there is going to be a great slowing down of housing owing to the operations of this Act, if indeed it ever passes the valuation stage and becomes an Act.
    I would like to point out another matter. Do the Government really propose
    1320
    to tax the improvements, we will say, that have been made in shipyards? A great many shipyards—in fact, I suppose, all of them—have to reclaim very large amounts of land and have to spend a great deal of money in making the slips upon which they build their ships. They often have to reclaim a large amount of that land from the sea or land that would be covered by the sea at high tide. That is an extremely expensive operation, and yet apparently under the Government's proposals all the money which the shipyards have put into building these slips is going to add to their value, and therefore they will all be taxed upon the capital that has been put into their business. The more we go on and the more we examine the details of this Bill, the more extraordinary it becomes that the Government should propose to tax all these improvements. We have had a certain amount of debate upon these matters in the past, and unless we had had the Guillotine, we should have had a great deal more, but up to now these owners' improvements and the whole question as to whether or not they should be included in the valuation have not had that amount of time and that expert opinion brought to bear upon them which in normal and proper times they would have had.
    For these reasons, I think the Government should go further than they have gone up to the present. They merely come down here and say, "We are not able to accept any of your Amendments, because, if we put them in, the Bill will not work." They have also had to admit during this Debate that there will be many gross injustices in certain cases. The Government exists not only to bring forward legislation, but to bring forward fair and adequate legislation, and it is no answer to our complaints to say, "The Bill will not work if we are going to be just." The Government, with the array of talent that they have behind them, and with the very able assistance which every Government receive from the Civil Service, should go back and see whether they cannot meet the very obvious and real case that has been made against the Bill. After all, this is the Report stage of the Bill, and there is no other opportunity for the Government to rectify their own muddle.

    1321
    This Bill will pass into law, and there will be the valuation, and it will be made with all these admitted imperfections in it. In the past the Courts have often said very bitter things about this House. They have said that we pass slipshod legislation, which they find it extremely difficult to interpret; and indeed they have said that the words which we put into Acts of Parliament have come to mean, when they have been interpreted, the exact opposite of what this House intended. I am sure that when this valuation takes place and these injustices are brought to light, it will be found that this Measure will be commented on in the Law Courts in exactly the same way as the various other Acts, on account of the slipshod drafting, and it will be found that the injustices which will be perpetrated under this method of valuing owners' improvements will be such that in a short time the whole of this type of legislation will be swept away.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The Solicitor-General invariably treats the House with such charm and courtesy that the House does not always realise how evasive and cynically immoral his speeches are. But for the War, I should have been trained as a lawyer, but after the way in which the Solicitor-General has spoken, I have come to the conclusion that my time has been better spent. He devoted his speech to showing how difficult it would be to attach the value of a portion of a road to any particular plot of land. There can be no real difficulty about ascertaining the cost of constructing a street and about apportioning that cost among the houses built in the street. The proof of that is self-evident, because in every town when housing estates are being developed, the developer of the estates who makes the road and lays the sewers does, in point of fact, divide up the cost of that work among the people to whom he sells the building plots. Every objection to the Amendment applies with equal force to the case of sewers, the cost of which under the Bill is allowed to be deducted.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) put infinitely better and more clearly than I can the point to which I wanted to address myself in regard to the effect which this tax is bound to have upon owners of improvements. I apologise to the House for bringing forward my own
    1322
    case, but it is the case which I know-best, and it has from time to time been quoted in the House. The estate with which I am connected spends annually a considerable amount of money on developing land. The case of Eastbourne has been referred to. Each year considerable sums are sunk in the lay-out of roads and sewers. Under the Bill every farthing of that money, provided it has been well and wisely spent, and has improved the value of the land, will begin to attract taxation at once. It will continue to attract taxation of an extra Income Tax of not less than 2½d. in the £. When the land is fully developed the whole tax payable will be one-eighth of 1d. in the £. In the case of land which is not quite fully developed, that 2½d. will increase up to 1s. 8d., and where, as not infrequently happens, land does not go off at once, where you have constructed the roads and sewers and sunk money and improved the value of the land, the extra Income Tax payable will amount to something substantially in excess of 1s. 8d. in the £.
    It cannot be just that a particular form of investment, which no one will maintain is either undesirable or anti-social in any way, should be subject to a form of taxation which no other form of investment has to undergo. It cannot be maintained that it is just to tax land values created by the industry and efforts of the owner in exactly the same way that you tax land values created by accident, or by the efforts of the community, or by the enterprise of other individuals such as land values which come into being through the extension of a tube service or an omnibus service run by a public company. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that it will have extremely undesirable effects. This particular form of investment is not really very profitable. Since these matters were forcibly brought to our notice, I have been going carefully into the accounts and figures of the estate to which I have referred, and there is no doubt that if the estate had in the past devoted the money which it has spent on development to gilt-edged securities, it would be more prosperous than it is. It is a form of investment that has some risk, and if you saddle it with a burden which it will have to pay whether it goes well or badly, the policy of the estate in carrying out development

    1323
    must come to an, end. It is a fact that it would actually pay me, if the Bill became law, to destroy roads which were made some years ago, or to sever the connection of those roads with existing streets and to let the land return to an agricultural value.
    Not only is the taxation of this kind not just but it is rot expedient. I have tried to show the hon. and learned Gentleman that the difficulty which he has maintained exists in valuing the roads does not really exist. The roads can perfectly well be valued, and there can be no difficulty in apportioning the value between the houses. Nor would it be impossible where there is a building estate in course of development, to value the individual pieces of land together, especially when you have regard to the fact that in cases of that kind the bulk of the tax will ultimately fall on the ground landlord. In many of these cases the plots are not sold outright when the houses are built. In the majority of cases a long lease is taken, and in such cases the tenant is held to be the owner, and is responsible for the tax, but he can recover up to one-twelfth of the rent from the ground landlord. In cases of that kind there should be no substantial difficulty about giving relief, and I believe that it is fair, just and expedient that that relief should be given.
    We are getting into a very late stage in the discussion of this Bill, and the amount of time which the Government have left to us is very short. It is therefore scarcely reasonable for the Government to leave the Opposition to draft Amendments to save the Government from having injustices in a Bill of this kind. The Amendment is perfectly just, and can be accepted without destroying the principle of the Bill—and in saying that I do not, of course, accept the principle of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted, the Government would have a better chance, although I do not think it would be a substantial chance, of seeing their Bill survive when they have perished.
    Mr. QUIBELL: At first sight, one is inclined to think that there is a good deal of substance in the Amendment, but there are far more difficulties in it than have been dealt with by the Opposition. I was interested in the illustration given by the
    1324
    Noble Lord of the development of an estate, and, like him, I am not without some experience. How would the Amendment work in a case like the one which came within my purview within the last week or two? A body of men formed themselves into a small company to buy an estate. They then set out to develop the estate. They laid the mere semblance of roads without channels or kerbs, but only with sewers and septic tanks—if indeed they can be Called even that. The number of houses now erected is something like 300, and there is no proper sewerage scheme. They proceed to sell the land on which the houses have been built on terms under which the purchasers agree to pay to the vendors 2s. 6d. per running foot of frontage of the plots of land that they purchase per year for a period of 10 years, and the company reserve to themselves the right to use the money so collected to cleanse the sewers, to repair the roads and to develop other parts of the estate as and when they so determine, without at all entering into any definite commitment to make up the roads. At the end of the 10 years the poor purchaser of the land from the speculative company will find himself in receipt of a notice from the local authority telling him that they propose to take over the road and to put into force the Private Streets Act, and the purchaser will be faced with a bill to meet the requirements of the local authority. I do not know how this Amendment will affect a company like that. Such a company has operated at Peacehaven and at Kimnel Bay, and wherever they have operated they have operated to the disadvantage of the poor purchaser of the land, and indeed of the estate. That is a very bad case where, if there be any question of compensation, the poor people who have been the victims of the company should be compensated.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is exactly the kind of development which our Amendment is intended to prevent. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, what happens is that in so far as they pay so much per annum to keep up a rotten road, they are encouraged to do so under the First Schedule of this Bill. A person is discouraged from making a decent road because the value of it is added to the value of the land.
    Mr. QUIBELL: I have had some experience, and that does not apply in the cases I have in mind. There is another case where the estate developer actually sells the plots of land to the centre of the road, and then makes a charge of a similar character. The Noble Lord who preceded me almost gave the whole case away. I bought a piece of land and built a road, and very foolishly made it up, curbed it, developed it, and made it so that it would comply with the requirements of the local authority. I did what every other business man would do, divided the road into frontages and added the cost of the road and improvements on the estate to the price, plus an ordinary profit, and I cannot see how I have lost anything. There are so many different practices in the laying out of roads. In some cases just pitching is put down, and it is filled in with breeze or gravel, and is then left to be made up when development takes place under the Private Streets Act. Then there is the case where the land is sold right to the middle of the road, and the purchaser of the plot of land has to pay for the road. The original developer of the estate certainly does not pay. He is in a position to hand on the expense, if there is a market; of course, if there is not a market it means that he has been a poor judge and has developed his estate ahead of the demand, and he must take the risk involved in such a proceeding.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member refers to a case in which the original developer passes his burden on in the price which he charges for his building plots. Does the hon. Member think the purchasers of plots ought to pay the same amount of Land Tax irrespective of whether the road is ultimately paid for by them or whether it is made and paid for by the local authority?
    Mr. QUIBELL: I have not got the point the Noble Lord is putting.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: In the case which the hon. Member referred to the road is ultimately paid for by the dwellers in the road. The cost of the road is divided up amongst them. They have had to buy their plots, they have built their houses upon them and they have, in addition, to pay for the road. Now they will have to pay a tax on what they have
    1326
    spent upon the road they will pay exactly the same tax irrespective of whether they have paid for the road or whether the local authority paid for it.
    Mr. QUIBELL: But that was not the Noble Lord's point. His point was that the development of estates would be prevented owing to the burdens placed upon those who developed them. His point now is that this cost of development is being passed on and that those to whom it is passed on will have to bear an additional burden of taxation. To that extent it is additional expenditure and involves double taxation. That is a fact, but you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a burden on the man who develops the estate and at the same time be handed on to the purchaser.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think the last speaker has made a most valuable contribution to the Debate. The Solicitor-General in his remarks earlier, said that the valuer of the land, in making the valuation, would have some regard to the access to the land, and we are arguing that if the access has been provided by the owner the cost of providing that access should not involve him in having to pay increased taxation. The Solicitor-General says that it does not matter whether the community or the private individual has given the additional value to the land by providing means of access; that, anyhow, the owner should pay. The hon. Member has just cited cases where owners of houses have either made the road themselves or paid cash to have it made, and we say that the tax should not be levied on that portion of the value of the land which they themselves have created. It will come to be realised by these people that it is not merely double taxation but treble taxation, because they have had to buy their land, they have had to pay for their own roads and through their rates they have had to pay for the roads of other people.
    It has already been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench that there will be fewer roads as a consequence of this taxation, and I would add that in the development of property the endeavour will be made to make the roads as short and as narrow as possible, and without side walks or pavements, because every one of those factors will come into

    1327
    the ultimate cost of the road, and if they add to the value of the land they will increase the burden of taxation. I think the Solicitor-General has been a very lucky man in one respect, and that is that no member of the Cabinet was here this afternoon to spot what has happened and make him reverse his decision, because it must be remembered that the Minister of Health—both the present Minister and his predecessors—have been trying to stop ribbon development and trying to get houses built with gardens and open spaces round them, and that is a policy which our proceedings this afternoon will be likely to check. The Minister of Transport has been trying to widen roads and do away with awkward corners, and here we have the Solicitor-General standing up for a policy which will mean narrower roads and awkward corners.
    Let me instance the case of a man who built a sea wall to prevent flooding. That wall was destroyed in a recent gale. There is land behind that wall which, in due course, may be of value for building. If that sea wall is left in its present state—that is, destroyed—the value of that sea wall can never be added to the value of the land when it comes to be valued for purposes of this taxation, but if the man spends his own money on putting that sea wall into repair and the land develops afterwards, he will have to pay extra taxation because he has used his money in that way. If he leaves the land as a snipe bog he gets off taxation, but if he develops it in the interest of the country then he has to bear an additional burden. Surely that is not what was wanted, and if any responsible Member of the Government had been present to note the mess into which the Solicitor-General has got them surely the Bill would not be allowed to go through in its present state.
    There is another point, affecting scores of people in my own constituency in the west country. In the hilly areas there surrounding walls have to be built; the whole stability of the unit depends on those walls. The value of the wall will undoubtedly be taken into account in valuing the land, although the owner had to build the wall himself. There is no question of God having given the wall.
    1328
    The man put the wall there, spending his own money on it.
    Mr. QUIBELL: He might be owing for it instead of paying for it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I see the speculative builder coming out! [Interruption.] I have many friends who are speculative builders, and I think they will feel the pinch rather quickly when operations begin under this Bill. Not long ago there was a case in my constituency where three or four men bought land and built houses. They told me the value of the land and the value of their houses. The Post Office dug a trench at the bottom of the wall which bounded the small garden in front, in a very steep bit of country. The wall came down and it cost every one of those three or four people more to put the wall up than it cost them originally to buy the land. That wall has helped to make the value of that land and will add to its taxable capacity. We do not dispute that it is fair to put a tax on that part of the value of land which has been given to it by the community—for example, the value given by a road which has been driven into a bit of country by the activities of the community; but we submit that it is not right to make a man pay additional taxation for an increased value which has been given to his land by improvements for which he has had to pay. It is a monstrous injustice that we should have spent so much time in putting this part of our ease so clearly as it has been put to-night and that no responsible Member of the Cabinet should have been present at any period of the Debate to listen to it.
    6.0 p.m.
    Captain GUNSTON: I cannot help thinking that if other Members of the Government had been present they would have endeavoured to persuade the Solicitor-General to alter his course. We had a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell). I feel that in his heart he is really in favour of this Amendment, unless as a speculative builder he does not do his own improvements. Take the case of a company which owned a bit of land with only an apology for a road. Obviously in that case the frontage is of less value than the frontage would be of a properly made-up road, and therefore the value of

    1329
    that plot would be considerably less. In other words, it would be an advantage to speculative companies not to develop their roads to the fullest extent. Suppose that the owner of this bit of land I have mentioned finds a purchaser, and after a time the local authorities take it over and they say to the purchaser, "You have to make up this so-called road into a proper road." The result is that a very heavy burden falls on the man who has bought that land. Unless this Amendment is accepted you are going to multiply cases of that kind a thousand times all over the country. I know hon. Members opposite are anxious to develop housing, and the last thing the Government wish to do is to multiply the sort of case which has been mentioned this afternoon, but I think that that will happen unless the Financial Secretary can persuade the Solicitor-General to alter his view on this point.
    The Solicitor-General got out of the difficulty by a brilliant technical speech about what a valuer would do, but he entirely overlooked the main principle of the Amendment, which is that you do not distinguish between the case where the property has been improved by the community and where the increased value has been created by the man who has improved his property by spending money upon it. I should have thought that every single-taxer would have been in favour of our Amendment, because it is intended to do justice to the man who, by his own enterprise, has improved the property. Let me give a theoretical case. Take, for example, the building of a bridge over the Humber at Hull. Suppose that the bridge is built and a great development takes place in consequence. Of course it would be said that the extra value of that land has been created by the Corporation of Hull, who built the bridge near the harbour, and some of the land on each side of the Humber would be good land for building residential houses. Would it be fair to tax the extra value which has been created, not by the community, but by the building of the bridge? If you substitute roads it will be realised that what is suggested is that you should make no distinction between the value created by the building of the bridge and the making of the roads. That is exactly what we are proposing to deal with in our
    1330
    Amendment. Suppose that the owner of the property had built the bridge and constructed public highways through his property. In that case the owner would be taxed upon his improvements. Unless this Amendment is accepted you will very seriously curtail the development of houses.
    The Solicitor-General is very keen upon this Bill, which, I think, might very well be described as a Bill for the better preservation of the legal profession. The Solicitor-General is not necessarily a great expert on housing, and on this side of the House we pride ourselves upon knowing something about the housing problem. I am not going into the question of whet/her the Land Tax of 1910 did in fact prevent the building of houses, but nobody will deny that there is a very strong suspicion that the fear of that tax curtailed the building of houses. As things stand at present I think we are going to develop the type of buildings which hon. Members opposite want to see. I know that the Solicitor-General has in his constituency one of the worst slums in the country, and I am sure that he would like to see proper amenities developed on that land at Bristol. Take the case of the new garden city which has been started at Bristol. Quite obviously any company that develops garden cities, builds cottages and develops beautiful properties, will not be able to meet the cost of those roads in face of the additional tax, and this will undoubtedly have a great effect in preventing the extension of this excellent form of building houses.
    There is a place called Middleton that has been developed very rapidly during the last few years. It started in a very curious way. There was a small property there for sale, and a small professional business man went down and bought some sites. A small community grew up at this place. Later the sea encroached very severely, and the owners of several of those houses clubbed together and found the money to erect groynes in order to keep the sea from ruining the place. In a few years' time other people came to that place and erected houses behind the property of the original owners, further away from the sea, and the result was that the land there became very valuable for building sites. That value has accrued because the sea has

    1331
    been prevented from encroaching. Those people did not go there to increase the value of the land; they went there simply to spend the rest of their days in comfort, and not for any speculative purposes. What has happened has rather deteriorated the value of that land with regard to its amenities.
    The Solicitor-General says, "It is quite true that you are getting no advantage from the other people coming in, but it is also true that your neighbours, in building that sea wall, have prevented the houses from falling into the sea, and this has made the land safe. In that way you have made it more valuable, and the Government are going to tax the land without taking into account the cost of the sea wall." Surely the Solicitor-General ought to meet a case like that. You find many other properties being developed where the landlord has built the wall in order to preserve the land against the encroachment of the sea.
    Take a case where the sea wall has been built by a local authority. Can you go to a man who owns land just inside the city limits and say to him, "Your land has become more valuable and you are enjoying an advantage because the site has been saved from the sea," while his next-door neighbour who built the sea wall himself, who possesses exactly a similar site, is not going to be allowed to benefit by his expenditure? I am sure any single-taxer in the House would be willing to say that the principle which the Solicitor-General is trying to maintain is against all the principles of single-taxers. The idea of a single tax is that the one person you must not hit is the person who created his own improvements. The Government ought to have a little more courage on this question.
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think a very strong case has been made out for the adoption of this Amendment. We have had a very courteous reply from the Solicitor-General, but when all the arguments are going so strongly against the Government it is very unfortunate for us that there have been so few Members on the Socialist benches to appreciate the case that has been made against them. There is one case which has always been
    1332
    put forward at election times by hon. Members opposite, and it is that the value which has been created by the community should be taxed, but no one has ever suggested that when a man has developed his own land, placed works upon it and improved the drainage, the tax on that land should be increased.
    I could give countless cases in my own neighbourhood and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come out with me and imagine that we are a pair of valuers we could go along the great main high roads where considerable value has accrued to the land on one side owing to the enterprise of the owner and not on the other. I have a place in mind where a man has bought some 40 acres on one side of the road and he has developed it in a way which has been described in this Debate. By that means the back land has been brought into communication with the main road and building has gone on there, but for the moment development has been stopped though the value of the back land has been enormously increased.
    Just imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming with me in a motor-car to this district. You have this position. On the one side of the road a considerable number of houses have been built, and roads, sewers, and so on provided, but on the other side the owner has done nothing, so that in that case the back land will have no real value. If that land is going to be valued, no value can be put on the land at the right-hand side of the road, whereas, owing to the efforts of the owner who has developed the land on the left-hand side, the value of the back land will be very considerable. There are thousands of cases of that sort. It is no use saying, as was said by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), that the owner of the land will eventually get it back in the price charged for building plots, because the hardship will fall on the man who buys the land and has to pay more for it, and is to be taxed upon it because work has been done by the original owner, and not by a public authority. A clearer case of injustice has never been brought before this House. I do rot wish to repeat the arguments which have been used over and over again, but I think it is most regrettable that we cannot in these De-

    1333
    bates have a larger attendance of the Socialist party, so that they might really understand better than I think many of them do the position to which this Bill will lead.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this afternoon's proceedings provide a very good instance of how the Guillotine operates in this House. I am sorry that more Members have not been present on the opposite benches, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are always very glad to see here, will allow me to put in the shortest possible words the point that we are now discussing. There are two cases in which an improvement—in this case a road—adds to the value of the land. They are the case in which the improvement has been made by the expenditure of public money—local or State money—and the case in which it has been made by expenditure incurred by the owner or his predecessors in title. We are not concerned at the moment with improvements which have been made by the expenditure of public money, and with regard to them I would only say that we have always contended, so far as the question of principle is concerned, that the proper way to deal with them is as betterment, and not by means of a tax under this Bill. As regards the other case, where the improvement has been made by the expenditure of the owner or his predecessors in title, I should like to ask a question, which has not been answered this afternoon. How is it possible to justify levying from the subject the same amount of money in the case of an improvement made by the expenditure of the owner as is levied in the case where the improvement was made by the expenditure of the community?
    It has been admitted by the Solicitor-General, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that under this Bill the amount to be levied in these two cases is the same. How can that be justified? The only way in which the Solicitor-General justifies it is by saying, "We have to do that because otherwise we should break up the way in which our Bill is constructed. Our Bill is so constructed that, where you have a building estate divided into separate plots, each of these units of occupation is treated separately for
    1334
    valuation purposes, and, therefore, if this Amendment were inserted, it would not benefit the owners as a whole, because each of the separate units would be valued as a separate unit; and, when you value one unit, we provide in our Clause that you have to imagine that everything else is as it is at the present moment." Incidentally, that only goes to show how ridiculous is the proposal that a valuation should be conducted on these lines. As a matter of fact, however, it; would have been perfectly easy for the Solicitor-General to make it possible to fit an Amendment of this character into the framework of his Bill. All that he would have had to do would have been to insert a provision in Clause 4 that in the case of improvements you should take into consideration the fact that they were all under the same ownership.
    Let it be noted that, when it suits the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General and the Government, that is precisely what they do. When the boot is on the other foot, when it is a question of exemptions and of whether a man is or is not liable to pay the tax, the Government say that, if the tax payable by the owner is not more than 10s., he will get off, while if it is more than 10s. he will have to pay. How do they propose to arrive at whether it is more than 10s. or not? Do they take each unit separately then? Not a bit of it. As the Solicitor-General said the other day, they are going to search the country from Caithness to Cornwall, from Suffolk to Wales, to discover whether the owner is the owner of more than one unit, and if, over the whole of England, he owns three units which would be taxed at 3s. 6d. each, then he will be liable to the tax. How can you say that when it suits you you will aggregate all the units in one man's possession, and when it does not you will refuse to take into account a plot on the other side of the street, or adjacent?
    In these circumstances I suggest to the Government that the answer, such as it has been, which is the only answer we have had in the Debate so far, is wholly inadequate, and that, bad as it was in the case of the first Amendment, it is even worse in the case of the third, because the case of the third—that of the protective wall, such as a sea wall—really leaves the Government without any defence at all. This is not a case of the

    1335
    value being improved by work executed by the owner, but a case where the unit is actually brought into existence, and maintained in existence, by the work executed by the owner of the unit. In that case it is true that an all-wise Providence created the land, but it was placed at the bottom of the sea, and would be there still but for the work and expenditure of the owner. How can it be just in these circumstances to refuse to take account of such expenditure? I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this late hour, to try to do something to meet so obvious and glaring an injustice, and I would beg anyone who replies for the Government not to say that the only reason why they cannot do it is because it is inconsistent with the framework of the Bill, because to that the answer is that, if the framework of the Bill demands that injustice should be done, it is far better that the Bill should not be passed at all.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have tried to give at least one reason why this proposal is not unjust, and would have said what steps are to be taken to meet it. The admission that we got from the Solicitor-General, that it was an unjust act and he knew it, really shows up the whole proposal. It is very extraordinary that, in a Debate on the Budget, we have had no facts or figures to show why this Amendment to try to stop this admitted injustice cannot be accepted, and whether it would cost too much. The Government, I suppose, do not know anything about the figures of these proposals, and cannot say how much this Land Tax is going to bring in. I wonder if they have ever looked into the matter?
    It is perfectly well known in agricultural circles that the capital value which owners of agricultural land have put into the soil for equipment alone is reckoned, by Lord Ernie and others, at a good deal more than £815,000,000. That includes a great deal for roads, and I should have liked to hear how much of that £815,000,000 is represented by roads, even in agricultural districts, which are only a part of the proposal. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question. I know of an estate within half a mile of Midhurst, where the road is not only kept up by the
    1336
    owner, but is the only road used by the general public. It runs right through the middle of the park, with deer grazing on either side, and a golf course has been provided by the owner for the people of Midhurst. If anything happens to that estate, and the land has to be sold, what will be the result under this Bill? That road, which has been entirely created by the owner, gives a building value which no other part has. At any moment the owner could close that road and keep it shut up as private property, instead of opening it, but by doing as he is doing, and looking after the interests of those who live around him, of all classes, he is laying up for his heirs an increased Land Value Tax when it is sold.
    I know it is no use appealing against the injustice, because it is admitted by the Government, but I would venture to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he will take no advice from me, to look into what is already happening as a result of these proposals. This morning I heard of a contract for building cottages being called off on account of the proposals of this Bill. Yesterday I heard of another contract for 110 cottages' being called off; and last week I heard of yet another contract, on which the people concerned had forfeited the deposit which they had paid rather than go on with a scheme of building houses when these proposals were before the country. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something, even at the last moment, to remedy this injustice.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: One thing that has emerged from such part of this Debate as I have been able to listen to—I regret that I have not been able to hear the whole of it—is that this tax has nothing to do with the blasphemous hypocrisy of the doctrine that God gave the land to the people. The fact that certain owners are exempted from the tax shows that it is in no sense an attempt to get for the people of this country anything to which they are entitled, but is simply and solely an attempt to attack a class whom hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike. There can be no justice whatever in taxing a man for the work which he and his predecessors have put in, which has resulted in nothing but benefit to the community as a whole, and which can in

    1337
    no sense be looked upon as having been provided by expenditure out of public funds. I suggest that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any idea whatever of justice in his mind, he will find some way of exempting from this taxation those benefits which the country has received as a result of the work of landowners',
    and I suggest that, if he must attack public improvements he should at least confine his depredations to them.
    Question put, "That the word 'roads' be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 265.

    Division No. 365.]

    AYES.

    [6.31 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lymington, Viscount

    Albery, Irving James

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    England, Colonel A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Fieldon, E. B.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

    Blindell, James

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nicholson, Cot. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Glyn, Major R. G C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bracken, B.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Penny, Sir George

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Buchan, John

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Buchan, Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Ramsbotham, H

    Butler, R. A.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Remer, John R.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Christle, J. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Scott, James

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (s. Moiton)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Withers, Sir John James

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Thompson, Luke

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Thomson, Sir F

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Terquay)

    Train, J.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Sir Victor Warrender.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Gillett, George M.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Glassey, A. E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gossling, A. G.

    McElwee, A.

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Gould, F.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    McKinlay, A.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Arnott, John

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McShane, John James

    Ayles, Walter

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Manning, E. L.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    March, S.

    Barr, James

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Marcus, M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Markham, S. F.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Marley, J.

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Marshall, Fred

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Mathers, George

    Benson, G.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Matters, L. W.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Maxton, James

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Haycock, A. W.

    Messer, Fred

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Middleton, G.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Morley, Ralph

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Mort, D. L.

    Bromley, J.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Muff, G.

    Brooke, W.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Brothers, M.

    Herriotts, J.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Naylor, T. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Hollins, A.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Caine, Hall, Derwent

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Palin, John Henry

    Cameron, A. G.

    Isaacs, George

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Chater, Daniel

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Clarke, J. S.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Quibell, D. F. K.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Compton, Joseph

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Raynes, W. R.

    Cove, William G.

    Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Richards, R.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kinley, J.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, D.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Dallas, George

    Knight, Holford

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Ritson, J.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Rowson, Guy

    Dukes, C.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Duncan, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Leach, W.

    Sandham, E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Scurr, John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Foot, Isaac

    Leonard, W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shillaker, J. F.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shinwell, E.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Longden, F.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Lunn, William

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gill, T. H.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    1340

    1341

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Tillett, Ben

    West, F. R.

    Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Westwood, Joseph

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Toole, Joseph

    White, H. G.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Tout, W. J.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Townend, A. E.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Vaughan, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Sorensen, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Walker, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Sullivan, J.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wise, E. F.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Thurtie, Ernest

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton

    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out paragraph (d).
    This Amendment arises out of a discussion during Committee, when I was asked to reconsider the position with regard to the question of tithe. As a result of that reconsideration, we are now moving to leave out the paragraph which would have included tithe in the land value. It is not a logical thing to do. Probably the right way of dealing with it is as a separate unit, but, as that has not been done in the Bill, we feel that the proper thing to do, in view of the undertaking that I gave, is to move this Amendment.
    Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask what is the position with regard to the old Land Tax? Does that enter into the valuation for the duty, either in the case of it having been redeemed or in the ease of it still being payable? There is a good deal of confusion in the public mind. It is not quite clear outside the House, nor indeed to me, although I think I know the answer, what is the relation of this Land Value Duty to the old Land Tax.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Where the old Land Tax is in existence, the valuer, when he is making the valuation, would take that into account.
    Sir B. PETO: Does the owner of the land who has redeemed get the benefit of having redeemed?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. If there is no Land Tax in existence, it will not be taken into account.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out the words "except any of those," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    1342
    "(not including tithe, tithe rent-charge, or other payment in lieu of tithe) except any of the incumbrances,"
    The reason for putting the words in this form and not in the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) is that it is at least very questionable whether tithe would technically be an encumbrance at all. These words are only put in to make quite sure that they are not included under the term encumbrances.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for his explanation, which is entirely satisfactory to me. I observed that there was an alteration in the wording, and knowing that when there is an alteration in wording inquiries are always made as to the reason of the alteration, I wanted to make quite certain what was the reason. There is a reason, and I am quite satisfied.
    Mr. TURTON: Can the learned Solicitor-General say whether it includes tithe that have been redeemed, and if it does not include such, whether the words "other payment in lieu of tithe" would include the case where an owner of land has borrowed money with which to redeem tithe by means of a mortgage upon the land? If neither case is included, I fear that the Finance Bill will stop any redemption of tithe in the future.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer is that a payment in lieu of tithe may be allowed when it is a payment which has to be made by the assumed purchaser and is not one which was redeemed in the past.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that where with respect to a land unit the amount which the ice simple thereof at vacant possession might have been expected to realise upon a sale in the open market on the valuation date (hereafter in this Sub-section referred to as the 'expected amount') has been ascertained, and the owner of such unit satisfies the Commissioners that before offering such fee simple for sale with vacant possession he would have been compelled to obtain vacant possession by the payment of any sum to the tenant or lessees of the unit, the land value of the unit shall be deemed to be such expected amount diminished by the sum so payable to the tenant or lessee."
    The Amendment contains such a germ of common sense that one would have hoped that the Government would have accepted it, but for the fact that their past record on the Bill causes one to doubt their attitude. I should have no particular objection to "vacant possession" being in the Clause if there was provision for making allowances for the operation and, particularly, the expenses which are very often necessary before vacant possession can be arrived at. To put in "vacant possession" as one of the suppositions, and to make no allowance whatever for the stages by which vacant possession is arrived at, is entirely illogical.
    The Bill, both by its substance and by the manner in which it has been introduced and advocated appears to aim at two things. Firstly, that if a landlord takes advantage of a high price he should be penalised; and, secondly, that if he does not take advantage of it he should be incited to do so. Those appear to be distinctly the two objects of the Bill. If a man is not, in the eyes of the Government valuer, getting the best value he can for his land, and is not, in the words of some hon. Members, putting it to the best use in the interests of the community, he is, by the very fact that this tax is to be levied, deliberately incited to try and get a better price for his land and put it to a different use. If a man is incited to do something, he may accept the incitement. If he does not accept the incitement, it may be because of one of two reasons. One is simply that he does not choose to do it, and the second is that there is some definite obstacle in the
    1344
    way of his doing it. It is exactly the same when you come to the question of vacant possession. A man desirous of accepting the incitement of the valuation the tax puts upon him, who is desirous of putting his land to some other use, making a fresh lease or doing something else with it, is legally restrained from doing so by the fact that he has not got vacant possession, and because there is a definite legal and financial obstacle in the way of his obtaining vacant possession.
    There is another question. If an owner achieves vacant possession, the value which that vacant possession is to him in obtaining a better price or better rent is indubitably reduced by the amount of money required to arrive at that stage when vacant possession is achieved. That is a simple sum which really cannot be contradicted. I will take the case of agricultural land—not because it is the land which is going to involve the largest sums—in order to show what I mean. There is farm which the owner lets to a tenant. A portion of that farm is valued at a high rate for agricultural purposes. The inference is that the Government of to-day are inciting the owner to put that particular piece of land on a particular farm to some other use. The owner accepts the incitement and proceeds to do this. But it will be necessary for him to terminate the tenancy, not necessarily of the particular bit of land, but of the whole farm. You cannot go taking bits here and bits there out of a farm and putting them to other purposes. In a great number of cases, from all practicable points of view, it will terminate the whole of the tenancy, and that in turn will, very rightly under the laws which exist, entitle the farmer to obtain a whole year's rent in compensation. To presume vacant possession in that case and entirely wash out the expense to which the owner is put in order obtain vacant possession by compensating his tenant, is most unjust and illogical. In the case of urban tenancies the sums involved will be vastly greater.
    On the pure principle, there is no question whatever that if there are two people who own two bits of land which in the eyes of the valuer under this Bill appear to be of equal value, and the valuer puts equal values upon them, and if one owner

    1345
    has vacant possession and the other owner is restricted by an unexpired portion of a lease, particularly in the case of a rising market, the tax which is going to be put upon the person who is restricted by the unexpired lease is going to be much heavier than that in the case of the man with vacant possession who can take advantage of any rise the market provides. A possible objection, and one which may occur to hon. Members opposite—I do not want to raise an unreasonable objection merely for the purpose of knocking it down—is that it may be argued that it is, perhaps, not quite fair to put down a lump sum payment in order to obtain vacant possession and have it carried on from year to year, and for a man to get annual reduction of tax upon what is really a lump sum payment made at one particular moment. But, after all, this is in connection with a supposed sale of a fee simple. The supposed sale of a fee simple is one individual case; it is only a thing which can take place on an individual occasion. Yet on that particular basis, if once you levy a tax you will continue to levy it in succeeding years.
    If it is just to take what, in fact, will be a capital payment, surely it is only fair to take away from the land value the money necessary to obtain vacant possession as an annual rebate or an annual reduction. I think I know what will be the answer of the Solicitor-General, unless my remarks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends have frightened him away from it. He may say, "Oh, well, you cannot have these things. We must keep this tax simple." Simplicity is going to be his keynote. Simplicity is the last refuge. It reminds me of a line in a song in one of the great musical comedies before the War, "The Arcadians":
    "Simplicitas, simplicitas, that is what you have christened me."
    I think there should be an obvious pause between "simplicit" and "as." It used to be said:
    "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name."
    Really, if the Solicitor-General and his friends wish to go on in this way, it is time to give liberty a rest and to call simplicity into play. The injustices which will be committed under the Bill in the name of simplicity are legion. I do not want to be unfair on the Solicitor-General
    1346
    and to make claims which cannot be substantiated, but I was interested in what he said on 11th June. He said:
    "I have no hostility to owners at all. My attitude is that this tax should be levied in an efficient and fair way, and that anything that is put into this Bill should help to make it easier to work and fair in its operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931; col. 1266, Vol. 253.]
    It is easy to say that you are going to do something which does two things, makes it simple and easy to work, and makes it fair. The whole test in all these dual cases is, what happens when the two things come into conflict, however slight? That is the acid test which has to be applied. I will follow the Solicitor-General's reason. He was relying to a speech to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), in which he had drawn attention to the enormous number of separate valuations which would have to be made and the time it would take to make them. The Solicitor-General said:
    "Where you get whole rows of streets, each house on each side being exactly the same, there will be many occasions when valuers can do many more than 26 in a day, and they will not be unfair valuations. They will be perfectly good valuations done by men who understand their business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931; col. 847, Vol. 253.]
    That is true. No doubt a valuer walking in a street with the instructions which this Bill will give, will see whole rows of houses apparently built of similar bricks and containing similar roofs, with perhaps identical little gardens in front, with monkey-trees of very similar growth, and to all intents and purposes they will appear to be exactly the same. He will no doubt, value them on a flat rate. But consider the owner. In some cases there may be vacant possession of the house. The owner may be able at once to take a higher rent which a rising market affords him. In other cases there may be considerable terms of leases to run. It all depends upon the subject of vacant possession and how much it will cost the owner to obtain vacant possession.
    7.0 p.m.
    Simplicity is put down as a canon of taxation, but one can run any canon or any rule of life to an absurdity. I suppose in the far off primitive life of mankind conditions were largely based on simplicity. A man gained possession

    1347
    of his neighbour's land, his goods, his cattle, or even his neighbour's wife, not for the asking but for the taking. But the primitive man found that that simplicity had certain disadvantages. In the course of civilisation we have evolved a system by which, at the cost of a good deal of complication, we have drifted away from that rigid simplicity, and have come to a mode of life that may be a little more complicated but is a great deal more comfortable. I would ask the Solicitor-General to recede from that rigid attitude of simplicity, and not let us see once again on the altar of simplicity the immolation of fairness.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has put the position so clearly that very few additional words are required from me. The Clause to which this is an Amendment has the title "ascertainment of values." That is the purpose for which the whole Clause is designed. The Amendment is an attempt, on the part of those who have formulated it, to increase the fairness of that purpose. A valuer, faced with the task of valuing a house, has, in the first place, to bend his mind to the almost impossible task of trying to say what is the clear site value of the building if you take away from it all the surrounding buildings which give it any value at the present time. He has to take into consideration a mass of factors which may determine its selling power in the open market, and surely the factor to which this Amendment is directed is a perfectly measurable and ascertainable one.
    I think the House will agree that the course of legislation which in recent years towards increasing the security of tenure to tenants, has been a helpful and beneficient process. One of the great characteristics of that legislation is to give a tenant the right to some monetary compensation before he is deprived of his tenancy. If you put a penalty on landowners who hold to the firm promise of compensation for disturbance, you will be acting contrary to the whole course of legislation that has tended to increase security of holding. In this case, unless the landlord is to get credit for his
    1348
    promise to compensate on disturbance, it seems to me that you will be placing a premium on holdings of no security, and you will discourage the beneficient process of legislation which has led to the right to compensation on disturbance. It is all very well to say that the value of a unit of land depends merely on its selling price and suitability for building. It depends on a great deal more. It depends, particularly in ordinary business, on the ease with which vacant possession can be secured, and can be handed over to a would-be purchaser. Surely, if there is any purpose in this Clause for ascertainment of value, it must be necessary for the House to bring into account a factor so important as this.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think it is necessary to rely on that excellent principle which the hon. and gallant Member who proposed this Amendment thought I might rely on, because the whole Amendment is based on a complete fallacy as regards the incidence of the tax. The incidence of the tax is not an increment tax on the sale of land, it is a flat tax put upon the land value of the unit at the time being, and whether that land is ripe is material from the point of view of the incidence of the tax. If I may take the case which the hon. and gallant Member put as an illustration—a farm in the vicinity of a town or village, some parts of which had an added value over the cultivation value, and would be taxed on the difference of value between the two. He presupposes that a necessary and immediate result would be the sale of the land, and that the tax would be connected with that sale of land. That is not so. The land may wait, ripening, for 5, 10 or 15 years, and during the whole of that time the fax will be paid upon that difference of value, and it is not necessarily any incidence of that tax that there should be a supposed sale.
    It is merely that the words appear in Clause 8 as a method of valuing, just as they appear in other Acts of Parliament, such as "selling price," or whatever it may be. It is the criterion a valuer has to adopt. He has not to take, for instance, the value to the owner. He has to take the fair market price, however expressed, and the words used here are the price that would be got on a hypothetical sale. The whole assumption

    1349
    that you should deal with this question on getting vacant possession is based on the fallacy that you are dealing here with a tax that arises upon sale, which you are not doing. You are not dealing either with any particular interest in the land. You are dealing with the whole interest in the land. If you were to take into account a figure such as is suggested here, you would be, in fact, apportioning the land value between different interests, and that is a thing quite contrary to the whole conception of the Bill. It may be that the hon. Member does not agree with the Bill—I dare say he does not—but with the Bill as it is, based on this system of taxation, to insert such a provision would be running counter to the whole principle of it.
    Earl WINTERTON: What the Solicitor-General has said may be true. No doubt it is contrary to the principle of the Bill, but I would like to give an example analogous to that used by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. There is a case—I will not mention any names—which has come under my personal notice. A owns a farm which is valuable for farming purposes, and has also some further value for building purposes. The farm is leased by A to B on a long lease. A is willing to sell some of the farm land for building purposes when a prospective purchaser comes along. Meanwhile he is not holding up the land, in the sense that hon. Gentlemen opposite mean it, because it is being put to the best possible use, and even in these bare times is fetching quite a high rent as agricultural land. But before A can sell any land, he has to pay compensation to B for disturbance of his agricultural land, and the amount may be very considerable. Therefore, the value of the land to A for building purposes is the amount of its value for building purposes, less the amount of compensation which he has to pay to B.
    My hon. and gallant Friend who moved his Amendment did so in the fairest possible way. He gave an example of what you can find in very many cases up and down the country. That method of letting land has increased in recent years, and I say that in such a case this Clause, as it stands, does not arrive at the true ascertainment value of the
    1350
    land. It does not arrive at the amount which has to be paid for compensation. That is not dealt with in the Clause. It is all very well for the Solicitor-General to say that this Amendment would go outside the intention of the Clause. I do not dispute that. But this Amendment deals with what would be a concrete grievance, when the tax is in operation, if it is not dealt with. It is only one other of so many examples that could be given of how inequitable this tax would be, because cases like that will arise, and the most careful intention on the part of the Government will be unable to avoid them unless words are there in black and white. I regret very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not accepted the Amendment.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I aceept the Solicitor-General's remark that this Amendment goes contrary to the Clause. It only shows one more unfairness in the Bill. A valuer has to assume that the landlord has vacant possession. That is the first point. The second point is that the landlord cannot get vacant possession without the payment of a sum of money, but still it is assumed that the land is vacant, and that he has vacant possession, and that there is no house upon it. That is obviously penalising—as my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said—the landlord who has given a long security of tenure. It is obvious that in future a landlord, with the possibility of this tax rising after the first imposition to goodness knows what heights, will be careful not to tie up his land in any long tenure which will land him in the position of having a tenant at such a rent perhaps that he finds he has to pay on land of not very great agricultural value a tax which far exceeds the rent he gets from his tenant; yet he cannot get rid of that tenant without paying a sum of compensation to him to get out. The more one considers this Bill the more unfair one sees it is to the man who is at present the owner of a piece of land.
    The Solicitor-General and the Government have to-day refused to allow a landlord for any improvements. The other day the case of betterment was before us, where, as the Solicitor-General says, the landlord has paid actually a sum as betterment, and has therefore paid something which the local authorities said

    1351
    was good for the community. He has put his money into something which benefits the country, and you are penalising him for developing his land. It is not really surprising to me that the Government reject this proposal, which is obviously fair. People who will be unable to get vacant possession, unless they pay something for it, are to be called upon to pay a tax on the value of a site as though they were in vacant possession. In some ways one regrets that the Government have not accepted the Amendment, but from the point of view of discussing this Bill in the country we shall be able to point to a large number of injustices which this Bill imposes on various people.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Amendment is based on a misconception. It is quite irrelevant in valuing land under the Clause to take into consideration how it is let or how the land value tax is to be distributed after it has been claimed. There is to be a distribution as to one-twelfth. In taking the value of land under paragraph (e) it must be taken into account that the unit is free from any incumbrance except any of those mentioned in the First Schedule; and in the First Schedule hon. Members will see paragraph (g) which says:
    "restrictions on user which have become operative imposed by or in pursuance of any Act or by any agreement (not being a lease to which the unit is subject):"
    The unit as a whole is valued, and at is quite irrelevant as to the distribution of the tax, on the one hand, and how the land is let, on the other. I think the Amendment is based on a fallacy.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If hon. Members will refer to the first part of this Clause they will get a better idea of what the valuer has to do in order to decide the value of the unit. It says that he shall
    "cause to be ascertained, as at that date, the land value of every land unit, that is to say, the amount which the fee simple thereof with vacant possession might have been expected to realise upon a sale in the open market on the valuation date."
    How are you going to get the value of a unit with vacant possession unless the unit is sold? That shows the difficulty of trying to impose a tax on land and to
    1352
    assume the value of the land for building purposes as a free site when the land is sold with the buildings upon it. That is our difficulty. It shows that these valuations which are to be made are purely hypothetical. I want to ask the Solicitor-General a question. How would he value the site upon which the Bank of England stands 2 I can understand how it is possible to value the land of various concerns around the Bank of England, because that value is dependent on the fact that the Bank of England is there, but if you take away the Bank of England from the site how are you going to value the site upon which the Bank stands? It is practically impossible. The Stock Exchange is another example. It is almost impossible to value the land of the Stock Exchange itself, because its value does not depend on the buildings that are around it. The value of the buildings around it depends on the fact that the Stock Exchange is there, just as the value of the property around the Bank of England exists because the Bank of England is there. It is impossible to value a sate unless it is sold.
    Assume that you have a site in the City of London, or anywhere else, and on that site there is a building and on that building a lease, not a long lease, a lease of 10 or 11 years. The valuer wants to value the site without the building upon it, but the owner says that he cannot get possession. It is impossible for the owner to do what is laid down in this Clause, that is to get vacant possession, because if he wants to get vacant possession he will have to pay a big premium to the person who has a lease on the building. He cannot get a free site and sell it. Assume that there is a building on a site—I know a few in Lancashire—and that the building is an old unoccupied mill. How are you going to value that site? Are you going to assume that that site is free and open, ready for another building to be erected upon it; and are you going to value it as a free and open site? It is not a free and open site, because on that site is a building, and at would probably cost more to demolish the building than the site itself is worth. In taking the value of that land you have to take into consideration the cost of demolishing the building on the site, otherwise you cannot get at the real site value of the land, with vacant possession.
    Viscount CRANBORNE: I respectfully differ from the Solicitor-General who says that there is a fallacy in this Amendment. Only the other day he made a statement which supported the principle underlying this proposal. I remember his saying that in a case where an owner was able to make some arrangement with a local authority under a town planning scheme not to build on his land for a certain number of years, the tax would be proportionately reduced. In the case of a land owner who has scheduled his property as an open space he is to pay no tax because the land cannot be taken for development. By these two admissions the Solicitor-General has completely given away his case, and it ill befits him to go back upon it now.
    Major HILLS: We have been told by the Solicitor-General that this Amendment is inconsistent with the main principle of the Bill and that the valuer is not concerned with the distribution of ownership, but only with the value of the land. May I point out that the incidence of the tax will be different? You are careful under Clause 16 to give the leaseholder the right to recoup himself out of the rent he pays, but you give no corresponding right to the owner to recoup himself. Although my hon. and gallant Friend may not have succeeded in convincing the Solicitor-General he has at any rate pointed out a flaw in the Bill. Take a common case where land is let for a fairly long period, not for 50 years, at a very low rent, a rent a good deal less than the rack rent. The owner cannot deal with that land; he cannot make betterment. He cannot sell, because the land is subject to a lease, but a man who has an identical plot may be able to sell. Surely the tax will fall upon him much more lightly; and it falls much more heavily on the first man. Assuming that the land tax is to be imposed the Solicitor-General I believe wants to be fair between one landowner and another, but in this case he is being extremely unfair. From what I know of him I hope he will endeavour to rectify it. It is not rectified by Clause 16 or
    by Clause 27, and it is a real evil. There may be some objection to accepting the Amendment, but there is a real practical injustice here which should be remedied.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I suggest that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the Solicitor-General have not entirely met the Amendment. The Solicitor-General says that this is not a tax upon sales but upon the actual value of the land, and he used the term "market value." There is an old saying that things are worth what they will fetch, and if any land is saddled with a lease or anything which entails the payment of compensation for disturbance, it will fetch a great deal less than land which is not so saddled. I have tried to sell land and I know.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will fetch the same, but the money will be distributed differently. The leaseholder will get something.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I appreciate the point if the land is sold with vacant possession, but I was assuming that the purchaser would have to get rid of the tenant. It may be a different distribution, but under this Bill the tenant who will get a proportion does not pay any of the tax. The only person who pays it is the landlord, who will, in fact, get lese money for his land because it is saddled with a lease. It may be argued that this can be remedied by the leases which are made after the tax is imposed. That is so, something can be put into every lease to provide that some proportion of the tax is to be paid by the tenant.
    It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 4th and 29 th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 288.

    Division No. 366.]

    AYES.

    [7.31 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Balniel, Lord

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Boyce, Leslie

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bracken, B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Greene, W P. Crawford

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Buchan, John

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Remer, John R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Butler, R. A.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandsman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Skelton, A. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Christle, J. A.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Somerville, A. A (Windsor)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Thompson, Luke

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Train, J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Dixey, A. C.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Lymington, Viscount

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    England, Colonel A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Withers, Sir John James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Fermoy, Lord

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Nail-Cain A. R. N.

    Sir George Penny and Major the

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Barr, James

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bromfield, William

    Alpass, J. H.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Bromley, J.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Brooke, W.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Brothers, M.

    Arnott, John

    Benson, G.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Ayles, Walter

    Blinded, James

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Burgess, F. G.

    1356

    1357

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Cameron, A. G.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Richards, R.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Chater, Daniel

    Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Kinley, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Knight, Holford

    Romeril, H. G.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lathan, G, (Sheffield, Park)

    Rowson, Guy

    Compton, Joseph

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Cove, William G.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Sanders, W. S.

    Dallas, George

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sandham, E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Leach, W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Scott James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Scurr, John

    Day, Harry

    Less, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leonard, W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shield, George William

    Dukes, C.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Duncan, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Longden, F.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Simmons, C. J.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Elmley, Viscount

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Seaham)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Foot, Isaac

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Sinkinson, George

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    McElwee, A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Smith Frank (Nuneaton)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Mac Laren, Andrew

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Gill, T. H.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Mac Neill-Weir, L.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Gossling, A. G.

    McShane, John James

    Sorensen, R.

    Gould, F.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Manning, E. L.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gray, Milner

    Mansfield, W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    March, S.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Marcus, M.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Markham, S. F.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Marley, J.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Marshall, Fred

    Tillett, Ben

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mathers, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Matters, L. W.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Maxton, James

    Tout, W. J.

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Messer, Fred

    Townend, A. E.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Middleton, G.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Millar, J. D.

    Vaughan, David

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Morley, Ralph

    Walkden, A. G.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Walker, J.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mort, D. L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Muff, G.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Naylor, T. E.

    West, F. R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Herriotts, J.

    Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hollins, A.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Isaacs, George

    Perry, S. F.

    Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wise, E. F.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Potts, John S.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Price, M. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Amendment made, in page 6, line 29, after the word "any," insert the words
    "agricultural cottages or."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 9.—(Recording and Registration of Values.)
    Amendments made: In page 8, line 40, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 41, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "(a) except where the entries in respect of a land unit are the same as those inserted in the register relating to the last preceding valuation."
    In page 9, line 1, leave out the words "subsequent valuation," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "valuation after the first valuation made under this Part of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Division of units and apportionment of values.)
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 20, after the word "shall," insert the words "as soon as practicable."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 11.—(Objections to and appeals from valuations.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the word "he," in page 10, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words "the period hereafter in this section limited."
    This Amendment really goes with two further Amendments which appear later on the Paper, one of which is a large insertion of two new sub-paragraphs, the design of which is to provide machinery for objections and appeals. As originally drafted, the Bill provided only for objection against valuation. In the course of the Committee stage, an Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to give a right of objection to any action of the Commissioners under Clause 8, Sub-section 3 (c), in valuing two or more pieces of land with separate occupations but in the same ownership,
    1360
    as a single lot. I promised to bring in an Amendment which would carry out the proposal which he made. The present Amendment is in order to introduce the two Amendments to which I have referred, and which carry out that promise. In paragraph (3) in that Amendment, the opportunity has been taken of extending the time limit for objections to notice of valuation. I shall have to insert two further Amendments in order to carry out the promise which I gave to inquire into that matter.
    Captain BOURNE: I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this concession which he has given, and also for one which he gave earlier, and for which I have not yet had the opportunity of thanking him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 5, leave out from "therein," to the end of line 9:
    In line 18, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "(2) If the owner of two or more pieces of land in different separate occupations objects to their having been treated by the Commissioners as one land unit in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the ascertainment of values, then, within the period hereafter in this Section limited, he may give to the Commissioners notice in writing of his objection, stating the grounds thereof.
    (3) No such notice of objection as aforesaid shall be of any effect unless given by the owner within forty-two days after service upon him of a copy of the entries in respect of the unit, or, where no such service is required by this Part of this Act, within sixty days after the first day of August on or before which the register is so required to be deposited, or, in either case, within such further time as the Commissioners may, on application made within the period aforesaid, allow, but upon any such objection being made to them within the period limited by this Sub-section, the Commissioners shall either cause the entries objected to to be amended in agreement with the objector or give notice to him of their refusal to do so:
    Provided that:"
    In line 20, to leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "sixty."
    In line 37, leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "sixty."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, to leave out from "1910" to the end of line 36.
    When this Bill was in Committee Clause 11 as then drafted provided for an appeal on what were called questions of law, from the referee to the High Court and, in Scotland, by virtue of the application Clause, to the Court of Session and the question which arises in this connection is of great importance. It applies not only to England but to Scotland, and, for that reason, we are gratified to have the genial presence of the Lord Advocate to-night. He has not been able to afford much time to the consideration in Committee of this Measure, but we are glad to have him with us this evening. There is no doubt that the Bill as drafted gives only an appeal on questions of law, and, as any hon. Member who has even a nodding acquaintance with the law knows, there are some questions of law which necessitate the consideration of matters of fact. To use a lawyer's expression, there are mixed questions of law and fact in some cases, and when an appeal is given on questions of law, that of course covers mixed questions of law and fact.
    Hon. Members will forgive me for giving an illustration which may help the layman to follow this discussion as far as it is necessary for legal questions to intrude in it. The Derating Act only gives an appeal on questions of law, and the question arose under that Act as to whether or not a beer-bottling store was an industrial hereditament. At first sight, that would seem to be a question not of law but of fact. It is what lawyers call a mixed question of law and fact, calling for the interpretation of a legal phrase with reference to a particular set of facts. That is an illustration of the kind of question which would have been appealable under the Bill as originally drafted. The Bill was regarded as unsatisfactory in that respect, and I, on behalf of the taxpayers in England, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on behalf of the taxpayers in Scotland——[HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them!"]—made proposals to enable the taxpayer to have an appeal not only on mixed questions of law and fact, but on questions of fact also. Everybody
    1362
    understood that that was the purpose of our respective proposals. When I moved an Amendment providing for an appeal on questions of fact with regard to the English taxpayers the Solicitor-General said that I had made it quite clear
    "that there should be a perfectly open appeal on all questions of fact as well as of law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931: col. 1314, Vol. 253.]
    The Solicitor-General resisted the Amendment, quite clearly understanding that what we wanted was to extend the provisions of the Bill to appeals on pure questions of fact. When we reached Clause 31 which applies the Bill to Scotland the hon. Member for Leith moved an equally explicit Amendment and made it plain that he intended that there should be an appeal, as he said, not merely on points of law but on points of fact. As will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th June he suggested, as a convenient tribunal the judges of the Lauds Valuation Court in Scotland—one being the Senior Lord Ordinary and the other the Lord Ordinary who takes Exchequer cases or what we now call revenue cases—and it was quite plain to the Lord Advocate and to everybody that the intention was to give an appeal on questions of fact in Scotland. The Lord Advocate made it plain that he understood the matter in that sense because he said that the first objection to the Amendment was that by it:
    "you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England yon are only going to allow appeals on questions of law."
    There was no mistake in the Lord Advocate's mind as to what we desired, any more than there had been in the mind of the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate had another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith and it was that, in any system which applied equally to Scotland and England, it was necessary to have same central final court of appeal, where all questions could be knit up, as it were; not as, in questions of rating, where two different systems obtain, one in Scotland and one in England, and you have a final court of appeal in Scotland, namely, the Lands Valuation Court and a final court of appeal in England, namely the House of Lords. The Lord Advocate clearly and cogently

    1363
    pointed out that under an Act of Parliament which applied the same law to both countries, yon could not have two courts acting side by side and giving possibly inconsistent decisions. Therefore, he said, that if we were to have an appeal on questions of fact we must at any rate have some arrangement by which the two countries could have the questions which arose decided in the same court, so as to prevent trouble arising from inconsistent decisions. He then said:
    "This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee. If it is the will of the Committee that this should be considered, we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider the matter and to embody the collected views in a Clause which would deal with the whole situation."
    Then he proceeded to make the offer which would clinch the bargain and make plain the understanding:
    "If that would meet the wish of the Committee then I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn."
    There was a clear offer to the hon. Member for Leith to withdraw his Amendment, if the general sense of the Committee appeared to be in favour of the proposal to give an appeal on questions of fact. The Lord Advocate went on to say:
    "We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries."
    In other words, "We accept the principle of the appeal on questions of fact, but we cannot take it in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Leith. We must have a final court which will knit up the law of both countries in the same place." I ventured then to intervene——
    Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that before he intervened I put this point to the Lord Advocate:
    "I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate. He may find it undesirable to have these amateur words in the Bill but on the understanding that he will meet the point of substance, both with regard to England and Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw."
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That made plainer, if possible, what was already plain, but
    1364
    as the Lord Advocate did not respond immediately, I ventured to ask whether it was to be made plain as the hon. Member had anticipated, that the same position was to apply to Scotland and to England and the Lord Advocate, beside whom was seated the President of the Board of Trade, replied that he must not be tied down to details. The word "details" does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT but I have a clear recollection of its use. However it is not vital to my argument and I take the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Lord Advocate said:
    "The hon. and learned Member must not tie me down in a matter of this Kind because there are important differences as between the procedure in England and the procedure in Scotland. In England there is an appeal to a single judge but in Scotland an appeal of this kind is an appeal to three judges. I cannot give any undertaking in matters of this kind "—
    meaning procedure—
    "but I am prepared to give the undertaking that we appreciate the importance of securing uniformity in matters of this kind. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press me further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; cols. 2022 to 2025, Vol. 253.]
    I immediately accepted what I feel sure the whole Committee understood to be intended, and I said that what the Lord Advocate had stated was quite suffcient for me. It is not necessary to argue the question afresh, I advanced some arguments in Committee which did not appeal to or convince the Solicitor-General, but the hon. Member for Leith was more fortunate, more happy, more successful, as one would expect from his greater powers of penetration. He secured from the Lord Advocate the assent which I had not been able to obtain from the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate was on the bridge that night. The Solicitor-General had well earned his relief and the Lord Advocate was in charge.
    If it were necessary to argue the question, one might point with assurance to the experience under the 1909–10 Finance Act. That Act provided that any party aggrieved in relation to the taxation of land under that Act, might appeal both on questions of fact and of law. I well remember the Solicitor-General replying, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, that that was one of the chief causes of the breakdown of the 1009–10 legislation—

    1365
    that the taxpayer availed himself so readily of the rights which Parliament had given him, that, in practice, it was found to amount, as the Solicitor-General said, to obstruction. That is the complaint which bureaucrats have always made against people who defend liberty. I mention the 1909–10 Act to show that there is ample precedent on this point. The Solicitor-General, it is true, described it as an unhappy precedent but unhappy for whom? Not for the taxpayer. Unhappy for the Solicitor-General and his friends undoubtedly, but there it is. It is a precedent and any hon. Member who considers the Bill in its present form will realise how valuable it may be for the taxpayer, who does not want to obstruct but who wants to have his rights established, to have an appeal on questions of fact.
    8.0 p.m.
    I remember a very important piece of litigation which arose under the Income Tax Acts with reference to the meaning of the word "residence." It was the ease of a gentleman who was really resident in the Irish Free State, but who came to this country once a month to attend meetings of a hoard of directors and 011 each visit slept for two nights at, I think, the Spa Hotel, Bath. The Commissioners found that he was resident in this country for the purposes of taxation in England. The case went to the House of Lords and the final tribunal held, I think perhaps a little unwillingly, that they were precluded by the finding of the Commissioners and that there was no appeal on the question of fact but only on the question of law, and that this unfortunate gentleman, who came to this country nine or ten times a year for a couple of days on each occasion, was resident in this country, although his home, his establishment, his property, and everything else were in the Irish Free State. Any hon. Member will agree that it would have been a very valuable right for that gentleman to have had an appeal on the question of fact beyond the Commissioners, who are in the same position as the Referees in relation to the Income Tax Acts. Let me take an illustration from this Bill. There was a notorious definition, which we had not an opportunity of discussing with regard to excavations. Imagine a referee deciding that a particular excavation is not a work executed for the purpose of bring-
    1366
    ing the configuration of the soil to its actual formation. The unfortunate litigant will be precluded from appealing against the decision of the referee, who may have his own peculiar views about a very peculiar definition. There will be no appeal to any superior court.
    I do not seek to argue this question afresh. The Lord Advocate has concluded the question. The Lord Advocate—I say it in complete sincerity and with sincere admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's qualities—is well known as an honoured Member attending in the Parliament House in Edinburgh. I am not fortunate enough ever to have been opposed to him, but I well know his reputation for honour and candour. The Solicitor-General shares the same qualities. I would take the word of those two learned gentlemen rather than their bond. Their word is not only as good as their bond but it is better than their bond. When you take the word of those two hon and learned Gentlemen you may be quite sure that you will not have the spirit of the transaction bettered by any legal phrase which a lawyer may invent. The undertaking will be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter. It is for that reason that we are so delighted to see the Lord Advocate as well as the Solicitor-General here prepared to implement their promise and to carry out as clear a Parliamentary bargain as was ever made.
    Unfortunately, we are dealing with this Bill under circumstances in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had the opportunity or time to give the necessary thought to the devising of an Amendment to carry out the intention which the two hon. and learned Members are here to implement. The Bill having been only printed on Friday, the Government being much occupied with the Amendments about double taxation and playing fields, have not yet had time to draw up an Amendment to give the appeal on fact which the Lord Advocate promised in the name of the Government. With great respect, we have come to their assistance. We have ventured to put down words, my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) for Scotland and myself for England, which will save the Government any further trouble, except in so far as they may think it necessary to add words or to

    1367
    alter some of the words to meet the true situation. I claim no peculiar sanctity for my Amendment, and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith will claim sanctity for his particular form of words, but there is one thing that they do achieve, and that is that both Amendments carry out the intention which was held out to the Committee as the promise of the Lord Advocate.
    Without labouring the matter further, I say that the two hon. and learned Members are here this evening, and I want them, if they will, to consider what I am about to say as a very serious statement. The Lord Advocate promised, in the most explicit fashion ever known, ever possible in this Chamber, to give an appeal on questions of fact both in Scotland and in England. It is quite true that he reserved the right to consider how it should be done, or whether it would be necessary to provide for an appeal, which at present does not exist, from the Lands Valuation judges in Scotland to the House of Lords. We are not here to reargue the question. We have little doubt that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen will implement the promise that was given. It was a promise made for good consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith had moved his Amendment in a Committee which was obviously prepared to support him. It was the expression of the opinion of the Committee which, I think, compelled the Lord Advocate, in spite of what had happened on Clause 11, to yield the point. In a word, it was a bargain. I do not choose to use that word when I come to an understanding with a right hon. and learned Gentleman who, I know, intends to carry out what is understood as well as expressed. We did not draw up a memorandum of agreement between the parties, with signatures at the end and a seal to make it seem more formal; but for good consideration the right hon. Gentleman gave the promise and we are here to see how good temperedly and how honestly English gentlemen carry out a promise which they have given.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member's fulmination may have surprised some hon. Members in regard to matters of which they had,
    1368
    perhaps, little knowledge. I understand that when I was not here on a day when a Scottish Member was occupying the Floor of the House, the Corporation of Edinburgh, feeling themselves desirous of having some particular form of procedure in Scotland, as in other matters, thought that they might as well impress their opinion upon the country in the southern part of the Kingdom.
    Mr. E. BROWN: That is not so. I moved my Amendment, it is true, after consultation with the Corporation of Edinburgh, but it had no relation to England. May I call the Solicitor-General's attention to certain paragraphs in the Debate? England was not raised by me but by the Lord Advocate. He said that he wanted to allow appeals on questions of fact in Scotland whereas in England we were only allowing appeals on questions of law. I replied that it ought to be done there, too.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have read the Debate and I have noted the words to which the hon. Member has now referred. He said, "Why not do it for England as well"?
    Mr. BROWN: I said that it ought to be done there.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: It ought to be done for England as well. I need not go into the history of the matter, but may I sketch it in a little more fully than has been done by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip)? A little fuller sketch will perhaps be better appreciated. The first thing that one has to bear in mind is that this matter was fully discussed in the Committee on the English side, if I may put it in that way, and the Committee, on the 11th June, by a large majority, turned down this precise suggestion. Of course, it would be wholly impossible after that vote of the Committee to replace that which they had definitely negatived.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On Report? After a promise?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly. If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed I will explain. Hon. Members will remember that the discussion at that time in regard to the English procedure turned a great deal on the

    1369
    form of the case. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) said:
    "…. it does not follow that what we are pressing for is a complete appeal upon every conceivable little point of fact that will arise under these valuations. I can quite see that that would give rise to all sorts of difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931; cols. 1313–1314, Vol. 253.]
    That is what the hon. and learned Member for Fareham is now suggesting that we should do. On 18th June the matter came up when the Committee was dealing with the Scottish adaptation of the Clause, and an Amendment was put down by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I am not certain that it is not on the Order Paper for the Report stage.
    Mr. BROWN: Yes. I put it down, not seeing any words on the Order Paper to deal with the point.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is important to see what was proposed in the hon. Member's Amendment, The Amendment was as follows:
    "(2) Within such time as may be proscribed by rules made under this Section, after a notice of refusal has been served upon any person under the last foregoing Sub-section, that person may appeal from the refusal to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 "—
    No question arises on that—
    "and any party to such appeal, if aggrieved by the decision of the referee, may appeal therefrom to the lands valuation judges appointed under the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts, whoso decision shall be final "—
    The important sentence for the House to notice follows:
    "and the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts in regard to stating and signing a case on appeal shall apply to the referee in the same way and to the same effect as they apply to a land valuation appeal court under the provisions of the said Acts."
    Those provisions enable a case to be stated on questions of law and to be decided by the Lands Valuation judges on questions of law. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir Boyd Merriman) does not entirely agree with me there, but if he will consult the Statutes and the well-known text-books on Scottish law, as I have done, he will see what matters can be raised in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. He will find that it has been said again and again
    1370
    by that Court that it cannot go into questions of fact; that it is there solely to determine questions of law.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: In support of that view I think it will be necessary for someone to give us the references.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take my word.
    Sir R. HORNE: As the hon. and learned Member knows, questions of procedure in the Courts are always subject to much interpretation and debate, and in the broad way in which the hon. and learned Member stated it, I entirely dispute the statement that he has made.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished my statement it would have been well. Perhaps the qualification I am going to make is the one which he has in mind. The Lands Valuation Court in Scotland is a court from which there is no appeal. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to appeal from that Court on the ground that the Court have wrongly considered a question of fact when they ought only to have considered a question of law. It may be that in some cases there has been an appeal on matters which the Lands Valuation Court judges have taken into account which covered mixed questions of law and fact, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me—if he will look up the authority; I have forgotten the name of the author, but it is a standard work on the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland—that he will find that it is expressly and clearly stated, and there are extracts from most eminent judges, that they are not to go into questions of fact in the Lands Valuation Court.
    Sir R. HORNE: These judgments are very considerably qualified, and the hon. and learned Member will keep in mind that one of the processes connected with the Lands Valuation Court procedure is that the evidence taken before the Commissioners has to be transmitted along with the Commissioners' case, and that is not done simply for purposes of philanthropy, but with a very definite idea.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is true. The evidence is transmitted.
    Sir R. HORNE: And it is not done for nothing.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I was dealing with was the principle which has been laid down by the Lands Valuation Court Judges, that they are not there to decide matters of fact, and I think I can fairly challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show any judgments of Judges of the Lands Valuation Court in which they say that they are there to judge matters of fact.
    Sir R. HORNE: I quite agree.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite agrees. Having got to that point then, it is now clear what it was that was being discussed.
    Mr. E. BROWN indicated dissent.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Leith shakes his head, but——
    Mr. E. BROWN: May I put this to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Surely the last thing that a Committee of this House pays attention to merely is the technical terms of an Amendment. Quite often an Amendment is merely used as a peg in order to put an argument in order, and surely the Solicitor-General is not, in face of my own speech and my reference to the amateurish way in which the thing was drafted, going to ride off on a technical definition of that kind.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Will the hon. Member be a little more patient? I had got as far as saying that that was the Amendment which was being discussed, and I do not think he is prepared to deny the accuracy of that statement.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Come to the point.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member says, "Come to the point," but one must start in these things at a starting point, and I cannot be blamed if I go back to deal with the Amendment that was before the Committee; and I dare say there were a few hon. Members who went into the Lobby, or would have gone into the Lobby, having only read the Amendment and not having heard the whole of the discussion.
    1372
    That may even be so this evening—I do not know. The discussion proceeded on the basis that there was, in the appeal to the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland, some evidence certainly of appeal on facts. That is clear from the discussion, and the passage which the hon. and learned Gentleman read from the Lord Advocate's speech said this:
    "This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPOET, 18th June, 1931; col. 2023, Vol. 253.]
    The sense of the Committee had already been taken on the English side. [HON. MEMBRES: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No," but when a specific point has been put and argued before the Committee and it has been decided upon, hon. Members cannot say that the sense of the Committee has not been taken. The Lord Advocate then proceeded to say:
    "We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment, but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands, because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; col. 2024, Vol. 253.]
    That is the position from which we have started to consider this matter, and, in considering it, we have attempted to get a procedure—and there are Amendments on the Paper which carry this out—in Scotland which employs the Lands Valuation——
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. When a Minister says he is prepared to take the sense of the Committee, does it mean the Commit tee which he is addressing, or——[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I was suggesting was that the sentence there means, of course, that the speaker was willing to take the sense of the Committee on the matter then before the Committee, and that was the Scottish procedure. What I said was that, as regards the English procedure, that had been dealt with at an earlier stage. Proceeding upon the basis of seeing whether, first of all, one could correlate the two procedures in Scotland and England and, secondly, whether one could give an extended power as regards matters upon which an appeal could be

    1373
    given, the first matter was to consider the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland as being the appellate tribunal which apparently the hon. Member desired. That had been made an appellate tribunal under an Amendment to Clause 31, and an appeal had been given from that court to the House of Lords in order to get over the difficulty which was experienced under the De-rating Act that you had two different tribunals—the Lands Valuation Court in Scotland and the House of Lords in this country—of appeal from the Court of Appeal.
    The right hon. Gentleman did mention the question of the de-rating appeals, and those, of course, have all been decided upon cases stated, and on cases stated, in a great number of cases, from quarter sessions in this country, going to the Divisional Court, then to the Appeal Court, and then to the House of Lords; and, as far as I know, there has never been any difficulty in those eases in raising any point that it was required to raise. In fact, a good many of them, probably the hon. and learned Member opposite will agree, raised points which it was not necessary or desirable to raise, because they really were in the end pure questions of fact.
    Mr. SCOTT: In the Bill, the form is "a special ease," whereas in the Amendment to be moved from the Government side the term is "a case." Is there any difference between these two terms?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the phrase in the Bill is an award stated "in the form of a special case," and that is one of the matters on which an objection was taken by the hon. Member for Bridgwater when we were discussing the English Clause, as being a much more curtailing form of procedure than a case stated in Income Tax cases. The experience that nearly everybody has had in Income Tax cases warrants my saying that in those eases you do have every reasonable and fair opportunity of dealing with cases of law; and not only that, but it has been held over and over again, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, that on all mixed questions of law and fact you can have an appeal. So far as pure questions of fact are concerned, where there is no mixture of law at all, there is no appeal, and under our proposal in those cases we do not
    1374
    propose to give any appeal; and the reason is the reason which was stated by the hon. and learned Member, a reason which I think everybody knows, and that is that if you allow everyone to appeal to the High Court on any question of fact, it entirely defeats arbitration or referee proceedings or proceedings of that sort. There is no example that I know of where an appeal has been allowed on questions of that sort, or analogous to that, where an appeal has been allowed to the High Court on any question of fact unmixed with law.
    Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. and learned Member means in the Income Tax Acts?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, in any Acts.
    Sir T. INSKIP: What about the 1909–10 Act?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With the exception of the 1909–10 Act. The hon. and learned Member has already referred to the argument I put up in regard to that, and that seems to me to be a sufficiently good argument. As regards any other Act that has survived in practice, or any other method that has survived in practice, I do not think that there is any example where a person who has an appeal to commissioners or referees or whoever they may be, has an appeal from them to the High Court on any point of fact he likes to raise. It has either been a pure question of law or a question of mixed law and fact. I think that the most generous measure of appeal is probably that laid down in the Income Tax Clauses. Everyone who knows what happens in those cases knows that you can in fact get any mixture of law and fact determined on appeal. That is why we suggest that this use of the land valuation court in Scotland can best be met by introducing, instead of the procedure we suggested, the precise procedure of the Income Tax Acts, using the same words with regard to a person being dissatisfied with the decision of questions of law, and introducing as regards Scotland the land valuation judges, because they are judges who understand and have to deal constantly, I understand, with matters of land valuation, but altering the constitution of the Scottish Court by adding

    1375
    to that court an appeal on all points to the House of Lords in order that you might not get into the difficulties that were created under the De-rating Act of having one final court in Scotland and a different final court in England.
    If hon. and learned Members or hon. Members opposite think that that is not a carrying out of the undertaking by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I alone am responsible, because having taken into consideration the whole of the discussion upon the Committee stage on both of these Amendments, I myself inserted this form of alteration in the procedure in the two countries in the endeavour to carry out the spirit of what was promised, knowing quite well that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite agree that it was impossible in this country, as they had said, to have appeal on points of fact allowed if you were to make this a workable proposition.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I listened to the Solicitor-General's speech with more uneasiness than that with which I have listened to any speech which I have ever heard in the six years I have been in this House. I quite appreciate, as the whole House does, the attempt of the Solicitor-General to take responsibility for what has happened, but I suggest that that is quite irrelevant. The Government is a Government as a whole, and if there has been a want of liaison in this matter between those responsible for Clause 11 and Clause 31 as it now stands, that surely is not the fault of the Committee or the House, but is the responsibility of the Government. Surely we are not to be told at this stage, after a definite undertaking had been given by one Member of the Government—a very distinguished Member—that several days afterwards, when we come to consider the implementing of that undertaking, that another Member of the Government is to come down here in the name of a third Member who is not here—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and throw over the first obligation.
    I do not wish to continue to argue the case for Scotland. I may be allowed to say in passing that, having examined the Amendments, I was not quite clear, being a layman, whether or not the Amendment on Clause 31 accurately
    1376
    carries out the undertaking given on behalf of Scotland, and what the Solicitor-General says now has filled me with the most intense disquiet. Let me come back to the English point, which is the point we are discussing now. I cannot allow the Solicitor-General to mislead the House or the country into believing that the discussion took place merely in terms of the Amendment which I moved. Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the Debate of 18th June, will only come to this conclusion, after hearing the speech of the Solicitor-General, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been put up to make a perfectly accurate legal speech in terms of legal discussion on what was said, but that he throws over the whole substance of the promise given.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison)indicated dissent.
    Mr. BROWN: The Lord Advocate shakes "his head, but we may be able to argue this out in terms of Scotland tomorrow night. I am now arguing with the Solicitor-General. Let me ask the House these four questions—first, what was in the mind of the Committee on 18th June; second, what was the promise of the Lord Advocate——[Interruption.] There was a fairly large Committee and an exceptionally large Committee for a Scottish Bill; and more than that, there is no question but that on the discussion the Lord Advocate himself was distinctly uneasy as to how the result would go if a Division had been taken. My own judgment is that if a Division had been taken, the Amendment would have been carried after the discussion that had taken place. The fact that a Minister of the Crown asked a Private Member to withdraw his Amendment on giving an undertaking, shows that there must have been substance in the case or apprehension as to the result of the Division. Everyone knows that such a request to withdraw an Amendment is only made in one of these two eventualities. I ask what was in the mind of the Committee; what was the promise of the Lord Advocate; why was the Amendment withdrawn, and what do the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments mean?
    What was in the mind of the Committee had nothing to do with the exact form of tribunal. Immediately the Lord Advocate mentioned the difficulty of the

    1377
    House of Lords, I was prepared to concede the House of Lords as the final court as between England and Scotland. I was not concerned with the exact procedure of the valuation judges, but only with putting up the ease which was put before me by the Edinburgh Corporation, and I was only concerned to say that the valuation judges were the appropriate tribunal because they had for nearly 60 years been the tribunal in Scotland which dealt with cases of valuation. I did not even mention the kind of procedure adopted before, but I based my argument on the fact that they had dealt with all cases of valuation, and that there were principles clearly understood and precedents and practice established.
    What was the argument about? The argument on which the promise of the Lord Advocate was given was based on one simple issue which I placed before the Committee. It was that it was unjust to start a new tax of this kind and give to the aggrieved taxpayer only the right to appeal on points of law, and that he ought to have the right of appeal on points of fact. I went so far as to point out that in great cities in Scotland, like Glasgow and Edinburgh, there would be not one valuer but scores, and since they all started without any previous practice or precedents laid down for them, they might quite easily come to quite different conclusionson points of fact. Therefore it was thoroughly unjust. That was the substance of my argument, as it is the substance of the case put to the Government by the Edinburgh Corporation. Perhaps I ought to read what the Edinburgh Corporation said. Let me quote from page 10 of their Memorandum, so that the Lord Advocate can verify it before to-morrow night:
    "It is a matter of grave concern that owners—particularly in the very special circumstances of valuations under the provisions of the Bill—will not be entitled to invoke the Courts in the event of their being aggrieved by the decision of the referee on points other than points of law. No doubt there is a risk of considerable litigation if an appeal to the Courts is allowed, but that appears to he inevitable in proposals of this nature. On the balance it appears to the reporters "—
    that is, the reporters of the Corporation—
    "that the advantages of granting an appeal to the Courts on any ground outweigh the disadvantages. The experience of the derating cases under the recent Local Government
    1378
    Acts is sufficient by itself to justify this opinion."
    I pointed out, as a middle course, that the valuation judges under Scottish law might be a proper tribunal in order to get that established. My judgment is that the Committee understood, and the Lord Advocate understood, that what we were asking for was not a tribunal to deal either with points of law, or points of mixed fact and law, but a tribunal to which an aggrieved taxpayer under this new Act could appeal so that all his case might be put, and he might get justice against any valuer who might, in, his judgment, do him despite under this procedure. Speaking for myself, I say with a most profound sense of shame that, for the first time in my experience in this House, an undertaking given—unless some more light can be thrown upon the subject—by a responsible Member of the Government, a man whose word of honour is without reproach, has been turned down, now, at a future stage of the Bill, and we are not getting, at least for England, what was promised. My sense of shame is deepened because I myself did not raise the case of England. Those words were put into my mouth. The Lord Advocate stated, as one of his reasons for turning down my appeal, that England had no such appeal on a question of fact, and then I said, "It ought to be possible there, too." In face of a statement like that, how the Solicitor-General can come down and ask the Committee to believe that all that was decided on the night of the 18th of June was that we were to have an appeal in the terms of the present procedure of the land valuation judges in Scotland is beyond me as a layman trying to do fairly by my fellow Members in this House, and it will be beyond those who read the Debates next morning in Scotland, where they were published at great length. It is beyond me to know how the Solicitor-General can reconcile his position in this House as a guardian of legal honour and the honour of the Government in throwing over the Lord Advocate in the way he has done.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It is very unfortunate if there has been any misconception in this matter. For my part I do not think there has been misconception. I take the view, and I hope the

    1379
    hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) will agree with me after I have stated my reasons for saying so, that we have implemented the undertaking which was given to accept the substance of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Leith on 18th June. If he disagrees he is entitled to his own view, but I propose to put the position before the House and let the House judge. I hope it is quite unnecessary to say that if an undertaking is given by any Member of the Government the Government will honour that undertaking in the letter and in the spirit. If I thought that in what we are proposing to-day we were in any material respect not implementing an undertaking, I should come to the House and say that I had gone too far in giving it, and ask the House to release me from the obligation; but I do not take that view and I hope to convince the House that the whole misunderstanding is due to the fact that the hon. Member for Leith and the hon. and right hon. Members who supported him did not understand the Amendment they were moving. If they had understood what an appeal meant under the provisions of the Valuations of Lands Amendment Act, 1879, there could have been no misunderstanding.
    I propose to satisfy the House that we have accepted the substance of the Amendment which the hon. Member had tabled. I can state the substance of it quite shortly. It involved three things. Two of them relate to Scotland only, and accordingly I am not going to discuss them, as they would not be germane to the question under discussion. The first point in the Amendment was that appeals should be allowed, so far as Scotland was concerned, to the Land Valuations Appeal Court. We are implementing that request. If the hon. Member for Leith has looked at the Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Clause 31, he will find that that part of the Amendment is being given effect to; but it does not arise here and I do not propose to discuss it. In the second place the hon. Member, as I understood his position, was anxious that there should be finality so far as the Valuation Appeal Court was concerned. I pointed out at the time that there was a very grave objection
    1380
    to allowing finality to attach to the judgment of the Land Valuations Appeal Court as you have an appeal to the House of Lords in England, that uniformity was essential and that this was a point in the Amendment which we could not accept. On the third point, the position of the hon. Member for Leith, as I understood it, was this. He desired to broaden the basis of appeal—that is how I understood him—and I am here to say to the House that the undertaking which was given in that matter has been honoured and implemented. We have put appeals in this matter on precisely the same footing as under the practice prevailing in the matter of land valuation appeal in Scotland. As I have said already, if the hon. Member for Leith had understood what the practice in Scotland was he would have realised, and so would the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), that we have given him the substance of the Amendment which he moved on 18th June. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If my hon. Friend will just wait a minute before he interrupts with his negatives he will find that I am right. Appeal in the matter of land valuation in Scotland is regulated by the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1879. Section 7 of that Act defines the ground upon which one can appeal and provides this:
    "it shall be lawful for such person appealing or for such assessor, if he shall apprehend the determination of the Commissioners.… to be contrary to the true intent of the said Acts, and 6hall then declare himself dissatisfied with such determination, to require the said Commissioners or magistrates to state specially and to sign the case upon which the question arose, setting forth the facts proved, together with the determination thereupon.
    "Let the House observe the phrase:
    "setting forth the facts proved, together with the determination thereupon."
    The position in Scotland is that under the procedure of that Act the Valuation Committee sets forth specifically the facts that are found proved. When you come to the actual hearing of the appeal the judges have invariably said that they will not go behind the facts which have been specifically found by the Valuation Committee and they accept those facts. There are only two cases in which a valuation may be interfered with by the Valuation Appeal Court. One case is where it can be shown that the Valuation

    1381
    Committee have proceeded upon a wrong principle of valuation. In that case the Valuation Appeal Court will intervene and put the matter right. The other case is where the committee in arriving at their finding have had no evidence on which that finding can be supported. That is where the whole misconception has arisen.
    In dealing with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith I used the expression "appeal upon fact." I think that was a loose expression to use and when I used that expression I was not suggesting that we were going to empower the Appellate Court to go beyond the specific findings of fact. I could not have had any such thought in my mind because I was familiar with the practice in land valuation appeals in Scotland where, as I have already stated, it is clearly established that the Appellate Court does not go beyond findings of fact.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I have a copy in my hand of the original Act under which the land valuation court was appointed and the last paragraph says:
    "And accordingly to such opinion the valuation or assessment which shall be the cause of the appeal shall be altered or confirmed."
    Is that not giving power to the High Court to determine a question of fact if they can alter or confirm the valuation of an assessment?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think the question which the hon. Member has just put to me illustrates the ambiguity of the expressions "questions of fact" and "questions of law." Of course the valuation Appeal Court can alter a valuation if the valuation committee which made the valuation has proceeded on a wrong principle of valuation or has drawn an inference which cannot be supported by the facts. Similarly under the appeal provisions with which we are dealing here, does anyone imagine that if the commissioners have applied a wrong principle of valuation to a unit of land that that valuation is going to stand. The whole purpose of the appeal provision is to alter the valuation if good cause can be shown. In this matter a finding of the referee for the purposes of this Bill is in precisely the same position as the findings of the Valuation Court
    1382
    for the purposes of land valuation in Scotland.
    The Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham is to allow an appeal on law and on fact. If the Government were to accept that Amendment as it stands the result would be that the Appellate Court could challenge the specific findings of the referee. If you give the Appellate Court that power you are not putting it in the same position as the Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland but you are putting it in a more favourable position because the Valuation Appeal Court has no power to go beyond specific findings of fact. A good deal of the criticism which has been made seems to have proceeded upon a misconception of what are the powers of the Valuation Appeal Court. The hon. Member for Leith is quite entitled to say that I used the expression "an appeal on facts." I think that that was a loose expression to use. I ask the House not to believe that in using that expression I meant that there should be an appeal upon every specific finding that might be made by the referee because no such intention was present in my mind and I do not think that any such intention was present in the mind of the hon. Member for Leith. I find in column 1314 of the Debate in Committee when Clause 11 was under discussion, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham was arguing for a less restricted right of appeal and he said:
    "I think, however, that the High Court may be trusted not to entertain appeals merely on questions of values about which they have had no experience and upon which they must depend on the evidence of the responsible people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1lth June. 1931: col. 1308. Vol. 253.]
    According to that the position of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham was that if you give an unrestricted right of appeal your Appellate Court will not interfere.
    Sir T. INSKIP: What I was saying was that it would not entertain appeals apart from the evidence, that is they would not allow the appeals to act on the evidence of valuers but on people of experience. I was not saying that they would not deal with questions of fact because my argument was that there was an appeal on questions of fact.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and learned Gentleman, like myself, used the expression appeals on fact. On these questions of fact you cannot judge and an Appeal Court is bound to accept the findings arrived at, it may be by an arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act or by an arbitrator under some other Statute.
    What I had in view was that the appeal would not be limited merely to principles of valuation, but that it would be wide enough to cover the case where the Commissioners or the Referee purport to draw an inference of fact where there is no evidence to support it. That was what I had in view——[Interruption.] My hon. and learned Friend is very unsure of his ground, or he would not be holding these constant consultations. The position is perfectly plain. I accused the hon. and learned Gentleman of not knowing what valuation appeal in Scotland meant when he made his speech this evening. I doubt if he knows it now. Valuation appeals under the Act of 1879 do not mean appeals upon specific findings in fact. They mean a review of facts in this sense, that if the Commissioners have drawn an inference of fact which there is no evidence to support, then the valuation appeal Court would interfere, and that is precisely the position of the Government under the Chancellor's Amendment.
    Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what the position is under the corresponding provision of the Income Tax Act. It has been said that in the matter of Income Tax appeals the appeal Court will not go behind specific findings in fact; but it is equally well said that if the Commissioners in an Income Tax matter draw an inference of fact which cannot be supported by the evidence the appeal Court will interfere with that finding, and that is precisely the position which is defined in this Bill. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend can challenge that proposition, but as there has been so much obscurity in this matter I will read to him two very short passages from two distinguished Judges. Let me first read to him a passage from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Cozens-Hardy, in the case of Gramophone, Limited v. Stanley. The reference is 1908, 2 K.B. 89. The Master of the Rolls was dealing with an Income
    1384
    Tax appeal under Schedule D, and he said this:
    "It is undoubtedly true that if the Commissioners find a fact it is not open to this Court to question that finding unless there is no evidence to support it. If, however, the Commissioners state the evidence which was before them, and add that upon such evidence they hold that certain results follow, I think it is open, and it was intended by the Commissioners that it should be open, for the Court to say whether the evidence justified what the Commisioners held."
    Similarly, Lord Chancellor Loreburn, in the case of Farmer v. Cottons Trustees, in 15 Appeal Cases, 922, said this—it was an appeal under the Income Tax Act—
    "The Commissioners have given us the relevant facts in detail and we can see for ourselves that taking those facts as found there are no materials at all upon which the conclusion they reach can be based. If the facts were such that on a true construction of the Act a different conclusion could reasonably be drawn, there would be no power for the Court of Appeal to interfere."
    9.0 p.m.
    The position seems clear beyond argument. Under the system of appeal in Income Tax matters presently obtaining, the appellate court will not interfere with specific findings of fact; but, on the other hand, the appellate court will interfere if an inference of fact is drawn that cannot be supported by the evidence, and that is precisely the position which you have under the Valuation Appeal Act in Scotland, as defined by the Act of 1879 and as interpreted by a long series of decisions with which I do not trouble the House; and it is precisely the position which we have under the Amendment which stands next on the Paper, in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Accordingly, I submit to the House that we have implemented the undertaking both in the letter and in the spirit, and that this distorted and ill-instructed criticism which has been directed against the Government would never have been levelled by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham to-night, or concurred in by the hon. Member for Leith, if either of them had taken the trouble to know what the provisions as to appeal are in Scotland; but in their anxiety to seize upon any weapon with which to beat the Government—[Interruption]—they have treated the House for a period of nearly an hour and a half to a demonstration in which I venture to say to the House that there is not one iota of substance.
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that after I have spoken I shall be included in the category of those who are described as of distorted imagination and ill-informed criticism, but at least I do not suffer from the disability with which the right hon. Gentleman has charged my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in respect of ignorance of the practice of the valuation courts in Scotland. It has been my fate in the past to appear many times in those courts, and as I think the Lord Advocate will agree, the forms which are in use there are just as familiar to me as they are to him.
    This matter cannot be decided on the question of the technique of the valuation courts in Scotland, nor upon the particular form which is taken by the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith. He is not a person familiar with the procedure of the Court in Scotland, but it was perfectly obvious from his speech what he wished to achieve. It was also perfectly obvious that the Lord Advocate understood it, and I would Venture to say that the Lord Advocate on that occasion was really not riding off upon a technical matter, as, indeed, it would have been very ungenerous of him to do, but that he was endeavouring to the best of his ability to meet a very formidable and reasonable case which had been put before the Committee, which obviously was largely sympathised with on both sides of the House, so far as one could gather from the interest that was taken, and which brought the position of the Lord Advocate into some little risk so far as the carrying of his Clause was concerned.
    I was present throughout the discussion, and it is perfectly proper for me to intervene to-day. It would be quite appropriate upon an English Clause, because, after all, we are still one Kingdom; but, apart from that, the Clause now presented to the House rules the Scottish Clause. The Clause that will be fobbed off upon us to-morrow night follows upon the English Clause, and applies to the particular Clause adopted in Scotland the procedure of England, and gives the same rights so far as appeal is concerned as are going to be given by this Clause in the case of England, if the Clause be adopted.
    1386
    Therefore every Scottish Member is interested in this Clause in so far as its main principles are concerned. When one considers that to-morrow night, for all the questions that arise in connection with Scottish procedure and an entirely different system of land holding, we are to have an hour and a half for the whole of the problems that Scotland raises, it is very natural that we should discuss this question now. I am not going into the merits of the case, because they have been sufficiently explained, but I wish to bring the Lord Advocate back to the character of his undertaking. That, after all, is a thing in which every one in the House is interested, no matter on which side he sits, because nothing worse can happen than that people should begin to distrust pledges that are given from the Government Benches, and obviously Debates would be prolonged to a very much greater extent than they are now if we had in every case to go into the Division Lobby before we were going to be assured that our particular point was accepted. Accordingly, may I refer to the speech of the hon. Member below me and to the answers that were given to him by the Lord Advocate. I cannot imagine that anyone can read these and have any doubt in his mind as to the conclusion that was reached. In putting forward his Amendment, the hon. Member modestly disclaimed any knowledge of the forms of procedure. He said he had suggested it as something that might be adopted, but, obviously, if there was any question about words or processes, he was willing that the Government should put the matter into proper shape. But he made his point perfectly plain, and what he said was:
    "I propose that there shall he an appeal not merely on points of law hut on points of fact."
    The Lord Advocate knows the difference between an appeal on a point of fact and an appeal on a point of law. It is a phrase with which we are perfectly familiar. The general phrase "appeal on a point of fact" means that all the facts are open, and that the evidence comes before the Appeal Court in the shape in which they are entitled to judge it completely for themselves without any regard to the conclusions that have been arrived at in the Court below. The other

    1387
    thing that he has been talking of to-day, the special case, is also perfectly well known and we know that, when a special case is stated, and the facts are found and disclosed in the stated case, although there is only an appeal on a point of law, if the facts disclosed do not found any reasonable ground for the conclusion at which the Court has arrived, that is treated as a point of law and may be upset. That kind of appeal by special case, or stated case, upon a point of law is poles asunder from what we know as an appeal on fact and law, which throws everything open. The phraseology which the hon. Member used was perfectly plain. He wanted an appeal upon fact as well as upon law, and he proceeded to give illustrations of what he meant. He said: "This is a new system and it is plain that there will be a great many differences which will agitate the minds of the people who are dealt with under it and, accordingly, they want to be satisfied that the facts have been properly judged as well as the law." He gave his illustration in this way. He said:
    "There will be legitimate differences between the valuator and the taxpayer as to matter of fact. The valuation of land, especially in the large, areas where the circumstances are very diversified, are bound to be intensified. Where the valuation is to be made on the assumption that the buildings on the site are non-existent, there will be no exact science in the valuation and, therefore, there must be a very large scope for legitimate differences of opinion as between the valuator on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other."
    That is again on the question of fact. The Lord Advocate completely understood what the hon. Member meant and this was his reply. He did not dispute that he was not giving any appeal upon questions of fact. He did not say, "The English system, which is to be applied to you, is one," as he has been saying to-day, "in which the facts are looked at along with the points of law. If it is clear to the Court that there was no reasonable ground for arriving at that result upon the facts as stated that would be open." No explanation of that kind was ever forthcoming.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I assume that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was familiar with the kind of appeal
    1388
    that was open under the Valuation Appeal Act.
    Sir R. HORNE: I regret to say so but I heard the whole discussion and I propose to give the Lord Advocate's answer. He said:
    "If this Amendment were given effect to, the result would be two-fold. In the first place, you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England you are only going to allow appeals on questions of law."
    He made his answer perfectly explicit and the matter was further exposed when he said:
    "I think it would be wrong to allow appeals on fact in Scotland and refuse them in England. This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee. If it is the will of the Committee that this should be considered, we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider the matter and to embody the collected view in a Clause which would deal with the whole situation. If that would meet the wish of the Committee, then I suggest the Amendment should be withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1931, col. 2023, Vol. 253.]
    The hon. Member withdrew the Amendment upon that understanding. Every one was perfectly assured in his own mind that questions of fact were to be open
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, familiar, as he has informed the House, with our practice in the matter of land valuation appeals. I want to ask him this question. Does he take my words as meaning that there was to be an appeal on specific findings of fact in a larger sense than there is under the Valuation Appeal Acts, and, if so, on what does he base that construction of the words that I used?
    Sir R. HORNE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in complete sincerity that I understood that he was throwing open the whole question of fact and law on the appeal. Let us have clearly in recollection that that was not such a wide assumption. The Act of 1909–10 embodied an appeal both on fact and on law in the sense that I am now putting before the House, and not in the restricted sense in which the Lord Advocate is now interpreting the undertaking that he gave. Every lawyer certainly understands the difference between an appeal on fact and on law. I was perfectly familiar with the position under the Land Valuation Appeal Acts. I knew also exactly what the procedure was as the right hon. Gentleman has

    1389
    expounded it to-day, but that is a totally different thing from what you call an appeal on fact and on law, the appeal that was given under the Act of 1909–10. I have found no one who had any doubt at all as to what the Lord Advocate had done. My recollection is that in the following morning's papers attention was called to the fact that the Lord Advocate had given away a position which was maintained most vehemently in the other sense by the Solicitor-General, and that something would require to be done in order to bring these two attitudes into some kind of consonance, but no one had any doubt at all as to what the undertaking meant, neither publicly nor privately.
    Then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham intervened and got, as he understood, an undertaking that England was to be considered in the same way as Scotland and, of course, the Lord Advocate's anxiety to bring the two systems of procedure into co-relation was perfectly understandable. It would be an inconvenient thing that you should have appeals stopping at the Land Valuation Appeal Courts in Scotland and going on to the House of Lords in England because then you might have decisions given in those two separate cases with no appeal to an ultimate body fitted to overrule both. The Lord Advocate's chief anxiety was to discover a way in which that could be met. But that difficulty is perfectly easily met by doing what they did in the Statute of 1909–10. There the appeal in Scotland was to the same body as formed the Land Valuation Appeal Court, but constituted under that particular Statute as, not the Land Valuation Appeal Court, but the Valuation Appeal Court. The appeal to that body of judges, being the same as under the Land Valuation Appeal Court, was still open to further appeal to the House of Lords.
    The method of obtaining the co-relation which the Lord Advocate desiderated was open and obvious, and all that the Government required to do in order to bring the two countries under the same method of appeal was to apply some such arrangement as that. I make the observation which I have made today with a grave feeling both of perturbation and of disappointment. Nothing can be more unacceptable to me than
    1390
    that I should have to rise in my place and make this criticism of what I regarded as an absolutely definite and honourable undertaking on the part of the Lord Advocate, and was so regarded by everybody, certainly those sitting on this side of the House and by everybody outside who commented upon it in the public Press. It is a great misfortune to the House that our traditions should be called into question in any shape or form, and I beg the Government to reconsider their attitude upon this matter and to give full implement to the undertaking which the Lord Advocate gave.
    Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I am bound to say, having listened to every word of this discussion, that I think it is one of the most disquieting incidents that have taken place in the House of Commons since I have been here. Let me say at once that I am not in the least concerned as to whether, so far as Scottish law is concerned, there has been any complete implementing of what the Lord Advocate indicated he would possibly do as regards Scotland. What we are concerned with is that there has been the plainest possible breach of the clearest possible Parliamentary bargain. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate have dealt with this matter, I am sorry to say, with a levity which is a little unfortunate. The Solicitor-General said, among other things, that there might be Members going into the Division Lobby who had not heard the Debate and because at the time when the Solicitor-General was speaking the House was empty and many Members have since come in, I am venturing to restate from the OFFICIAL REPORT what was the nature of the bargain. Both the Law Officers who have addressed the House on this matter have put forward a sort of special pleading. About the nature of the Amendment put forward for Scotland by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), the Lord Advocate asserted that he did not understand his own Amendment, and that was the explanation of the form the discussion took. I am going to read with the permission of the House—they have been referred to before—four passages which make the position absolutely plain. The hon. Member for Leith——
    The LORD ADVOCATE rose—— [Interruption.]
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General addressed the House at considerable length, and I have less than 10 minutes to deal with the matter. The hon. Member for Leith ended his speech in these words:
    "I hope we shall not be told that it is not necessary to have an appeal or that, if it is necessary, it should be brought into conformity with the Income Tax appeal in Great Britain."
    And may I point out that the whole controversy was, in this case as far as England was concerned, that we wanted to have the sort of appeal allowed under the old Land Tax Act and not the sort of appeal allowed under Income Tax. The hon. Member went on:
    "This is a case where Scottish law and practice demand a separate Court, and I shall have the sympathy of the Committee with me on the major point, namely, that there ought to be an appeal on such vast new procedure, not merely on points of law but on points of fact."
    That concluded the hon. Member's speech. The Lord Advocate, after one of my hon. Friends had addressed the Committee, said that the Amendment
    "undoubtedly raises a point of very great importance, upon which the Government would be quite prepared to take the view of the Committee, but we think it right that the Committee should appreciate what exactly this Amendment means. If this Amendment were given effect to, the result would be two-fold. In the first place, you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England you are only going to allow appeals on questions of law.
    Mr. E. BROWN: It ought to be done there.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: At any rate, it has not been done "—
    referring, of course, to the discussion on 11th June—
    "What I am concerned to point out to the Committee is that you will be making an anomaly on that point."
    After the hon. Member for Leith had intervened again, the Lord Advocate said:
    "We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment, but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands, because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries."
    The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) then intervened to make it perfectly plain. He said:
    "I hope the Government will make some arrangements which will give the citizens in England the same right of appeal on questions
    1392
    of fact as it is proposed to give to the people of Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; cols. 2020–24, Vol. 253.]
    Then the hon. Member was prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Lord Advocate would meet the point of substance, both with regard to England and to Scotland. If ever words can make a thing plain, I submit that it was as plain as words could make it that the Government were prepared to reconsider the matter both for England and for Scotland, because we cannot have one law for England and another law for Scotland, and that they were prepared to reconsider it according to the substance of the matter which has been put forward in the Amendment by the hon. Member for Leith. The Solicitor-General, if he will forgive me, gave us a lecture on the Scottish law upon which he is, like myself, a layman. I would like to remind him that the English discussion on this subject ended in those words. I ventured to address the Committee about this matter, and in dealing with the question of who should have the right of appeal I gave certain instances. The discussion went on to the question of feu duties, ground landlords and the rest. The Solicitor-General then said that wild horses would not drag him into a discussion of Scottish law. It now appears perfectly plainly from this discussion—I am not in the least concerned about Scottish law—that in Scotland, according to what the Lord Advocate has said, the evidence is presented on appeal and not merely a statement of what the Commissioners have found, and it is reviewed, whereas in England the facts are stated in concise form and behind that statement of fact there is no investigation. The Solicitor-General said that on mixed questions of law and fact there is an appeal. In one sense that is true, because there is an appeal on law, but in so far as the facts are stated there is no sort of appeal on the case stated into the questions of fact which emerge. It is absolutely common knowledge that over and over again a point of law cannot be raised on the cases stated, because they are stated out of Court. I am perfectly certain that the Solicitor-General would not dispute that position.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I certainly disagree.
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: That is a case on which the Solicitor-General's superior officer—for the Lord Advocate is senior to him—has given, later than he has, a definite undertaking to the House. To tell this House that the Lord Advocate, when he was talking about taking the sense of the Committee, meant that the sense of the Committee as far as England was concerned had already been taken some time before, is simply to trifle with the House of Commons. The Solicitor-General said that if the Lord Advocate went further in this matter, then he, the Solicitor-General, at any rate took the full responsibility for what was being done now. Where is collective ministerial responsibility if this is the way in which the House of Commons is to be treated?
    Mr. SCOTT: In the few moments which remain, I should like to say, as one who has had very considerable experience of valuation appeals in Scotland, that I accept the Lord Advocate's statement of the law in Scotland. I entirely appreciate the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), because he was thinking
    of a different thing from that of which the Lord Advocate was thinking. If the Lord Advocate had used the language to me which he used to my hon. Friend, I should certainly not have misunderstood him at all. What the House at the moment has to consider is whether we are to accept the Amendment which has been moved from the Conservative benches, namely, to admit an appeal to the Appeal Court on questions of fact; in other words, whether the Appeal Court is to have before it witnesses who have already appeared before the court of first instance or whether they are to confine themselves solely to the statement of the evidence.
    It being half-past Nine of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 4th and 29 th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 238.

    Division No. 367.]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)

    Cameron, A. G.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Cape, Thomas

    Gray, Milner

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Charleton, H. C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Chater, Daniel

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Church, Major A. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Clarke, J. S.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Arnott, John

    Cluse, W. S.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Ayles, Walter

    Compton, Joseph

    Halt, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cove, William G.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Cripps, Sir Stafferd

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Daggar, George

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Barr, James

    Dallas, George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Haydey, Arthur

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Day, Harry

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Benson, G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Dukes, C.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Blindell, James

    Duncan, Charles

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hen. Margaret

    Ede, James Chuter

    Herriotts, J.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Ekniey, Viscount

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Brockway, A. Ferner

    Foot, Isaac

    Hollins, A.

    Bromfield, William

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Bromley, J.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Brooke, W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Isaacs, George

    Brothers, M.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Brown, C W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Gill, T. H.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Gould, F.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A- (Presten)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Sinkinson, George

    Kelly, W. T.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Mort, D. L.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Muff, G.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Kinley, J.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Knight, Holford

    Naylor, T. E.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, No

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Sorensen, R.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Palin, John Henry

    Strauss, G. R.

    Lawson, John James

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Sullivan, J.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Sutton, J. E

    Leach, W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Perry, S. F.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Lees, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Tillett, Ben

    Leonard, W.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Potts, John S.

    Toole, Joseph

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Price, M. P.

    Tout, W. J.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Pybus, Percy John

    Townend, A. E.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Longden, F.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Vaughan, David

    Lunn, William

    Raynes, W. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Richards, R.

    Walkden, A. G.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Walker, J.

    McElwee, A.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Wallace, H. W.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Ritson, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

    McKinlay, A.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Rowson, Guy

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    McShane, John James

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    West, F. R.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Manning, E. L.

    Sanders, W. S.

    White, H. G.

    Mansfield, W.

    Sandham, E.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)

    March, S.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Marcus, M.

    Scott, James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Markham, S. F.

    Scurr, John

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Marley, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Marshal, Fred

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Mathers, George

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Matters, L. W.

    Shield, George William

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Maxton, James

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Messer, Fred

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Middleton, G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Wise, E. F.

    Mliner, Major J.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Montague, Frederick

    Simmons, C. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Morley, Ralph

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Albery, Irving James

    Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Buchan, John

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Butler, R. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Balniel, Lord

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Beaumont M. W.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Christle, J. A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Bracken, B.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    1396

    1397

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Savery, S. S.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Smithers, Waldron

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Millar, J. D.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Ht. Hon. Sir B.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hanbury, C.

    Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Thompson, Luke

    Haslam, Henry C.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Train, J.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Penny, Sir George

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wayland, Sir William A

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Purbrick, R.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Reid- David D. (County Down)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Remer, John R.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Amendment proposed: In page 10, line 37, to leave out from the word "that," to the second word "of," in line 40, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "immediately after the determination by the referee of an appeal under this Subsection any party to the appeal may, if dissatisfied with the determination as being erroneous in point of law, declare his dissatisfaction to the referee who heard the appeal, and having done so, may, within such time as may be limited by rules of Court, require the referee to state and sign a case for the opinion thereon."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 236.

    Division No. 368.]

    AYES.

    [9.41 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ayles, Walter

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Benson, G.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barr, James

    Blindell, James

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Batey, Joseph

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Arnott, John

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pybus, Percy John

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brockway, A. Fanner

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown.)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richards, R.

    Brooke, W.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brothers, M.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ritson, J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Bychanan, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Romeril, H. Q.

    Bargess, F. G.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Kinley, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Knight, Holford

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Carter, W. (St Pancras, B. W.)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Sandham, E.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Scott, James

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Scurr, John

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Leach, W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cove, William G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shield, George William

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lees, J.

    Shields, Dr. Drummond

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dallas, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shinwell, E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Longden, F.

    Sinkinson, George

    Day, Harry

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Dukes, C.

    McElwae, A.

    Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

    Duncan, Charles

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Ede, James Chuter

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Elmley, Viscount

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sorensen, R.

    Foot, Isaac

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McShane, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Strauss, G. R.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sullivan, J

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Manning, E. L.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Mansfield, W.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gill, T. H.

    March, S.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Gillett, George M.

    Marcus, M

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Glassey, A. E

    Markham, S. F.

    Tillett, Ben

    Gossling, A. G.

    Marley, J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Marshall, Fred

    Toole, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mathers, George

    Tout, W. J.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Matters, L. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Gray, Milner

    Maxton, James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Messer, Fred

    Vaughan, David

    Grenfell, U. R. (Glamorgan)

    Middleton, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Montague, Frederick

    Walker, J.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Morley, Ralph

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mort, D. L.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Muff, G.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    West, F. R.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Westwood, Joseph

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Naylor, T. E.

    White, H. G.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Herriotts, J.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wise, E. F.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Perry, S. F.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Hollins, A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.

    Isaacs, George

    Potts, John S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Price, M. P.

    1400

    1401

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Erskins, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Albery, Irving James

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Nicholson, Col- Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Fermoy, Lord

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

    Fielden, E. B.

    Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Forestler-Welker. Sir L.

    Penny, Sir George

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Balniel, Lord

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Gazonl, Sir John

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey a Otley)

    Purbrick, R.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Remer, John R.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bracken, B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Hanbury, C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Buchan, John

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Savery, S. S.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Butler, R. A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Somerville, D. G. (Wittesden, East)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Christle, J. A.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Thompson, Luke

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquees of

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Train, J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Liewellin, Major J. J.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Cowan, D. M.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)

    Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Withers, Sir John James

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Milne, Wardtaw-, J. S.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Mulrhead, A. J.

    Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

    Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 6, leave out the word "unit."
    In line 11, leave out the word "unit," and insert instead thereof the word "land."
    In line 33, leave out from the word "which" to the word "any" in line 35.
    In line 40, after the word "under," insert the words "Sub-section (1) of."
    In page 12, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
    "(7) The Reference Committee for England constituted by Section thirty-three of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall, in relation to the powers and duties of the Committee under this Part of this Act, consist of the persons mentioned in that Section, together with the President of the Law Society."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Assessment and recovery of tax.)
    Amendment made: In page 14, line 34, leave out from the word "mortgagee," to the end of the Clause.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Reduction of land value for purposes of assessment to tax.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, to leave out the words "comprising agricultural land," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "in respect of which a cultivation value is shown by the entries relating thereto."
    There are two further Amendments later on the Paper which are closely related to this Amendment. They are drafting Amendments
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, coupled with this Amendment, are two further Amendments on the Paper which he says are drafting Amendments. In each of those further Amendments I see that the words "an amount" are to be substituted for the words "a sum." Would he be good enough to tell us what is the meaning of that alteration?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words "a sum" are in Sub-section (1, a and b) of the Clause and relate to "four times the annual value," and "seven-eighths of the land value of the unit." It was thought more proper to
    1404
    have the words "an amount," because it is not a sum. It is an amount.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 36, leave out the words "a sum," and insert instead thereof the words "an amount."—[The Solicitor -General.]
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 36, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    The House will remember that this Clause was inserted in the Bill after various "alarums and excursions" during the Committee stage, as the result of a compromise arrived at, somewhat unwillingly, between hon. Members below the Gangway and the Chancellor of the Evchequer. In the original form in which hon. Members below the Gangway proposed their Amendment, it provided that the amount paid under Schedule A, according to the existing law, should be deducted from the amount of tax payable under the Government proposal. Their first attempt at such an Amendment was ruled out of order, and when their second attempt had also been ruled out of order, an Amendment was put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which works out in effect to this—that in computing the liability to tax an amount equal to four times the annual value of the unit for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A shall be deducted from the land value ascertained under Clause 8 of this Bill and that the tax should be levied on the balance, or on one-eighth of the land value of the unit.
    One of the questions which I wish to put to the Solicitor-General is why the figure four should have been selected. I could understand it if he had put a reasonable capitalisation on the annual value, deducted that from the land value ascertained under this Bill, and charged the full tax on the balance. I do not know that that necessarily would have been a very good method. It has its drawbacks but it would, at least, have been intelligible. How are you going to arrive at four times the annual value? The annual value, after all, depends largely on the user. I take for example a site occupied by a well-designed cinema theatre, expensively built, filled with the latest luxuries and showing the latest

    1405
    films, which yields to the owners or lessees a very large income. The value in that case under Schedule A would be very high compared with the value of the land on which it is situated. On the contrary, a piece of land may be occupied by buildings which are coming towards the end of a long lease and on which at the moment there is not any very great value under Schedule A. The site may be valuable but under restrictions in the lease perhaps, neither the owner nor the lessee can make use of and develop that site, and in such a case four times the Schedule A value will be rather low compared with the site value. I fail to see either the justice or the policy of adopting four times the Schedule A value as the basis for this deduction.
    10.0 p.m.
    Obviously by doing so you are encouraging people to put on their land when this tax comes into operation the most expensive buildings and the tallest buildings that they are allowed to erect under local regulations. If my memory serves me aright, the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) when discussing the position in New York, pointed out that the value of a skyscraper is approximately equal to the value of the site. I am not challenging his assumption, but obviously it would be to the interest of anybody who owns land in urban districts, once this peculiar proposal comes into operation, to erect upon that land the very highest building that the law or the by-laws of the particular city will permit. In London there is a limitation of something like 80 feet, but I have no doubt that, once this Measure becomes operative, heavy pressure will be put on the London County Council to extend that limit so that buildings can be erected which bear the highest possible proportion of value compared with the site. The more valuable are the buildings, obviously the greater the amount which will be deducted from the land value for the purposes of the tax, under this arrangement as to four times the Schedule A value, and the smaller the amount of tax which that site will have to bear.
    May I take another aspect of this proposal? Everybody, I think, agrees that in the modern development of our towns and suburbs it is highly desirable that the number of houses to the acre should
    1406
    be as small as possible. The modern idea is to limit strictly the number of houses to the acre, to spread the development as widely as possible and, wherever possible, to provide each house with a garden. If you are going to deduct four times the Schedule A value, it obviously is the interest of the builder, the owner of the land, and even the individual people who occupy the houses, that the buildings should bear the largest possible proportion of value to the actual site value, and the effect will be to encourage that intensive development which we are all anxious to avoid. That must inevitably result if we try to mix up these two hopelessly incompatible and contradictory principles. Site value, if it has any meaning at all, is charged on capital value and is charged irrespective of the user of the land, but Schedule A is Income Tax which is derived from the actual user of the land as it is—and of the buildings, as I am reminded. It is a tax derived from actual use on an annual value allowing certain deductions in respect of repairs and maintenance. That annual value may have no relation whatever to site value, and in attempting to come to an arrangement which would satisfy the conscience of the Liberal party, or at least would not violate that conscience too greatly, the Government, as I say, have attempted to combine these two contradictory and incompatible principles. The result is that the anomalies under this proposal will be even worse than those which would have arisen had the tax been left in its original state.
    Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General why the Government have chosen the arbitrary figure of four? I should think that it is very difficult to argue that the value of the sites in any given area is one-fourth of the total value of the land under its present user. That is a position which may occur or may not occur, but I do not know if the Solicitor-General has any figures to support the proposition that the proportion of one-fourth or one-fifth—I am not certain how it works out—of the value of the land unit, is a reasonable value to put on the site and that the remainder is a reasonable value to put on the development. I shall be interested to hear if he has any figures or arguments in support of that proposition.

    1407
    I fail to see any reason for putting in the figure "four," and I find a little difficulty in defending the figure "five" which I propose in its place, but I am doing it on the Solicitor-General's assumption that the figure "four" is correct. Presumably, when the Land Tax is in operation it will be, like other charges, like tithe, like the old Land Tax, etc., a charge against the annual income which the taxpayer will be entitled to deduct. Therefore, his Schedule A assessment will go down. If that is the case, I should say, assuming, which I do not for the moment, the Solicitor-General's assumption is correct, some allowance ought to be made. By putting on this tax you are lowering the Schedule A assessment. You are lowering its value, and therefore the concession which apparently is given to hon. Members below the Gangway will be very much less valuable than they think, because Schedule A will be down, and therefore four times Schedule A will be down. For that reason I would suggest that if the Attorney-General's assumption is correct, five is more nearly the correct figure than four. I am still to be convinced that four is the correct figure, and still more am I to be convinced that the attempt to mix up a tax levied on capital value with an assessment levied on what the land actually brings in at the moment, is either feasible or desirable.
    Captain CAZALET: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) said that the tax would have been better if it had been left in its original state. I wonder how many landowners who support the hon. and gallant Member take the same view that he does on that point. I suggest that if he put that proposition forward to his friends who own land in built-up areas he would not find them in agreement with him, although no doubt the more public spirited of them might.
    Captain BOURNE: I said it would be not as anomalous; not certainly lighter.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The words that the hon. and gallant Member used were that it would have been better
    1408
    if it had been left in its original state. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is not going to get me by making an interruption of that kind. The hon. and gallant Member asked me why we adopted the figure "four." The reason why this system was adopted was fully explained yesterday and I do not propose to go again into the general reasons for the adoption of this system to arrive at the net land value which is to be taxed at 1d. in the pound capital value. The reason why the figure "four" was taken was because that was the figure which was arrived at in the discussions which led to the compromise.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What reason is there in that?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) asks me what reason there is in that. The reason is that, having arrived at a compromise, the figure "four" was set down. If he asks me why I think the figure "four" is a reasonable figure I will tell him. It is because one is attempting to arrive at some figure which will give a measure of the use which is being made of the land unit for the purposes of the community and, as was explained yesterday, the rough criterion of that is Schedule A, because that is fixed upon the price that is paid for letting or taking the land from year to year, and that gives the rough value as regards the whole of the site and the buildings upon it. If you start with the view that where land is substantially fully developed you want to reduce the tax to the lower level of one-eighth of a penny, then taking the rough figure "four" will give you that result, in our opinion, and it is upon that basis that the figure "four" has been taken. You take a particular unit of land and the varying buildings on that unit—you cannot compare unit with unit—and as you progressively increase the utility of the buildings on the land you get a progressively increasing Schedule A. If you multiply that by "four," you will arrive when you get fully developed land at about the figure of one-eighth only. That is the reason why the figure "four" has been adopted.
    I do not propose to go into the general argument as regards this method of

    1409
    arriving at the net land value, but I do want to comment on one further thing which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford said, with which I entirely agree, and that is that a tax on land values is a totally different thing from Schedule A, and the tax under Schedule A. I agree with that statement, and it is for the reason that we look upon the tax on land values as a new tax. It will not be a tax which will be deducted in arriving at Schedule A. It will be an additional tax. [HON. MEMBEES: "Double taxation."] Therefore the reason that the hon. and gallant Member gave for converting four into five disappears. I know no other reason that he has put forward.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Solicitor-General endeavour to develop to the House his reasons for coming to the conclusion that four times the annual value would bring the exemption in the ease of a fully developed land unit up to that amount which would give it total exemption but for the one-eighth of a penny that is to be charged?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think I have said so already. It is a matter of opinion. It cannot be a matter of anything else. There is no evidence that I know of, because there has not been a valuation carried out on which to test the opinion. The opinions on this side of the House——
    Sir K. WOOD: And of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And the opinions of hon. Members below the Gangway when they meet in compromise, come out at the figure "four."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Solicitor-General answer this question? Does he agree that the effect of this provision is that the value of buildings must be four times the value of the site in order to make four times the annual value under Schedule A equivalent to the value of the land unit? That is a mathematical certainty, and that being so, the criterion then becomes this, whether the site is only fully developed when the buildings upon the site are worth four times the site itself. That is a thing which everybody can judge for himself, and I want to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman why he thinks that
    1410
    it must be four times the value of the site before the site can be considered to be fully developed?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not the basis upon which this proceeds. The basis is that, taking a particular site, not comparing one site with another, you got by a multiplication of this sort, with a progressively rising Schedule A, a progressive diminution of the effective amount of land value which is taxed, and when you take a figure of four times the Schedule A which includes site value as well as buildings, we are of opinion that you will then ultimately reach the case where you get a minimum land value, and that is one-eighth of the original land value.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not my point at all.
    Captain CAZALET: It is obvious, from the answer of the Solicitor-General, that there is no reason whatsoever for the figure 4 being put in. The nearest approach to a reason that he has given is that the figure 4 is the least that the Members of the Liberal party would take. That is a curious basis upon which to frame legislation which will affect very severely a large section of the population of this country. Surely the Solicitor-General has forgotten to mention the fact that hardly any two areas in the whole country are similar, and that there are hundreds of differing factors which must alter the situation in each case, and as long as you continue to have a purely arbitrary figure 4, based upon neither rhyme nor reason, you are bound to produce not only anomalies but great injustices as well. Many cases have been pointed out already. My right hon. Friend in front of me said that when the annual value is multiplied by four, presumably the Government, consider that that area of land is fully and properly developed.
    The other evening we had actual instances from Glasgow and from the City of London where it was shown that the building laws prevented any buildings being erected on those particular spots, the annual value of which, multiplied by four, could possibly equal the site value. I notice that on that occasion the hon. Member who answered for the Government said that those were exceptional circumstances—every case is an exceptional

    1411
    circumstance—and I notice that he failed to reply to or make an observation upon those instances, which were multiplied by various Members from these benches. I notice also that he omitted to reply to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), that the incidence of this tax would mean that those individuals who were engaged in developing land would be prone to build upon each acre as many houses as they could—exactly the opposite of what we have all contended, in this House and elsewhere, should be the case. Surely the proposal of the Government would mean that those who are developing land will be inclined, after this Measure comes into operation, to build on a particular acre more houses than it is desirable to build, because the more houses there are, obviously the less tax the owner of the land will have to pay.
    If that is not so, I hope the Solicitor-General will answer it, but I notice that he avoided that point. I presume that he admits that there are areas in London, Glasgow, and other big cities where four times the annual value can never equal the site value, owing to the operation of building laws and other matters. If that is a fact, and he agrees that it is, there is nothing more to be said, except that he must admit that there are instances of a most glaring anomaly which is created under this Bill. The learned Solicitor-General said, "I cannot give you any reason. It just happens to be the figure on which we compromised, after a great deal of discussion." I gather that that was the gist of his remarks. "Having at last settled upon this mysterious number of four, we think we had better stick to it." I expect the Government are grateful to have got some figure to which the Liberal party could agree, and for their sakes it would be as well that they should keep to that figure, which has enabled them to tide over a very difficult period in their life and to remain in office.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Solicitor-General has shown a deplorable lack of calibre in this matter. He was asked the opinion of the Government, or the liberal party, or both, why four was a proper denominator in this connection, and when we asked upon what his opinion
    1412
    is based, he said that it was baaed upon nothing, but was just an opinion. The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that when he is asked an opinion as a lawyer, it is based, if not upon evidence, at any rate upon other considerations—let us call them facts. On a previous occasion in this Debate the Lord Advocate, who is not in his place—perhaps the mathematical formula is too much for him—said the expression "facts" was an extremely loose expression; "facts" is not so narrow an expression as "evidence." We would like to know upon what facts he gave his opinion that four was the proper denominator. He tried to impress the House that it was a scientific mathematical calculation based upon the considered view of a valuer, and that it was a kind of mock auction between the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an arbitrary figure reached between them as a result of an agreement between two sections of the Government party.
    Which did he mean? Did he mean that the denominator four was based upon an honest calculation, or did he mean that it was the result of a political compromise? If the Solicitor-General would enlighten us upon that point, he would enlighten a great number of Members of this House and relieve our minds, because it is a tradition of the House that legislation is produced in relation to the facts, and not as a result of some compromise between two parties without having any relation to the true facts. How often in litigation does one solicitor write to another and say, "I have counsel's opinion on this matter, and it is conclusive"; and the other solicitor writes back, and says, "I would like to know the facts you disclosed to counsel before you asked his opinion." So the Solicitor-General's opinion, which is paraded before us as conclusive, and behind which he refuses to go, is not in the least impressive unless we know the facts which gave rise to that opinion.
    Really the Solicitor-General is almost insulting the House of Commons in coming here with his opinions, whether they be the opinions of the Liberal party or not, the basis of which he does not vouchsafe to us. The House would readily give its indulgence to the Solicitor-General if he would explain his opinion. It is admittedly a rough and

    1413
    ready calculation, and he entirely failed to answer the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). We must always take the opinion of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) as conclusive on these matters, and the opinion of the hon. Member for Burslem was that in New York the value of the sky-scraper was about equal to the Value of the site. We have no skyscrapers, thank goodness, in this country yet, but we can only conclude that as a result of this innovation in taxation in this country, we must inevitably get the hideous American architecture introduced here in order to make the proposals of the Solicitor-General fair. Otherwise, the value of the site can never be equal to the value of the building. The result of this particular Amendment will be the accentuation of the tendency for the whole face of London to be changed. They are doing a far greater thing than imposing a tax; they are going to change the architecture of this country. That must inevitably be so if there is any fairness or justice about this proposal. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to give us some definite facts upon which he has based his opinion.
    Mr. G. H. WILSON: I am very much interested in what has been said about the basis of this figure four, but I feel that the Solicitor-General has not given us a reasonable explanation of why a site should be regarded as fully developed when the cost of the buildings is four times the site value. I have been looking at the matter and have come to the conclusion that it is the outcome of an elementary mathematical calculation based upon the value of money, upon a certain rate per cent. I am sorry to see the Solicitor-General look so shocked. I will take a short illustration. Supposing an assessment under Schedule A is £800 a year. Multiplying that by four gives £3,200. In order that it should escape this tax the site value must be £3,200. We have the assessment at a figure of £800 and we have to get at the value of the property, and on a 5 per cent. basis one takes 20 years' purchase. Twenty years' purchase gives the figure of £16,000, which is just five times £3,200, and the difference between five and one gives you the figure four. So I think I
    1414
    am right in saying the whole of this calculation does depend upon some rate per cent. in the capitalisation of the annual value. What reason have the Government got for taking 5 per cent.? Recently the value of money has been 5 per cent., but it is slightly under 5 per cent. now, and in the course of 30 or 40 years it may change very appreciably. Is it proposed to change this factor every time the value of money changes? Unless that be done there is no basis whatsoever for arriving at the figure. I should be glad if someone would give an answer to this particular question.
    Mr. DIXEY: This is a very interesting subject, and I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has given proper consideration to it. If I understood him correctly he said he had no facts on which the figure four was based, that it was a figure arrived at by compromise between his colleagues and himself and the Members of the Liberal party. That is a very interesting piece of information for the House. No doubt the Members of the Liberal party put forward very proper proposals when they first suggested a figure for this reduction. Will the Solicitor-General tell us what was the first figure which the Liberal party put forward as a reduction figure? If he will not tell us himself possibly he will give a lead to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir II. Samuel), who will tell us what was the figure. This is a compromise House of Commons, the Government only survive by compromise, and in these circumstances ordinary Members of the House are entitled to have the full facts on a matter such as this.
    The situation in this House is becoming intolerable. I do not want to be insulting to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is obvious that they do not want to go to the country, and it is also obvious that they desire to get compromise Measures through this House. In justice to the people outside we are bound to press the Government to give us proper information on these questions. I feel very sorry for the Solicitor-General who is in a very uncomfortable position, because he does not feel sure what the party below the Gangway are going to do. Here is a grand opportunity for a gesture to the House. If I am correct in my surmise, the figure we are suggesting

    1415
    is the very same that the Liberal party put forward at the compromise proceedings. This deductional figure of five times was the very figure the Liberal party aimed at, and I suggest to the Solicitor-General that this is an opportunity for him to get the good will not only of his own party, but of all parties. I give the Liberal party the credit of having suggested this figure to the Government, and if the Solicitor-General will accept it, he might make a gesture to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who takes this question so seriously, and if he puts forward any figure it must have been most carefully considered.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I press the Government to give this Amendment further consideration, and I ask them to do so for purely practical reasons. First of all, as a manufacturer and a developer of land, I am going to be severely hit by this tax. What is the position of a man who owns land under the Rent Restrictions Act? That land under Schedule A is not giving any return because the rent is restricted, but it will be very bady hit, and what is the owner going to do? In the first place he will try to buy out or get rid of all those tenants living under the Rent Restrictions Act, and that is a procedure of which no one is in favour. Take for a second case a man who owns a large area of works manufacturing bulky materials, which do not necessarily require a high building and a lot of machinery, but only sheds and lean-to's. That man is going to be taxed twice. My third case is the development of land, and several references have been made to sky-scrapers. In London and other large towns there are laws and restrictions which prevent the putting up of buildings to the height of more than 80 feet or 100 feet, which is the height allowed by the London County Council. These are very definite cases where the owner, developer, or manufacturer is going to be very seriously hit by the tax. I ask the Solicitor-General to be generous and make the figure five times instead of four.
    Colonel GRETTON: We have been trying to get some information as to why the number "five" should not be accepted, but the whole proceedings appear to me to be somewhat of a farce.
    1416
    It is unprecedented, at any rate as regards the many Budgets which I have heard debated in this House, that there has been no senior of the Government present. The Solicitor-General is a new Member, and we all admire the way in which he has taken to the Parliamentary arena; but he must excuse my saying that some of us who are old hands are not so easily misled by his sophistries. We have only junior officers of the Government present, and, no matter what arguments are put forward, they can only make replies which are in the nature of "sealed orders." I desire to protest that a serious Debate like this, in view of the short time allowed for it, is not being attended to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other member of the Cabinet who is able to make a compromise or concession. Earlier in the evening, when the Lord Advocate was here, he had to get out of a very awkward situation as well as he could, and he was only able to do so by means of his mechanical majority. I hope that during the rest of the proceedings the House will have the advantage of the presence of a Cabinet Minister who can hear the arguments and will be able to make concessions when the arguments convince him that something ought to be done.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I trust that my right hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me, as a very junior Member, if I show a certain amount of sympathy for the Government after the attack which he has made. All who have listened to these Debates must realise only too well why the Solicitor-General is conducting them. We all know that he is the only Member on the Government side, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who has attempted to make out a case for these taxes, and, after the experience which the party opposite have had with other Members on their Front Bench, it is very natural that the Solicitor-General should be the only one whom they will trust on the Government Front Bench at this late hour of the night. It may be a matter for regret that they cannot find a senior member of the Government to handle this case, but it is a matter for no surprise to anyone who has listened to the case for these taxes which has been put forward from the benches opposite.
    I intervened really to address once more the question, "Why four?" There

    1417
    seems to be a sort of "Alice in Wonderland" attitude in regard to these taxes. There is a sort of fanciful and entirely humorous aspect of them which will appeal to all except the unfortunate people who will have to pay them if they come into force. One is reminded of the quotation from "Alice in "Wonderland":
    "'Why?' said Alice.
    'Why not?' said the March Hare."
    That is really all the answer that the Government have given on this question. Legislation on these lines is becoming a pure farce.
    Mr. QUIBELL: Why five?
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I would reply by asking, Why anything?. Why, in fact, these taxes at all? No satisfactory explanation has ever been given. In answer to the question "Why five?" I would say that six would be a better number, and seven would be better still, because cither would reduce the incidence of this futile and unfair tax, and, the larger the number, the smaller would be the taxation. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) says, "The higher the fewer," or "The greater the less." I think that anyone who has listened to the Debates on this tax must agree that the less the tux paid the greater will be the benefit to the country.
    After all, we have not only an unexampled case for reducing the incidence of this dishonest and ridiculous tax. We have the appeal which we understand was so passionately and fervently made from the benches below the Gangway. It was their suggestion and, when we remember the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other day in which he said that a General Election would come when he thought the country was ready for it, I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they ought to give him some semblance of the dictator's power. Taking everything into consideration, this is a case in which they might give up the shadow of their tyranny for the substance, which would be of so much benefit to the country when the taxes come in. No adequate reason has been given why four rather than five should be the number. Adequate reasons have been adduced why five is an infinitely better figure—per-
    1418
    sonally I would rather see six or seven—but anyone who has listened to the Debate and studied the question carefully will feel bound to support the Amendment.
    Mr. B. RILEY: I cannot give the hon. Member a reply as to why the figure four has been used in this formula, but I can give a very plain answer to the question why four should be preferred to five. I prefer four because it gives a larger measure of justice to the community than if you use five. There has been an enormous amount of special pleading on the part of vested interests in connection with the proposals of this Bill, and, although I prefer four, as I would prefer two as against four, or as I would prefer the original basis rather than any figure at all, yet, even so, four in large numbers of cases represents a fairly substantial measure of justice to large numbers of people who will come under liability to the tax. Take the enormous number of cases for developing substantial houses in which perhaps £1,000 of capital may be put into both land and buildings, and the proportion between the building and the land may be represented by £800 for the building and £200 for the land. One is entitled to assume that such a property would be assessed under Schedule A at £50 a year. Four times that gives you exactly the value of the site, and will reduce the tax to an eighth of a penny. For that reason "four" is preferable to "five."
    Sir B. PETO: This Clause did not appear in the original Bill. We know its history. It is an example of a compromise with representatives of the Liberal party. We all regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able, for physical reasons, to be present throughout our Debates. We have hero the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who was certainly a principal in the negotiations on one side and must have known the views of the Liberal party and the Government as to the compromise before it was decided. It is a very peculiar method of legislation. This is a proposal which will measure the taxation to be imposed upon hundreds of thousands, probably a million, people in this country and those people are entitled to know the reason why the particular tax should be asked of them every year. They will

    1419
    know that there is some sort of attempt to marry two perfectly incompatible things, namely, the taxable value of the buildings and the development of the site, subject to deductions under Schedule A and the capital site value. You have the multiplying figure 4, but no one will know how it has been arrived at. Quite apart from the fact that the Debate is being conducted in the dark there is present, on one side, one of the principals to the bargain, and he has remained in stolid silence throughout the Debate.
    If we are to legislate by compromise and negotiation outside this Chamber, at least the Chamber should be informed of the basis of the negotiation. It is an insult to the House for the right hon. Member for Darwen, who knows the facts and that the Opposition have attempted to elicit them throughout the Debate and, have been refused by the Treasury Bench, to sit there and refuse to tell the House what is the basis upon which millions of taxes are to be levied in this country. That is the condition to which legislation is being reduced. I appeal to the House to stop this mockery of legislation by negotiations, bargains and compromises between one section of the House who hold the balance for the moment and the Government in power. What is the use of these Debates? We ask at least to be enlightened as to the basis of the compromise. We are refused the information while parties to the bargain sit in stolid silence. It is making a mockery of legislation, and we may as well close the House of Commons if this sort of thing is to go on.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I, also, was waiting to see if we could not elicit some light on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The whole reason for this proposal is wrapped in mystery. One of those who might have thrown light upon it, the Solicitor-General, has already spoken and has refused to do so. He merely stated his opinion, which resolved itself into the result of a compromise. At least we might have expected that the other party to the compromise would, through one of its authoritative members, have thrown some light upon the question as to how they arrived at the
    1420
    result. I do not know whether silence is golden. I suppose that it is. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen is prepared to sit there and leave the mystery unexplained until the clock strikes eleven. What is the position which has been reached? First of all, we have been told that four times the annual value will give complete exemption except for that saving fraction which the Liberal party so complacently gave away together with their principles. Otherwise four times the annual value would give complete exemption when the site is fully developed.
    Next we have learned that the site will be fully developed when the value of the buildings is four times that of the site. To that, up to the present, no denial has been given, and it can be mathematically demonstrated on a 5 per cent. basis. That is what we have reached. We have asked for the data why the buildings should be four times in value that of the site, and the Solicitor-General has told us that it is his opinion. We can judge from the facts, as regards these buildings, that there is no reason why this opinion should be held. So far as given instances are supplied to us on the best possible authority, there is no reason to believe that on a fully developed site you will always have buildings which are four times in value that of the site.
    I will trouble the House with only two cases taken from one city, Edinburgh. There is a site in Princes Street, a cleared site, which was bought by Messrs. Woolworth for £115,000. The buildings are entered in the valuation roll at £5,500, less owners' rates, amounting to £4,400, and on the 5 per cent. basis the value of the buildings would be £88,000, or between two-thirds and three-quarters that of the site. Equally interesting is the case of the Liberal Club in Princes Street. Careful and competent information given of its site value on a comparison with Messrs. Woolworth's site, shows that the site value of this Liberal Club to be £65,000. At the present time it has completely developed its premises, no doubt, as far as it can, because the ground floor is taken up by two shops which are let by the club at a rental entered in the valuation roll, and that, with the annual valuation of the club's premises given in the roll, amounts to £2,900, less owner's rates, about £2,300.

    1421
    Therefore, calculated in the same way, the total value of the premises will be £47,000 and considerably less than the site value.
    Captain GUNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any allowance, in regard to the Liberal Club, for the wasting assets?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Vacant possession may, perhaps, soon be given of it, in as much as it is estimated that the tax on it will amount to an annual sum of £231 6s. Those are just instances, and there are others all over the country, which go to show that this arbitrary figure of four to one, while it may be sufficient in some cases, is certainly not right in others. We have been given no data to explain how it has been arrived at, and all we are told is that it is the result of a compromise between the Government and the Liberal party. What we have to ask ourselves is this: does it really mean that the rate of taxation which hundreds and thousands of people will have to bear is to be determined by a compromise between two political parties, for which no reason, no justification, and no data has so far been given. If that is so, then all I can say is that of the many sorry spectacles that we have seen in the course of this Bill this compromise is one of the most discreditable.
    Mr. MANDER: Whatever else may be in doubt in this uncertain world there is not the slightest doubt as to why this Amendment has been moved. It is purely a political manœuvre to embarrass the Liberal party, without, of course, any hope of success. It is thought by hon. Members above the Gangway that five was the figure adopted by the Liberal party, and the Amendment has been moved in the vain
    hope that a sufficient number of Liberals will be attracted by it to go into the Lobby with hon. Members above the Gangway and turn out the Government, and thus assist them to move over to the other side of the House. Their palms are itching for the seals of office. I submit that what has been going on for the last two hours is an absolute justification for the action of the. Liberal party as a whole in the support they gave the Government in putting forward the Guillotine Resolution. The discussing during the last two hours has been perfectly futile, and if there are no stronger arguments to be brought against this Bill than have been introduced by hon. Members their case must be very weak indeed. I only rise to protest against a shocking waste of Parliamentary time by hon. Members above the Gangway.
    Mr. LOCKW00D: I only want to say in answer to the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) that it is not true that the arguments put forward from these benches have been put forward with the object of wasting time. The only thing we are trying to do is to protect the vested interests of the citizens of this country. [Interruption.] We desire to see justice done in the matter of taxation, and up to the present there has been no reply to the arguments we have put forward.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 4th and 29 th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the word 'four stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 231.

    Division No. 369.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Buchanan, G.

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Benson, G.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Blindell, James

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Cameron, A. G.

    Arnott, John

    Bowen, J. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Ayles, Walter

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Chater, Daniel

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Church, Major A. G.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bromfield, William

    Clarke, J. S.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Bromley, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Barr, James

    Brooke, W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Batey, Joseph

    Brothers, M.

    Cocks, Frederick Saymour

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Compton, Joseph

    Cove, William G.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawrence, Susan

    Ritson, J.

    Daggar, George

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Dallas, George

    Lawson, John James

    Romeril, H. G.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Leach, W.

    Rowson, Guy

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lees, J.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Leonard, W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Dukes, C.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sandham, E.

    Duncan, Charles

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Scott, James

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Scurr, John

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Longden, F.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lunn, William

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Foot, Isaac

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shield, George William

    Gardner, R. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McElwee, A.

    Shinwell, E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McEntee, V. L.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Gill, T. H.

    McKinlay, A.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gillett, George M.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sinkinson, George

    Glassey, A. E.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gossling, A. G.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gould, F.

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Gray, Milner

    Manning, E. L.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Mansfield, W.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    March, S.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' w.)

    Marcus, M.

    Sorensen, R.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Markham, S. F.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Marley, J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Marshall, Fred

    Strauss, G. R

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mathers, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Matters, L. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Maxton, James

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Messer, Fred

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Middleton, G.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Mliner, Major J.

    Tillett, Ben

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Montague, Frederick

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morley, Ralph

    Tout, W. J.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Townend, A. E

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham. N.)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Vaughan, David

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Muff, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Walker, J.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Herriotts, J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Hollins, A.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    West, F. R.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Isaacs, George

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Perry, S. F.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Potts, John S.

    Winterton, G E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Kinley, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Wise, E. F.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Lang, Gordon

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Raynes, W. R.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Richards, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYBS.—

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Albery, Irving James

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Balniel, Lord

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    1424

    1425

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Boothby, H. J. G.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Penny, Sir George

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Glyn, Major R. Q. C.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bracken, B.

    G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pybus, Percy John

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Remer, John R.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Buchan, John

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon Sir James Rennell

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hanbury, C.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Savery, S. S.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S

    Skelton, A. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Christle, J. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro & Whitby)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cranbourne, Viscount

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Thompson, Luke

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Train, J.

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lymington, Viscount

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s, M.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrensester)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Fielden, E. B.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ford, Sir P. J

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Austin Hudson.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Amendments made: In page 15, line 38, leave out the words "a sum," and insert instead thereof the words "an amount."
    In line 40, at the end, insert the words:

    1427
    "(2) For the purposes of the charge of the tax, the land value of very land unit in respect of which a cultivation value is shown by the entries relating thereto shall be reduced either—

    (a) by the amount of that cultivation value; or

    (b) by the amount by which the land value would have been reduced under the last foregoing Sub-section if no cultivation value had been shown by the entries relating to the unit,

    whichever is the greater."
    In page 16, line 23, leave out Subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Ordered,
    "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved,
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  BRITISH DELEGATION, 1928, 1929, 1930.
  BRITISH DELEGATION, 1928, 1929, 1930.
  TANGANYIKA (MR. C. M. MORRISON).
  TANGANYIKA (MR. C. M. MORRISON).
  KENYA (TRANSPORT COMPETITION).
  KENYA (TRANSPORT COMPETITION).
HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  MEMBERS' ACCOMMODATION (INTERVIEWS).
  MEMBERS' ACCOMMODATION (INTERVIEWS).
  RESIDENT OFFICIALS.
  RESIDENT OFFICIALS.
  ADMIRALTY PREMISES (LETTING).
  ADMIRALTY PREMISES (LETTING).
TRANSPORT.
  OMNIBUSES AND COACHES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUSES AND COACHES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE LICENCES.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE LICENCES.
  CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
  CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (DISABILITIES).
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (DISABILITIES).
ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  ASSISTANT PAINTER GRADE.
  ASSISTANT PAINTER GRADE.
  LABOURERS.
  LABOURERS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  LAND VALUE TAX.
  LAND VALUE TAX.
  POOR LAW (HUNTINGDON).
  POOR LAW (HUNTINGDON).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Birkenhead—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I wish to mention to the Leader of the House a question in regard to a matter of business. He will remember that yesterday I had a Motion down in regard to slavery, thinking that the Orders ahead of it-would be non-contentious. As it, turned out, they were contentious, and he will remember that I was unable to bring my Motion forward at such a late hour. He was good enough to communicate with me in the matter, and I gave notice that I would bring it forward on Wednesday week, July 15. I have been in communication since with the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, who desire to take part in the debate, and I find that the date that will suit them best is Wednesday, July 22. Accordingly I desire to put the Motion down for that date.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Certainly it would suit us very well on this Bench. I am very glad to hear also that it suits the most rev. Primate and Lord Lugard. It is very necessary that both of them should be present when the Slavery Resolution is brought forward. The noble Earl's Motion will come on first on the day he has mentioned.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.

WIMBORNE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WALLASEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HERNE BAY WATER AND SOUTHEND WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AYLESBURY JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BIRKENHEAD AND CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH WATER AND GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND SEATON BURN VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS AND YORK) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (GODALMING AND SCUNTHORPE AND FRODINGHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND LEICESTER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (ABERTILLERY AND DIS TRICT WATER DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTH SHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA TION (RHYMNEY VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

FISCAL POLICY.
LOUD LLOYD LOUD LLOYD rose to move to resolve, That this House desires to place on record its regret that the financial proposals of the Government for the current year contain no reference to or any measures for the safeguarding of home industries or for the promotion of Empire economic unity. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion that I am venturing to submit to you, to-day, invites an expression of your Lordships' "regret that the financial proposals of the Government for the current year contain no reference to or any measures for the safeguarding of home industries, or for the promotion of Empire economic unity." My Motion does not call nor would it be in order for mo on this occasion to discuss the general financial situation of the country, but it is very pertinent to my Motion to consider to what extent the industries of this country are carrying a very much heavier burden of taxation than the industries of other countries. It must be obvious that, whatever measures we may ultimately adopt in the future to give both industrial and agricultural production a fair opportunity to sustain themselves, one of the primary considerations must be a reduction of the burden of taxation which now falls so very heavily upon all British producers.
The latest figures that are available show that the people of this country are taxed per head at least 50 per cent. more than the citizens of the next most highly taxed country and two or three times as heavily as the people of most other countries. It is, therefore, perfectly true to say that Free Trade finance means a far greater addition to the cost of living than could possibly result from the most extreme form of Tariff Protection as represented—or as very often misrepresented—by Free Trade exponents. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is true, this year has added little to the burden
486
of taxation—I think some £7,500,000—and has preferred to postpone to another year a very large increase of taxation which will become inevitable as things are going to-day. The new taxation which he has imposed, the tax on petrol, while a luxury tax to some, is yet another burden on production and on transport.
But the greatest burden which the Chancellor has put upon industry—and this is pertinent to the Motion—is the burden of totally unnecessary unemployment. It is a burden which has involved Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund of no less than £86,000,000 in quite a short time in the shape of what the Government, I believe, euphemistically describe as a loan, but for which, as far as I can see, the Chancellor has made no provision whatever in his Budget. And this unemployment increases day by day and week by week to proportions which are really appalling, which have no parallel largely because we are at this period continuing to import between £250,000,000 and £300,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured goods, while something like 2,500,000 British workers are standing idle to-day. So long has this continued that one doubts whether, when prosperity returns, they will have any capacity left for work.
It is the fashion, I know, on the Government Benches, on Socialist platforms, and in the allied, but ever thinning, ranks of the Free Trade Union, to attribute the dramatic decline of our staple industries sometimes to one cause, sometimes to another, sometimes to the War, sometimes to the "economic blizzard" which de-devastates so many countries to-day, or, more piously—and helplessly—to the act of God; whereas everyone in the whole world who is not a free trader knows to-day that the decline of our industry and agriculture is due in the main to no temporary cause, but rather to long years of mistaken policy, to a blind and blinkered belief in a system of free imports and taxed exports, a system which has been justified neither by the creed of Cobden nor by the tenets of List. No sane economist that I have ever met has ever attempted to justify the system under which we labour to-day; when the justification is attempted it is attempted in the name of that free trade which it is not at all.
If the Government are right in their contention that our troubles are really the result of special causes not peculiar to this country, but common to all our neighbours, I think they would have to show, would they not, that industry, agriculture and finance are at any rate in a more flourishing condition in this country than they are in countries whose fiscal system is in their opinion less fortunate than ours. They would have to explain, as I would invite noble Lords opposite to explain, why it is, for instance, that, whereas before the War we exported nearly three times as many tons of iron and steel as we imported, we are now actually importing more iron and steel than we export—and that in the greatest country of iron masters and steel producers in the world. And, whilst this is the case under the so-called system of Free Trade our chief Protectionist rivals—all of them, too, victims of world causes, of which the Prime Minister talks so much—are exporting, in the case of America, nearly three times as much iron and steel as they import, in the case of Germany, a victim of the world War, if any there was, nearly four times as much as they import, and in the case of Belgium nearly six times as much as they import. I would invite the Governments explanation of that phenomenon. It is, I am afraid, an indisputable fact that no other country in the world, least of all a country fed by so wide a wealth of its own raw produce and fortified by so vast an area of administrative control overseas as our own, has to record so tragic a decline of its staple industries from predominance and primacy in the past down to a comparative collapse.
I would ask noble Lords opposite if they can tell us in what other country under Protection has agriculture declined over so long and persistent a period, or experienced such hopeless enfeeblement as in Free Trade England. There is no parallel, I believe, in any other country under Protection in the world. It is true that most other countries to-day under Protection have to record more or less serious figures of unemployment in their industries, but there is a difference between them and us, because this is the only country in the world which, over a whole decade or longer, has exhibited such deep-seated and continuous incapacity to find work for its wage-
488
earners. That is the difference. I suggest to-day that the main causes are not ephemeral, they are not cyclonic, they are endemic; they belong to something permanent in our system, they are the result, as we believe, of a long period of mistaken policy. Any policy may work well for a time, and a vast stimulus to England's export trade was given in the early days of Free Trade by the great discoveries of gold in California and Australia in 1848, by the fact that we were the inventors of the railway system and were for many years the only country equipped to produce steel rails, locomotives and all the appurtenances of a great invention—still more because the Free Trade movement in the forties was the inheritor of the results of that marvellous system of Protection, under which all our staple industries had themselves been built up, and for which Free Trade for many years got the superficial credit.
But in spite of every adventitious good fortune, in spite of every misrepresentation, we have known now for more than twenty years that the system of so-called Free Trade has failed utterly, and most of us believe that the failure was due to the fact in large degree that it was based on a system of purely material selfishness which, for the immediate gain of the private pocket of the individual, was willing to ignore the ultimate and corporate welfare of industry and agriculture as a whole. That is what Free Trade taught the producer of that time. Look back and see whether it is not true that the very creed of Cobden set the employer against the wage-earners, whose bodies and souls were to be bought in the cheapest market, where, you will remember, they were to be bought according to Cobden. It set industry against agriculture and was only too ready to sacrifice what to-day we realise to be the priceless bulwark of a prosperous peasantry for the more speedily won wealth of the spindle and the slum. More than either, it sought to set the interests of England against its Colonies and the interests of the Colonies against England.
If we are really to understand the working of the Chancellor's mind to-day and the attitude of the Government towards the Safeguarding Duties and

489
economic unity in the Empire as a, whole, we can best do so, I think, by remembering the oft-quoted remark of Mr. Cobden in 1842, when he spoke his soul out and said that the Colonial system with all its dazzling appeals to the passions of the people, could never be got rid of except by the indirect process of Free Trade, which would gradually and imperceptibly loose the bonds which united the Colonies to us. It has, indeed, been no fault of Free Traders, either then or now, if a Colonial Empire is left to us at all to-day. Like Mr. Snowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Safeguarding Duties recently, they at that time in the heyday of their enthusiasm swept away in 1848 the whole range of duties which protected our exports to our Colonies. Encouraged by their achievement, in 1854, just as we have seen more lately, they deprived the West Indies of their Sugar Preferences. Not content with that they went on to kill the nourishing wine industry in Cape Colony with Cobden's Treaty with France of 1860. As if that was not enough, the Colonies were not now to be allowed to give a Preference to the Mother Country even if they wished to do so. We remember the Treaties of 1862 and 1865 by which we pledged ourselves to Germany and Belgium never to let our Colonies give us a Preference however much they desired to do so.
Do we not begin to recognise something of what is going on with the present Government to-day vis-a-vis our industries and our Colonies? This policy of selfish individualism which Cobden boasted of, finally set the remaining successful industries against the unsuccessful industries, so that the shipbuilders, for instance, were constantly encouraged by Free Traders to buy their steel and their plates abroad regardless of their brethren of the furnace and the forge in this country. The shipowner and the shipper, for the smallest gain to his private pocket, thought it no ill to ship his goods in foreign bottoms, regardless of the shipyard workers. "Each for himself and the devil take the hindmost" was the Free Trade creed.
The result of this teaching has been to cause the people of this country to forget how their industries were really built up—the long struggles that changed our
490
wool trade with Flanders to a strong and nourishing cloth trade in this country. The people were taught that Manchester trade was born of Free Trade. They were never taught the truth, which was that Manchester trade was built up not on Free Trade, not even only on Protection, but on actual prohibition in 1700, fostered some sixty or seventy years later by a comprehensive system of bounties, with the result that between the years 1780 and 1812 our exports of cotton goods rose under Protection from £350,000 worth to £16,500,000 in those few years under the protection of a fostering tariff. It is absolutely true to say of this great industry, or what was once a great industry, that it was created by protective and fostering legislation. It is equally true to say that of the iron and steel trade and the woollen trade and all our great staple industries.
So I think we begin to see as we look back over the years the spirit that animates our Government to-day; indeed, we pay a tribute to the fidelity of Socialist Ministers to their Cobdenite programme. We see how Free Traders to-day, as in past days, have kicked away the Protectionist ladder by which the industries had climbed to prosperity. So that as the result of less than a century of Cobdenism we look round and we see in Manchester to-day the fruits of the Manchester policy. Where is your piece-goods trade to-day, I ask the Government, under Free Trade, with its exports reduced by 50 per cent. since pre-War days? Where are your woollen and steel trades? Semi-crippled! And your shipbuilding, of which before the War England's proportion of world output was no less than 62 per cent., reduced to-day. I believe, to less than 40 per cent?
I will not refer to the financial position. There are those who will follow me who are more capable of dealing with the banking situation. We look anxiously enough at the Budget which you cannot balance to-day; at the Navy you can no longer afford to build; at the Army which you have not the men nor I sometimes think the manliness to maintain. They are all gone under Free Trade. Again, look at the Steelyard and the Hanse. Gone like all the other countries who put the wealth of their middlemen before the prosperity of their workers.
We can charge the Government with many failures, but he would indeed be an

491
unjust man who charged the Government with any failure to preserve all the anti-national doctrines of Cobden. Let us see what the Government have done in two short years since they have been in office to indulge their economic dogmas at the expense of the wage-earner and the taxpayer. It is obviously in strict accordance with past precept and practice that, since the Government assumed office (it seems longer than two years to many of us but it is rather less) five valuable Safeguarding Duties should have been allowed to lapse, in spite of bitter protests not only from the masters but (and chiefly) from the men. I must remind your Lordships also that the Government made a very valiant attempt (this House will remember it because they frustrated it) to wipe out the existence of the British dye industry by a refusal a little time ago to continue the Dye-stuffs Act. Yet the Government must have known perfectly well what a valuable help that Act had been and how the dye industry, under the protection of the Act, had increased its weight output in 1929 by no less than 600 per cent. over 1913, and that whereas (these figures are very striking) 80 per cent. of our home requirements in dyestuffs were supplied from abroad in 1913, in 1929 after the passing of this Act 90 per cent. of our home requirements were British produced and gave work and wages to British workpeople. We are entitled, I think, to ask the Government to tell us plainly what were the influences and what were the motives that made them so anxious to destroy this nascent industry in this country.
Let us look for a moment at one or two of the safeguarded industries. Take, for example, the cotton lace industry. There is no time to deal with more than one or two industries without wearying your Lordships. Here was an industry whose capacity to employ British labour had something like halved in the previous twenty years. There the decline was due, as I understand it, very largely to a question of fashion, and to the cessation of the United States of America to import that class of material, which affected both France's and England's export trade. But even so, the application of the duty at once arrested the decline, whilst in another branch—namely, silk lace and mixtures—the exports leapt up from £64,000 in 1925, to no less than
492
£225,000 in 1929. Still more remarkable—I will not quote many figures; they are wearisome; but these are so remarkable they are worth quoting—was the rise in the exports of artificial silk lace and mixtures, which was from £30,000 in 1925 to more than £500,000 in 1929. And it was the protective duty, which helped this business to increase, that the Government were so anxious should elapse and did allow to lapse. I will not detain your Lordships with the results of other safeguarded industries, except to assert the undeniable success of the duties as tested by an increase of both production and employment.
Free Traders spend a great deal of their time either in denying the success of these duties, which really on the facts is very difficult to do, or in admitting that Safeguarding can be useful to an industry but only at the expense of or damage done to another industry. I cannot prophesy on which particular leg the noble Lord is likely to stand this afternoon, if on either, but if on the latter, I should like to point out that the prices of safeguarded articles have declined, as a whole, by percentages fully as great as those which have taken place during the same period on non-protected articles. In some cases, striking cases like motor cars, silk stockings and so on, the decline in prices has actually been very much more marked than in the case of non-safeguarded manufactures. In these circumstances, it really is impossible for Free Traders to continue blandly to assert that the benefit to safeguarded industries, which can no longer be denied, is only procured at the expense either of the taxpayer or of some other industry. I would like to quote one striking case. Take the case of wrapping paper, which is an enormously important commodity in trade. It is the raw material, of course, of many other industries, and in this connection it is a fact that the wholesale people, the Paper Box Manufacturers' Association and the Wholesale Stationers' Association, who are the greatest users of wrapping paper, themselves at once expressed the view that the duty ought to have been continued, so it does not look as if they were very much harmed by it as consumers. In fact, it passes my comprehension to understand what satisfaction, still less what justification the Government can derive from or give for

493
the abandonment of duties whose effect has been quite clearly to benefit the industry concerned, and definitely to increase employment without raising prices or damaging any other British industry, and, in addition, has yielded something like £1,500,000 of badly needed revenue. Perhaps the noble Lord will let us into his mind a little later on, and explain his policy.
May I venture to ask the noble Lord one other question? Although full figures can obviously not be available till the end of November, I think there is no doubt he will agree with me that from statistics up to date it is abundantly clear that in 1930, for the first time since we became a manufacturing nation, we actually imported more manufactured goods than we exported. What is even more serious, we find that the five countries from which the bulk of our manufactured goods come—France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and the United States—sell us about twice the amount of the manufactured goods they buy from us, and we also find that our manufactured exports have fallen by something like 25 per cent. in the last two years. Those are very alarming figures. Or, put another way, careful analysis of our trade reveals the fact that on an average every single minute, day and night, we live, we are importing into this country about £600 worth of manufactures and foodstuffs of all kinds which we could perfectly satisfactorily produce ourselves, and if we did produce these goods here, the direct (to say nothing of the indirect) employment provided, coupled with the increased export to the Dominions that would result from Imperial Preference, would not only abate, but, I firmly believe, virtually eliminate our unemployment problem.
Every minute of the day and night we pay £200 to keep our workpeople in idleness, and of those £200 something like £100, I am sorry to say, we are having to borrow. It is clear we cannot compete because our rivals' costs abroad are lower than ours. What I would like to ask the noble Lord is, how does he, under Free Trade, propose to get our costs down so that we can compete? It is a very fair question I think to put to His Majesty's Government. They object to our proposals. They admit that our costs are higher. Will they please tell
494
us what is their plan? I think Mr. Sidney Webb in the old days, as a convinced Cobdenite, would have whispered at any rate, if he had not said: "Lower the wages and buy your labour in the cheapest market." The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, I do not think would dare to say that to-day, and even if he did, the trade unions would not have it. So I suspect he will go on telling the British manufacturer he must rationalise his industries. We say it is merely mischievous and irritating to go and tell the British manufacturer that he can compete if he will only rationalise his plant, when at the same moment, by penal taxation noble Lords opposite deprive him of all the reserves of capital out of which alone he can effect a rehabilitation of his industry. More than that, the Government impose upon his export trade, in the shape of Death Duties—no longer excess profits because there are not any; no doubt the tax would be there if there were any — unemployment insurance "dole" and Super-Tax what is no less than a veiled excise upon the British manufacturers' export trade and an excise which by every Free Trade maxim, should be balanced by a corresponding import duty, but it is not.
I shall be curious to hear the noble Lord's answer. Our position is plain, and it is this. We say there are two ways of competing with people whose costs are lower than our own. One is to lower our own costs. There is, of course, another way and that is to put up your adversaries' costs—and it is a very important way—and thus to gain competitive parity. We say you can restore employment by extending, not abolishing, the Safeguarding Duties, and with a scientific system of protective duties the resulting restoration of employment will not only reduce the incidence in the weight of taxation on our own industry, but by refusing a free market to foreign goods in this country and discontinuing to our competitors the valuable privilege of dumping, you will put up their costs, because only bulk production to-day will give low costs, or at any rate it is the main factor. We shall put up their costs and thus be enabled to compete the world over on equal or at any rate more nearly equal terms.
In conclusion let us look for a moment at the Imperial side of our economic

495
position. Last autumn was for all of us who have been advocating a change in our fiscal system for some thirty years a period of bitter disappointment, especially to those of us who had looked forward to the time when a real commencement might be made with the principles of economic unity. The Ministers of the Dominions, themselves faced with economic problems of varying degrees of difficulty, hoped clearly that by joint action with His Majesty's Government in this country much might be done to assist their difficulties as well as those of the home country. We know that their overtures were received with a direct negative.
What are really the major considerations of this great Empire economic plan to which my friends and I are so wedded? We consider that this nation is fighting for its very existence to-day. In that fight we are losing ground, for one reason—a very important reason—because foreign nations do not give us the same facilities in their markets as we give to their trade in ours. Our Empire overseas has in each of the recent years spent some £300,000,000 on foreign manufactures, at least two-thirds of which were entirely suitable for production in this country. If that share of their purchases were deflected to us it would mean the direct employment—direct employment, let alone, indirect employment—of fully 1,000,000 workers. The deflection, indeed, of half that volume of trade would provide twice as much employment as all the Socialist palliatives which have been offered to us during the last two years, and, what is more important, it would be productive work.
I would ask your Lordships to consider the position of some of our great Dominions and Colonies who, like ourselves, are passing through a period of grave anxiety and depression due to their inability at the present time to sell their primary products. Yet, with what seems to us—I do not want to use strong language—callous indifference to their fate and to the tragic position of our own once great agricultural industry, we continue to buy at least £200,000,000 worth of foreign products every year which might be grown under the British flag in one part of the Empire or another. I suggest that if only a part of that volume of trade now passing from British
496
to foreign countries was diverted into Empire channels thousands of producers and their employees, both agricultural and industrial, would be saved from economic extinction. This is also, in my opinion, the only cure for the distress of our shipping industry—namely, the long haul, the long return freights, between our overseas Dominions and the Mother Country.
Again, what would happen if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought fit to use the £1,500,000 which he lost when he let the Safeguarding Duties lapse? The re-establishment of the Preference on tea, which I regret so much was abandoned by my own Party at the end of their term of office, would be an encouragement to the Indian plantations. A substantial Preference on sugar would set the West Indies on their feet to-day. One of the late colleagues of the Government, Lord Olivier, spoke vibrantly on that subject the other day. A Preference on maize would get our South and East African possessions over their immediate troubles. A certain market in this, the greatest of all markets, for part of their wheat production and a Preference on fruit, for instance—a little thing it may seem to some of your Lordships, but a vast thing to the Empire—would send a message of hope and encouragement to Australia in her heroic struggle to avoid ruin and to Canada in the dark days of her depression.
The fact is that His Majesty s Government has no active policy for encouraging the productions of our Empire. It is only active, as far as we can see, in encouraging trade with Russia. During the six months ending May, 1931, export credits were issued in respect to trade with Russia for £2,250,000—so I am informed. Our export credits to all other countries amounted only to £1,400,000. So it is that the virtues of the Soviet system can, under a Government-controlled broadcasting association, ho broadcast and blared continuously throughout these islands: and while the Soviet Government, which foments sedition and encourages murder in many parts of our Possessions, receives this Government's assiduous help, those who gave everything to help and save us in the War are spurned and neglected.
My Lords, I think it is indeed a sorry and a shameful record, and I say so in

497
measured terms. Many of us who have no Party feeling in this matter and who would give the warmest support—I am certainly one and I am certain many of my friends behind me would—to any measures designed to protect and safeguard our industries and to give closer economic relations with our Dominions, from whatever Party they emanated, had cherished the hope, sincerely cherished the hope, that the Government would recognise the jeopardy in which our great industries stand and would show practical sympathy with the burden they are so bravely carrying. We hoped they would not hesitate, with their trade union following behind them—becoming more and more Protectionist every day—to jettison old dogmas and to use every modern scientific method to foster, protect and nurture both the industries of this country and the work and wages of our people. The petty and the partisan attitude which they have displayed towards these Safeguarding Duties and to the whole question of Empire economic unity has made a deep impression upon the country as a whole and, unless I am very much mistaken, will not be easily forgotten or forgiven. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House desires to place on record its regret that the financial proposals of the Government for the current year contain no reference to or any measures for the safeguarding of home industries or for the promotion of Empire Economic Unity.—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I need not say that I find myself quite unable to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in his extremely eloquent and extremely closely prepared speech in what he calls measured language. I shall attempt to show at any rate that some of his adjectives as far as the present Government are concerned were a little unmeasured and a little unjustified. I am certainly not going to attempt without preparation to follow the noble Lord in his historical survey right back to the wool trade of Flanders and down to the present day, with special reference to the last hundred years. Will the noble Lord reflect that the indictment which he has brought against the present Government—barely two years in office—is really an indictment against all the suc-
498
cessive Governments for the last, shall we say, eighty years?
I am not concerned at the present time to defend all that has been done by the Tory Party when it came into office, as it has come into office for long intervals during that time. Nor am I prepared to defend the Liberal Party which equally came in for the blame of the noble Lord. The present Government succeeded to this heritage of ruin which has apparently been going on, the. prosperous peasantry which has been overthrown—I do not know when the noble Lord finds this prosperous peasantry; he must go a long way back before he comes to anything which can be called peasantry, let alone which can be called prosperous peasantry—this prosperous peasantry overthrown, our manufacturing industry sinking slowly into decay, or rapidly into decay, and apparently into the complete ruin that has come upon the country during the last hundred years!Well, it may be all right, but it is not the economic history that I have learnt. At any rate I am not going to take up your Lordships' time by attempting to dissect all the fallacies which, it seems to me, lie in that view of the last eighty years.
Then the noble Lord said that he and his friends had expected and hoped that the present Government, when it came into office, not merely in a minority in the House of Commons, but with a minority vote in the country, was going to undo and reverse the policy of the late Conservative Government, which had so large a majority, to undo the policy of the former Conservative Government, of successive Governments since the War, of the Liberal Government before the War and so on. He said that he expected the Labour Government was going to do that. Well, I do not think he did, if he will allow me to speak quite bluntly, but at any rate, if he did, he must have been, shall I say? not quite up to date and not quite accurate in his knowledge of English politics. If he thinks now that he expected and that his friends expected that this Government was going to undo all those things, I can only say that I did not expect it to do so, and I venture to think that he will not find any warrant in the programme of the Labour Party, or in any speeches by those who are now His Majesty's ser-

499
vants, for thinking or expecting that there was going to be this reversal of policy.
Let me tell the noble Lord why. Even if we had been inclined to embark on such a policy, to throw over all the convictions, all the practice and experience of the past, wider which, after all, this country has not done so badly, may I remind the noble Lord that we certainly could not have done it without a very decisive vote of the electorate? I want to remind your Lordships, and the noble Lord in particular, of the last time the electorate spoke. Assuming that the whole Conservative Party had then determined to throw over what he calls Free Trade and to go in for a protective policy, complete Protection ("Scientific Protection" was the phrase, I think), when the Conservative Party went to the country in 1929 intending to do that—I give the noble Lord credit for supposing that his Party were going to do it—they put it to the country; and what was the result? I would remind your Lordships that the Conservative Party received about eight million votes, the Labour Party received about eight million votes and the Liberal Party received five million votes. Consequently the votes against the reversal of policy on fiscal questions and against the adoption of Protection were at least thirteen or fourteen million to eight. I would ask the noble Lord, supposing he had been a member of the Government which by some accident of our political system had attained office with a vote of thirteen million to eight million votes against them in the country, would he have expected his colleagues in that Government to reverse the system and to carry out a system of "Scientific Protection" against which the people had emphatically voted? Of course he would not, and he could not.
The justification for my reference to that is my next point, and that is that the noble Lord's own Government, the Government to which he was attached and which was in office from 1924 to 1929, during which all the alarming features which the noble Lord mentioned were in full operation, with agriculture declining, iron and steel going wrong, the cotton trade showing signs of falling off and unemployment—the noble Lord mentioned that a distinctive feature of British unemployment was that for a whole decade it had been going on in so serious a way
500
—during the whole of that time his friends who were then in office, with a large majority behind them in the House of Commons supported by a large majority in the country, took, I will not say no step, but certainly nothing which the noble Lord would have thought to be anything like an adequate step, or even a strong step or a bold step, towards this new policy which he is now anxious to blame the Labour Government for not having adopted, though we never pretended that we were going to adopt it, because we did not believe in it, and no one had thought that we would adopt it, because the popular verdict would have been sufficient to prevent us, and quite rightly to prevent us, from doing so.
I ask the noble Lord to turn his attention, if he can spare some of that invective with which he is so liberal, to the views of his own Party during these years of unemployment. It is quite true that we have had the Safeguarding Acts, but really if you consider what the result of the Safeguarding Acts was, if you consider that this duty on buttons, on lace, on wrapping paper, and I forget what else; yes, on gloves and so on—well, I have heard of a pill against an earthquake, but really, if that is what the noble Lord considers will cure unemployment, if he is satisfied with the work of his friends when they were in office with a majority, with a programme, apparently with a conviction that this was the right thing to do, they did not—I do not want to blame them—find it possible or desirable to undertake the policy which the noble Lord now blames this Government for not undertaking. I think the noble Lord might begin at home, might convert his own leaders, if he has leaders. Even to this day we have the vaguest of statements as to what the new Government that is going to come after us, if the noble Lord's friends have their way, is going to do. I venture to say that the noble Lord will find that he has still some conversions to effect unless he is going to be disappointed again with regard to the doings of his friends, as he was disappointed with regard to the doings of the Labour Government. Possibly he may have a little more justification for being disappointed, but I do not want to prophesy.
Let me say a word about the noble Lord's reference to Cobden. I have never been a Cobdenite myself—very

501
much the reverse, I suppose—but I am not prepared to accept or admit that the description which the noble Lord gave of Cobden's policy is anything but gross caricature. It is, of course, possible that, his particular quotations are accurate. I do not impugn that. When a man makes a great many speeches, as Cobden did, and spends a long period of years in agitation, as he did, it is possible to take out sentences which can be misrepresented; but the suggestion that Cobden was actuated by the unpatriotic sentiments that the noble Lord has ascribed to him, and the notion that Cobdenism, as preached by Cobden or his immediate followers, is represented in anything but caricature in the references that he made to it, I venture to deny very decidedly. I say I have never been a Cobdenite, for very good reasons. I do not say that my past is on record, because I do not suppose noble Lords will ever want to look at it, but at any rate noble Lords will not find in the, I am afraid, great number of volumes that I have perpetrated any adhesion to Cobdenism in any sense, or to Free Trade in any sense in which it is ordinarily used as meaning laissez faire. I suppose that, if I have stood for anything ever since I was a youth, I have stood for a more strenuous opposition to laissez faire and to interference with freedom of trade and freedom of commerce—interference that your Lordships would probably think—
EARL PEEL: We do not mind.
LORD PASSFIELD: Interference which reaches far wider, and to far deeper depths and greater heights—than the noble Lord, who has made that eloquent speech; but because I believe that we ought to interfere it does not. follow that we should interfere in a foolish way. The mere fact that I am against laissez faire does not make me in favour of protective duties, because I believe it to be a silly way of doing things and injurious to the welfare of the nations who have undertaken it. They have struggled against it, and they have flourished, but not so much as we have nourished by the opposite system. The noble Lord is not justified in describing me as a Cobdenite, or in suggesting that in my earlier days I should have wished to lower wages.
LORD LLOYD: It was the Government and not the noble Lord that I thought was Cobdenite.
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Lord explicitly referred to myself, and I answer that he may be referred to his studies, in order that he may acquire a more accurate account of my personality. The noble Lord recited a very long tally of the woes of this country at the present time. I am old enough to have lived through a great many depressions of trade, and to have heard this kind of thing before. I am not going to say that the present depression is not more serious than any I remember, but it is not so different from those others in this respect, that it has been accompanied by the assertion and the promulgation of these particular views as being the panacea. There have been Protectionist agitations before, and they have even been similar to the present one in working under aliases. Just as the present Protectionist agitation calls itself in favour of Safeguarding, or of Empire Free Trade, so the agitation of thirty years ago had other aliases, and that of fifty years ago had yet other aliases. Yet there was always the same underlying policy, of getting out of our troubles by putting on Customs Duties, by which we will at the same time keep out the foreigner's goods and make the foreigner pay a contribution to our revenue, at the expense—and this is hardly denied—of raising the prices of those goods above what they would have been if the tax had not been imposed. Indeed it is in order to raise prices that the manufacturers generally and the trading interests are in favour of this policy to the extent that they are.
I am not going to waste your Lordships' time, or my own breath, in attempting to say why we think that Protection is not a good policy. I do not suppose that I should be able to convert any one of your Lordships who is protectionist by any poor argument that I might use. If you will hear not those of greater authority you will not hear me. I am not going to put up the Free Trade case against the noble Lord's case for Protection. It would be putting me to a great disadvantage, and I do not propose to do it. If the noble Lord asks me what we propose to do, I say emphatically that we do not propose to seek a remedy for the present discontents in the form of a policy of Protection, either for manufactures of foodstuffs or anything else. There may

503
be something to be done in the way of interference in one way or another, and I would not rule out the use of the Customs as one way if it can be demonstrated as being the most useful way. It may, however, be the interference which is the good thing, and it is interference which we are in favour of, but it is very difficult to find where is interference which has not very considerable drawbacks and disadvantages.
We do interfere, and we are in favour of interference, in ways which we believe to be advantageous. May I quote an instance—an instance, which the noble Lord who has spoken may have some interest in, because it is anti-Cobdenite? We believe that Free Trade in the sense of laissez faire does create very serious injury to the community, in depressing the standard of life and the conditions of living of large sections of the wage-earners, and the nation has discovered in the course of fifty or sixty years that the only way to cure those evils of laissez faire is by interference, and drastic interference, by the Factory Acts, the Mines Regulations Act, the Railway Regulations Act, and the Merchant Shipping Acts—interference in every point with free trade, in order to protect the standard of life of the weakest among the wage earners and to secure for them conditions which will lead to the prosperity of the nation and not to its continuous degradation.
That is a policy with which Cobden did not agree and which the nation has more and more adopted. We have not got to the end of that policy—of the factory legislation in which Tory Governments in the past have shared with Liberal Governments. That factory legislation has not reached its end. I am only quoting this as an instance to show that because I do not believe in protective duties it does not follow that I am necessarily a Cobdenite or in favour of free trade. I believe in interference, and that is only one way in which the country will have to have a great deal more interference. Before I die I shall look to see that that policy of interference which has been the policy of all Governments in succession is carried still further, with even more beneficent results than it has had.
EARL PEEL: On unemployment?
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes, on unemployment, because I would like to remind the noble Earl that some unemployment is due to the very low standard of some of the workers. A large proportion of the workers are incapable of doing what the ordinary educated competent work-man is able to do. They are unable through lack of training and education. We shall have to have a great deal more interference in that way, and I hope that we shall have the support of the noble Lord in this interference. He said he was not wedded to any one way of doing it, and I ask him to widen his views and to consider whether in his reaction from Cobdenism he is not a little narrow. There ran through the noble Lord's speech one constant refrain, that imports were a bad thing, and not merely objectionable but ruinous. The size of our imports was cited as obvious proof.
LORD LLOYD: It is the character of the imports and not the amount of the imports which so much matters to us.
LORD PASSFIELD: Apparently it is the character and quality. Then I would point out to the noble Lord that he need not have laid so much stress upon the magnitude of the imports, or upon the relation of imports to exports, if it is only some of the imports which are objected to. It is very difficult to understand where the noble Lord and his friends draw the line between imports which are objectionable and those which are necessary. This objection to imports, this uncomfortable feeling that somehow or other we are getting in too many imports, or the wrong kind of imports is, I venture to think, what modern psychology calls a fear complex, which leads you, not to wise judgments, but to unwise ones.
The noble Lord referred particularly to his desire for the unity of the Empire and to the particular case of the Imperial Conference, and said that the overtures received from the Dominions were met with a direct negative. That was not true at all. But still we were not able to agree with their desire that we should get them out of the difficulty due to the large over-production of wheat in particular, because what they

505
asked us to do was not to give them a Preference. I would remind the noble Lord that the Government have accepted the policy of Preference. We give the Preference. We continue the Preference, we have not removed any single Preference. It was left to Mr. Winston Churchill when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to sweep away the Preference on tea.
EABL PEEL EABL PEEL dissented.
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did sweep away the whole Preference on tea.
EARL PEEL: He abolished the duty.
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Earl has put his finger on the spot. Apparently it is not a Preference, it is a duty that is wanted. Perhaps the noble Earl is going to put back the duty on tea in order to give the Preference. However, the Dominions started this question of Preferences, and they have accorded to British goods Preferences to a very large extent. I am not going to discuss whether this or that particular Preference is worth as much as it professes to be. We assert that the Dominion Preferences are of value to British trade, and we are very glad to have them. And we have reciprocated, previous Governments have reciprocated, by extending Preferences in this country to Colonial and Empire goods, and we have maintained all those Preferences, and we assert that those Preferences have been of value to Imperial trade. That is the policy of the present Government.
Nay, we went further. At the Imperial Conference we said that not only would those Preferences be maintained, but they would be maintained if the House of Commons did not interfere, for three years. We gave a guarantee that they would all be maintained for that time. I do not think the noble Lord is entitled to gird at this Government for not adopting the principle of Preference. We have adopted it, we have continued and maintained it. We have not abolished a single Preference. The noble Lord did not tell your Lordships that at the present time the amount of duties foregone by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on account of these Preferences is very nearly £6,000,000 a year—not an enormous sum, but that is the whole range of Preferences which the late Gov-
506
ernment bequeathed to us. No, not quite, because the late Government in its last Budget abolished one of those Preferences—one very interesting and, one would have thought, popular one, the Preference on tea. They swept it away with the duty. And thus the Preference which was enjoyed by the Assam and Ceylon tea planters and by the growing industry of the Kenya tea planters was abolished—not by this Government. Why does not the noble Lord pitch into his own friends on this subject?
Let us examine the position. The Dominions very rightly say that they are going to put on those Customs Duties which suit their own interests. They have declared, quite rightly, that they are governed entirely by the view they take of their own interests. They do not put on any duty to please us, they do not take off any duty to please us. But, having decided for themselves what Customs Duties are in their interests—I think very often mistakenly, but they have the right to decide—then, out of their generosity and their desire for Empire unity, they accord a Preference to the Mother Country from those duties. That is exactly the policy which has been followed in this country. The late Conservative Government put on those Customs Duties, or maintained them, which they thought to be in the interests of this country. They decided, rightly or wrongly, but they did so decide, exactly on that ground—the ground of what they thought was for the benefit of the country—and then, as a gesture to the Empire, they accorded Preferences from those duties. This Government have done exactly the same thing, except that we have not abolished any of them. It was the late Government who did that. We have continued their policy.
What Mr. Bennett of Canada came to the Imperial Conference to ask the Government to do was not that at all. He asked something entirely different—namely, that this country should deliberately put duties on things on which we had no duties, whether we thought it for our advantage or not, in order to be able to extend a new Preference to the Dominions on articles on which they wanted a Preference. No Dominion had ever been asked to do that by us. That was an entirely new departure. The

507
noble Lord spoke very lightly about this and that Preference, a Preference on fruit and a Preference on maize, as being quite a small thing. He might more accurately have said that we should put on an import duty on fruit—although we did not think an import duty on fruit was good for this country—in order to be able to allow a Preference to Colonial fruit. That is what the noble Lord meant. But it is a very different thing to have to put a Customs Duty on fruit, which you do not believe to be for the advantage of this country, in order to be able to take off a part of it for the benefit of the Dominions. That, certainly, this Government has never favoured, and I do not know whether the noble Lord really thinks that he is going to induce his colleagues on the Front Bench to favour that policy.
Similarly, you have to consider the question not merely of whether the country wants a duty, but whether the country might be injured by the duty. How about a Preference on maize for instance? I suppose some people would be injured by putting an import duty on maize. We cannot grow maize in this country—except, I suppose, in hothouses—and the noble Lord wants to give a Preference on maize. I suppose that means he wants to put a duty on maize coming into this country. I do not know what the National Farmers' Union would say to that. But it is the policy of the noble Lord to put a duty on anything where you want to give a Preference to the Colonies. Well, that is not the policy of the present Government, and I am not going to be repentant about it at all.
I do not know whether your Lordships will think I am making an extravagant claim, but I would like to remind you that this Government in its two years of office not only has done much for Empire unity, but has actually done more for Empire unity by financial means than the last Government did—I venture to say than perhaps any Government has done. Your Lordships perhaps do not remember quite how much has been done in that way. I suppose the noble Lord who spoke last would not think much of the Empire Marketing Board, but at any rate the Empire Marketing Board is expending a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money in this country
508
in actually extending and developing the exports of the Empire—the Crown Colonies and Dominions. I do not forget that the Empire Marketing Board was started under the late Government, but, while great credit may be due to them for having started it, I think equal credit is due to this Government for having continued it and pushed on with its work. There are several other things, the Shipping Committee, the Economic Committee, the Agricultural Bureau and the rest of it, which the noble Lord does not think of at all; but they cost money, and we are doing those things for Empire unity and Empire Free Trade.
I would like to remind the noble Lord that whatever glory might be got by extending a Preference to Colonial fruit or something like that if we did not have to put on a duty, there is such a thing as the Colonial Development Fund. One of the first things this Government did when it came into office was to set aside £1,000,000 a year—a solid million pounds a year, charged on the taxes of this country—for Colonial development, and that money is being expended for one thing after another, for particular pieces of development of the Colonial Empire. Is not that a manifestation of a desire to promote Empire unity, and actually a financial manifestation? I do not believe you can do very much financially at all. But if we are on the financial line and the noble Lord clings to the financial method of promoting Empire unity, I think it is worth remembering that this solid gift of £1,000,000 a year is being given to Empire development. It was after the noble Lord had prepared his speech, I admit, and therefore I am not blaming him for not having alluded to it, but how about the recent gift of £8,000,000 in one solid lump to the Dominions in respect of their War Debts? That gesture, that step in the promotion of Empire unity, for which the noble Lord might give the Chancellor of the Exchequer some credit, has been acclaimed by all Parties. I do not want to claim all the credit for this Government, but it has been acclaimed by all Parties as a very big thing.
VISCONT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, because the statement he has made is a very important one, is it the fact that the

509
Government is proposing to make a gift of this £8,000,00? Hitherto we had understood that the Government was doing just what the Hoover plan suggested, that is to say, suspending the payment for twelve months. If the proposal is to make a gift of this £8,000,000 it is very important that we should know it. That is why I venture to interrupt the noble Lord—because it is a very important statement.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. Let me measure my words. I do not mean to say that I was necessarily wrong, but let me measure my words. We have made part of the arrangement—not of the Hoover arrangement, but we have already foregone various things to Jamaica and so on.
EARL PEEL: That is not a Dominion at all. The noble Lord said "Dominions," I think.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In regard to the £8,000,000, I only want to know what it is.
LORD PASSFIELD: I was speaking rather too hastily. I am not going to describe exactly how far, I am not in a position to say how far—as a matter of fact, of course, it is not merely the postponement of receipt; it is a gap in the Budget that will have to be filled.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Under the Hoover plan there is a postponement for twelve months. Necessarily, of course, that involves in the year in which there is no payment the finding of the money from other sources. There is no gift if that be so. I am anxious not to embarrass the noble Lord and I am only speaking by his courtesy, but I think it is a little important that we should know exactly whether there is a proposal other than that which the country had understood.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount, because I am not intending to add anything to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained. The noble Viscount will understand that I am not adding anything, but that the transaction is not complete and we do not know at the present time exactly what form it will take. Undoubtedly, as regards Germany it will be a postponement; but how far that at the end of the time will result in a larger or a smaller amount being paid is another
510
story. At any rate I do not want to overstate it, but we are going to have to pay in this country £8,000,000 that we should not have had to pay. There will have to be a new charge on the Exchequer to the extent of that £8,000,000 somehow, and that is for the benefit—I will not call it a gift—of the Dominions in respect of their War payments. That £8,000,000, which all Parties have acclaimed (I do not know how to call it), that transaction in which we shall have to pay £8,000,000, is certainly a more striking manifestation of Empire unity than anything that I can believe could be done by an extension of Safeguarding Duties and Imperial Preference.
I must leave it at that, I think, except to say that there is a difference—I want to be quite candid with your Lordships—between the general line of policy with regard to Empire unity which this Government is pursuing, and that which the noble Lord asks the next Conservative Government to pursue. The noble Lord will notice that this last transaction of £8,000,000, which has been received with so much gratitude by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and which the Union of South Africa very self-respectfully said they could do without (for which we thank them) will fall upon the revenue of this country. I do not know that I am putting it too high when I say that it will practically prevent at any rate any reduction of Income Tax and Super-Tax to that extent. Similarly, the Colonial Development Fund—this gift of £1,000,000 a year—is responsible, let us say, for the Income Tax being at its present height and the Super-Tax or the Death Duties, whichever you like. There is a difference between that and putting taxes on commodities in order to give some Preference to the Dominions and the Colonies.
The difference is this, that, theoretically at any rate and I believe correctly, the gifts from the Exchequer are paid for in proportion to our ability to pay. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have large incomes and large property pay at a greater rate than the people who have not those advantages. Whereas if you put a duty on commodities in common use you not only interfere with trade, as we believe, but also in so far as those duties cause a rise in the price of the commodities (we believe they emphatically always cause a rise in the

511
price of commodities or prevent a fall) you are levying something almost in the nature of a poll tax, so that everybody pays, roughly speaking, the same amount according to their consumption. If you put a duty on wheat, for instance, the rich pay no more towards it than the poor. Perhaps they consume less. We prefer our way; we think our way is economically sound; we challenge any attempt to fall back upon the doctrine of the economists; and we say that their way is not a better way than ours of making these gifts for the benefit of Empire unity. The noble Lord would rather put a duty on bananas and raise the price of bananas in order to give a Preference to Jamaica; he would rather put a. duty on Argentine wheat in order to give a Preference for Australian or Canadian wheat; he would rather put a duty on maize in order to give a Preference—
LORD LLOYD: Foreign maize.
LORD PASSFIELD: Foreign maize, but he is putting it on anything and intending to raise the price. That is the whole point. He is going to get revenue out of it, and he cannot get revenue out of it without the money being paid by someone. Consequently, he is attempting to build up Empire unity at the expense of the masses and in proportion to their consumption, and not at the expense of people in proportion to their ability to pay. This is not the assembly in which I venture to think it is creditable to put forward a scheme of that kind. If we want Empire unity, if we believe in Empire unity, let us be prepared to pay for it, in so far as it costs money, in proportion to our means, and not attempt to get it by raising the cost of living of the great mass of the people.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend in a very few words, because the debate has gone on a long time. I feel, however, that I must say a few words in general support of my noble friend, in order to emphasise some of the points which he made more in detail. I have long been amazed at the lack of discernment which has been displayed by His Majesty's Government in the treatment of all questions connected with the Dominions and the Colonies. I ask myself in all earnestness how, after the Imperial Conference which took place only last July, how,
512
after everything that has passed during the last two years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could present his Budget proposals to the country without a single reference to the safeguarding of home industries or to the Imperial Conference. I can find no answer to that question. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just replied on behalf of the Government, and I felt that he had no answer either. He seemed to me to make the case of the Government worse rather than better. He discussed at great length the question of duties and of preferences, and he went into the subject of the Imperial Economic Conference, but he did not tell us why it was that the Conference, which wag to have sat in Ottawa this autumn, has been postponed.
I believe that the abandonment of that Conference was due directly to the negative attitude of His Majesty's Government not only at the Imperial Conference itself, but since the Imperial Conference, and that it was for that reason that the Canadian Prime Minister decided that no Conference should sit in Ottawa this autumn. It has been said that it was because representatives of Australia and New Zealand could not be present owing to certain political difficulties at home, that this Conference has been abandoned, but I venture to say the real blame attaches to His Majesty's Government, and that that is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, and to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions, Mr. J. H. Thomas.
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Lord must forgive me if I say there is absolutely no truth in that statement whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the Australian and New Zealand people could not possibly go, and nothing has been done from this side to prevent or discourage or dissuade the Conference from being held.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There may have been no overt action on the part of His Majesty's Government in that direction, but I still contend it is the attitude of His Majesty's Government which has prevented that Conference from sitting. I am quite prepared to give credit where credit is due. The noble Lord has cited as one of the instances of what His Majesty's Government has done in order to promote Empire unity the decision to

513
fall in with the Hoover plan and to allow a moratorium of £8,000,000 to the Dominions. I congratulate His Majesty's Government on that act, but any Government, whether it had been Labour or Conservative, would have been bound to take that action; and whilst it is one that has naturally a great soothing element in it, all the same it only just touches the fringe of the great problem of Empire economic unity which we desire to-day. That action is only an emollient. It is not a permanent euro for what we are faced with, not a permanent cure for the matters with which my noble friend has dealt to-day in his speech. It is not a panacea, it is only a temporary thing. What we are after is something that is lasting, something that will bind the Empire together for all time, something that will bring the trade of the Empire together in such a way that our interests shall be common for all time, something that will enable us to march along the same road for all time.
The fact of the matter is that this Government, so far as the Empire is concerned, has no real imagination. It is quite barren of ideas. It is steeped, as my noble friend has said, in the ancient dogmas of worn-out Cobdenism, and it is saturated with the prejudices of the so-called Socialist faith. How much longer are we going on under this Government? What have we to look forward to? We are fed by the economic policies of a past century. We are ground down by taxation, which is largely influenced by class animosity, and we are gradually being forced downhill to penury and ruin. And this can well be avoided. I am not a defeatist. The country is not beaten by any means, but what we require to-day is to be invigorated and strengthened by remedies which conform to modern conditions, and which are consonant with the changed circumstances that face us both at home and abroad. What we require, as my noble friend has stated so ably and clearly, is a change in our fiscal system which will enable us to compete with the unbridled competition that overwhelms us to-day, and a change in our fiscal system which will enable us to set up measures of economic unity within the Empire and for which all parts of the Empire are ready.
514
What is happening to-day? The Government are trusting to luck in order to get out of their difficulties. The Government are trusting to luck and to Mr. Lloyd George, and the country is trusting the Government and being very badly let down. Day by day the economic situation grows worse and worse, and all Mr. Snowden can do is to produce a Budget which imposes additional Income Tax and helps nobody, to introduce a Land Tax which is going to bring the country into even greater difficulties and even greater chaos. At a time when every penny counts, as my noble friend has said, the Government spurns a revenue from Safeguarding Duties of £6,500,000 and repeals those duties and throws industries back into unemployment.
The noble Lord said in the course of his remarks that this Government has not repealed any Preference; but what does that mean? It means, as the noble Lord said, that the policy of the Government is negative. It is not active. They triumph in the fact that they have done nothing. The noble Lord's policy for settling all these questions is, on his own admission, a policy of drastic interference. If that is the only policy which the Government has to present to this country, then God help the country. I, for one, heartily and cordially welcome the Motion of my noble friend to-day because I believe that the more this subject is ventilated, the more it is impressed on the Government that the people of this country desire this policy of Safeguarding and Empire economic unity, the quicker it will come and the better it will be for the country. I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend and I shall have even greater pleasure in going into the Division Lobby with him.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion spoke with great vigour and eloquence, and I do not think that anyone could charge him with not having said everything that could possibly be said in favour of the proposition he was putting forward. I doubt whether everybody will agree with him. that he put it in measured language, although I am perfectly sure that he did not desire to go further and did not go further than perfect courtesy. But I must confess that

515
I was rather surprised at some of the observations that he made. As I listened to his historical survey over a period of years dating from 1840 I confess I was a little amazed that he could have come to the conclusions he put forward. I would quite agree with him if he said that notwithstanding all that has happened, and notwithstanding the views that were then held, and that were thought to be absolutely proof against any argument, changes have taken place in the conditions of the world and especially of trade, and that you may periodically have to re-examine the position in order to see whether the policy which you have adopted still fits the situation. But I did wonder when he told us of all the dreadful consequences that have arisen in these eighty or ninety years since we embarked upon our policy—or rather the policy as it then was—whether he had forgotten all that had happened.
I know that he is too assiduous a student of Imperial affairs to have omitted from consideration the events, say—not to go any further back—of the last twenty years. I would remind him and your Lordships, for the purpose of striving to correct a little the impression which he may have made, that this is a policy which we have all pursued, not only the Party of which he is a member but all Parties, and especially the Conservative and Liberal Governments because it is only recently that we have had a Labour Government. They are less to blame than anybody because they have had only one short period of office and another period which is as yet also comparatively short. Let us see what the effect of the policy has been. I do not intend to detain your Lordships by going at length into it, and indeed on some of the points to which the noble Lord referred I should have to refresh my memory because I can only recall some of the salient features. When we are told that all the financial difficulties of the day are due to this policy of Free Trade, that the heavy taxation from which we are now suffering is due to Free Trade and that Free Trade has produced all these terrible consequences, I would like to ask the noble Lord to recall what happened in 1914. After all, we had then been pursuing a Free Trade policy for a great number of years. Yet in 1914, we were the mainstay of the Allies until
516
America came into the War, and we were the mainstay of the War that was carried on. It really is rather remarkable, in view of all that, that we should be reproached because a policy of Free Trade has landed us in such a dreadful position.
LORD LLOYD: I am sure the noble and learned Marquess does not wish to misrepresent me. I was very careful to say that it was the main cause. Of course, it was not the only cause. There are many contributory causes of the present distress. I did charge it, with being, and I believe it to be, the main cause, but I did not say it was the only cause.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I said the only cause I was putting it too high and I did not intend to. I quite accept what the noble Lord has just said and I so understood him. Of course, he could not possibly touch on all the contributory causes. But let me remind him of what has happened since the War, of the enormous Debt that we incurred, the enormous assistance that we gave to other countries, the obligation that we undertook to pay to the United States of America the money that was lent to us. This Free Trade country that has suffered so terribly under this system is the only country which has come forward and paid her Debts to the full amount. Not only that, but even after the War, with all its consequences and, having used most of her available resources—having converted all the securities she then held to the amount of some £3,000,000,000 into dollars and gold for the purpose of helping in the War—this country was able even then to go on assisting and we are still the country that is taking a great deal less than is owing to it. I would remind your Lordships that we are alone in taking less in return than the contribution we made. The money we lent was the consequence of this Free Trade policy.
Finally, I would remind your Lordships that, although this policy of Free Trade is supposed to have landed us at this moment in the condition of economic depression to which the noble Lord refers, and of which we are all very conscious, we are now able to do that which the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, just mentioned—to assist by the sum of £8,000,000 the Dominions and India at a time when we are actually going to forego the pay-

517
ment of what was coining to us from Reparations and also from War Debts from the Allies. In addition, we are assisting our Dominions and India and, not content with that, we have assisted other countries. I am not going into the whole question, but very recently, and under this system, the Bank of England came forward and assisted one of the banks of a country in great difficulties. Only last week we had the Prime Minister's statement, with regard to the financial strain upon India, as to what the Government propose to do. I would ask your Lordships to bear all these conditions in mind when you come to the condemnation of Free Trade, which was denounced so freely by the noble Lord.
Having said that, I am not by any means suggesting that all is well. On the contrary, I think that what we have to do, and what we ought to do, is to try to take stock of the position and to do the utmost we can in these conditions to see how far we can improve them. I would remind your Lordships again that when we speak of the economic depression, it is not peculiar to us. It is not Free Trade countries only that suffer from it. Its peculiarity, if peculiarity is the term, is that protected countries like Germany and the United States have equally suffered. Therefore it is going a little too far, as it seems to me, to attribute all this to Free Trade. We were also told by the noble Lord of the present greatly excessive taxation being mainly due to Free Trade. I only want to make one observation on that, in addition to what I have said. I agree with him that we are very much overtaxed, and I desire very much that we should be able to find some relief from it. I go so far, speaking for myself, as to say that in these conditions it behoves us to act with strict economy and, notwithstanding that there may be many proposals that we should like to adopt and which would cost money, we must postpone them if we are not able to find the money from revenue and if it means increased taxation. But all that has very little reference if any at all, to Free Trade.
One word only upon unemployment. The noble Lord refers in scathing terms to the finance of unemployment. I am not going to attempt to repeat what he said. It is fresh in your Lordships' minds and we are all aware of it. I sympathise
518
very strongly with his observations, or at least with many of them, on this subject. All this, as I understand it, is under consideration. There are questions which will have to be determined, and the Unemployment Commission will have to report. I can only say that I hope no time will be lost in attempting to deal with some of the abuses upon which there has been an Interim Report, and with regard to which it is high time that we actually took matters in hand.
Then the noble Lord dealt with conditions of trade and commerce in this country. Let me just point out that we are, of course, suffering like everybody else; it is only elementary to state that, where it takes twice the amount of commodities to pay the same value in currency, the country that is producing the commodities must be suffering, because it has to pay the double amount, although measured by the same standard of money. The result is that the country which produces is very crippled in purchasing power. I do not know whether the noble Lord is satisfied as' to the cause of this great world-depression. I can only say for myself that I have made every attempt to ascertain it, and to find remedies such as they are, but there is great lack of agreement among all the economists and theorists, and also among the practical men, on the subject, which is one into which I cannot go any further to-day.
The noble Lord spoke of the decline in agriculture, which he took as one of the instances of an industry that had suffered under Free Trade. I again say that I am puzzled, as I always; am, when I hear that observation made by those who speak from the same Benches as the noble Lord. What is it actually that it is proposed to do for agriculture? Is it suggested that the lot of the agriculturist is to be improved by providing him means whereby he will get more money for his crops? One suggestion—I do not know whether it is the noble Lord's view or not, but from some of the observations that he made I think it was—would be that there should be a duty imposed upon all that comes in from foreign countries, with a Preference to the imports from the Dominions, and that in that way agriculture will benefit. I am never able to understand it, and I do not understand it now, because if the purpose of it, as I gather, is to enable the farmer to get more for his crop, then it must mean

519
that by imposing a duty you are going to raise prices. If you are not going to raise prices, what is the good of your duty to the farmer? I have never heard that question answered.
Nevertheless, I have frequently seen it stated, and the argument has been put forward, that the duties will not raise prices. There may be fortuitous circumstances, which may appear at any time, that may cause a further fall in prices, so that, if there had not been a duty, food would have been much cheaper than it was when the duty was imposed; but at any rate it must follow that either you benefit the farmer by raising prices and making the consumer pay more, or the prices will fall in spite of the duty, and consequently what you are proposing to him is purely illusory, and you are leading him to think that you can do something which you know is impossible. For myself I confess that I take a very strong view with regard to this matter, and I shall oppose, as long as I can, any imposition of duties upon foodstuffs brought into this country which are the food of the poorer people of the country. I see no reason to change that opinion. I have studied the problem which has been raised in recent times in all its aspects, and I have thoroughly failed to find any defence of it that can establish that an advantage would be obtained if it were possible to put forward a proposal of this kind.
If we were to put duties on foodstuffs, everyone must know that it would raise the price of food to the poor, but it is argued that they would get the benefit of it by an increase of employment, and eventually by an increase of wages. I have heard that argument put forward. If the facts support it, it is sound enough, but I have never yet been able to get such facts from any of those who are advocating tariffs or Empire economic union as would enable me to find the slightest ground for supposing it is true. If it is true, let the noble Lord explain it to me now. I have always been anxious to know what the answer to that question is. It is not enough merely to state the proposition as a proposition. We should all agree to it then, but what we want to know is whether the proposition is right, whether the facts actually show that what you would do would be to the ad-
520
vantage of the working people. I have studied every aspect of the question very completely, and it is certain that until it is proved you will not get the working people of this country, the electorate, to be content to place a duty on foodstuffs for the purpose of helping the Empire by getting the benefit of such manufactured goods as they may purchase.
In the old days, in 1903, when Mr. Chamberlain put forward his proposals, they had two limbs—one, that we should put a duty on food and that we should give a Preference; and the other, that the Colonies, as they were then termed, should take their manufactured goods from us. That met with an absolute refusal straight away from the various Colonies, and consequently it was one of the great disadvantages of those strong advocates of Tariff Reform that they had to come forward and argue their case solely on the benefit which was to come to this country. All it meant was that we had to put a tax upon food for the purpose of giving a Preference. We are in the same position at the present moment. We do not know how far it is suggested that the Dominions could go. I have never heard any statement and I long to know if there is a case. It is of no use talking of the Dominions purchasing from us a few million pounds worth of goods. The difficulty is that the Dominions are far more industrialised now than they were in 1903. They are far more dependent upon the duties that they have imposed by their Budgets, and consequently they are in a less favourable position to respond than ever before. Above all things, we of course have no right to press upon the Dominions that they should in any way impoverish their own people, and provoke unemployment in their own countries, for the sake of buying manufactures from us, any more than the Dominions would be entitled to ask us to put duties upon foodstuffs which would result in increased prices having to be paid in this country.
The noble Lord referred to some of the matters upon which he would have liked to have seen Safeguarding Duties. There is not time, because I know there are other speakers, to go into those questions now. All I would ask is what possible advantage would Manchester obtain if a

521
tariff was put upon piece-goods? He told us that the piece-goods trade had fallen by 50 per cent. within a number of years. Unfortunately, that is too true. We know the causes, but how on earth would it help us if we put a tariff upon piece-goods or other goods? How would it help Lancashire to export her goods into other countries? We have to remember also that, in the export trade which we do, two-fifths of that trade is done with the Empire and three-fifths with foreign countries; and that of the three-fifths done with foreign countries, 60 per cent. is done with Europe and 40 per cent. with the rest of the world. It is obvious that we cannot carry on our export trade, upon which we depend, unless we keep markets open, which is one of the very real difficulties with which we have to contend at this moment. Unless we do trade with those foreign countries, we cannot hope to carry on our export trade. Let us also remember that in that is involved all the advantages which we gain from our shipping industry, from banking, and from insurance, through which we get the very large returns generally referred to as invisible imports.
Then I would put this broad question. How is it suggested that to place tariffs upon goods would help our export trade? We are dependent upon our export trade in this country. I am not at all unmindful of the benefit from our home trade, but how would duties allow us to carry on our export trade? It is a favourite argument that if you have tariffs you can then talk to the countries which have tariffs. Experience has shown that that is of no advantage, and that the result of talking is usually that you get higher tariffs. I know that there is nothing which appeals so much in a discussion between men as to say: "Oh, if only we put a tariff upon American goods, America would never dare to put the tariff upon our goods which she does put." The answer is that she does it with other countries. It is a subject which was enquired into at considerable length at Geneva, by the Economic Conference in 1927, and I will just read a few words which give the effect of the Reports:
"High tariffs of whatever system have, in many cases, also been imposed, in the first instance at all events, for bargaining purposes. But subsequent negotiations have
522
in practice not resulted in adequate modifications, with the consequence that the Customs barriers have been left higher than before.…"
Then there was the Commission presided over by Sir Arthur Balfour which came to exactly the same conclusion. It reported to the same effect, in 1929. It is therefore I think idle for us to talk about the advantage of having bargaining power, when the experience of a number of countries has shown that it is useless, and is likely to leave you with still higher duties.
The only other point to which I would refer is dumping. I do not know of anything in the Free Trader's gospel which would cause him to say that he would never interfere, or will not interfere, with dumping. On the contrary, I remember quite well that Lord Oxford and Asquith, speaking in 1921, uttered some very pregnant words on this question and declined to accept the view that because a man was a Free Trader in the most dogmatic and classical sense, he would be precluded from interfering with dumping. You must, of course, not confuse clumping with the selling of goods cheaply in the market here. What we understand as dumping is that, having by large production reduced your overhead charges and enabled yourself to supply your own market at a certain price, you then take your surplus and sell it in another country at such price as it suits you to do. Mr. Lloyd George, within the last twelve months, made a speech exactly to the same effect as Lord Oxford and Asquith.
May I say one thing further? I am myself very desirous of really ascertaining the facts upon this question. The trouble is that we are in the habit of proclaiming ourselves either Protectionists or Free Traders, and unfortunately too often when we have done that we close our minds to arguments which lead to a little watering down of the full vigour of the doctrine, Free Trade or Protection. One of the difficulties that you always encounter if you discuss figures is that you find there is a denial on one side and a denial on the other. For myself I have often thought—and I am speaking only for myself, not in the slightest degree as binding my Party—that it was most unfortunate that we had not something in the nature of a, non-partisan tribunal which could give us the facts—not determine the policy, which, of course, we

523
must do for ourselves—but, at least, give us the facts upon which there could be no discussion. We could accept them, and they would not be subjected, as they always are, especially on the platform, to the criticism that they are coloured to suit the argument. If we could only get the facts determined in a judicial form, then it would be very much easier for us to arrive at conclusions and to formulate our policy.
I desire to say only one or two words on Empire Economic Union. On this part of the subject I want to emphasise—what I should hope is not necessary—that the Party to which I belong has taken no inconsiderable part in creating that Empire, and that it has much to its credit in all that it has done, either by itself when it was in power or in assisting other Parties, for the Empire. The Empire is as dear to us as it is to the noble Lord and his Party. And I think I am quite justified in saying that since this Government have been in power, although they may not always have agreed with the views presented of the way in which they should assist the Empire, they have certainly not shown themselves unmindful of the obligations of a Government to the Empire, and have taken action, of which we have only had some instances given to-day, which quite clearly shows that they are just as keen as we and the Conservatives are to bind the Empire closely together, to maintain it as it is, and to enhance the tradition which makes the Empire what it stands for in the country.
With regard to Empire economic union, I will not go at length into that, because I think Lord Passfield made some very trenchant observations on that subject. But one thing which we have to bear in mind throughout all these discussions is that you cannot discuss matters of trade without realising that in such matters all nations are inter-dependent. It is not a question of whether one country is Protectionist and another Free Trade, it is that we are dependent on each other. You cannot nowadays carry out anything in the nature of an export trade without this interdependence. We have had actual proof of it, after all, within the last few days, in the offer that has been made by the President of the United States, when it was made very apparent that, notwith-
524
standing whatever belief may have been in the minds of many Americans—I do not say of the Administration, I do not know—he has come to the conclusion that, in order to get trade going, it is necessary to do something which will bring all the various countries into the position of having the power to buy by remitting for twelve months both War Debts and Reparations, and thus enabling them to start off once more on a road which will, we hope, lead to prosperity.
I do hope that in considering this question we shall bear in mind these many difficulties. And I suggest that on the questions that have been raised it is quite wrong to say that the financial proposals put forward by the Government for taxation, either last year or this year, whatever they may be, are in any way due to the policy of Free Trade, or to the present fiscal system of this country. They have nothing whatever to do with that; that is something entirely independent. I have not even heard from the noble Lord who spoke any proposal that this should be merely a tariff for the purpose of revenue. He did not suggest that. His idea of a tariff is for quite different purposes—either for the benefit of the Empire or for the benefit of the traders and manufacturers of this country.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Lloyd for the very forcible and eloquent speech in which he introduced this subject. I note particularly that it must have been forcible because it provoked rather animated exchanges both from the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, and from the noble and learned Marquess, who appeared to fear that Lord Lloyd was demolishing with too rude a hand some of the great structures and theories upon which their political beliefs are built. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Marquess on coming out so strongly in favour of economy. I was, however, deeply disappointed when he told us that he was only speaking for himself. I did hope that in that respect he was expressing the deep convictions of the whole, or the united parts, of the Liberal Party.
But I always like to see unity and agreement, and, after all that has happened, it was very pleasant to know that there was agreement between the noble

525
and learned Marquess and the noble Lord on all the general matters of Free Trade. Whether they were Cobdenites, half-Cobdenites or non-Cobdenites, they all seemed to agree together that our system was the best. The noble Lord opposite told us that he is not a Cobdenite. I have followed the distinguished career of the noble Lord, and I was aware that he was not a whole Cobdenite, but only a partial Cobdenite, and I should never have charged him, from such study of his works as I have made, with being a whole-hearted supporter of Mr. Cobden. The noble Lord seemed to think my noble friend Lord Lloyd had accused him of not coming out with a great scheme of Protection. He replied, in effect: "Look what happened at the Election. We polled 8,000,000 votes and the other Parties 5,000,000. How could you have expected us to put into effect this evil policy of Protection?" Well, I am very glad when people abide by their Election pledges.
I was, on the contrary, wondering whether I could assist him to carry out his Election pledges, because we were told by that Party when they arrived in power two years ago that they had an inflallible recipe for curing unemployment in a few months. I think it is not unfair to say that in two years they have not cured unemployment; I like understatement arid, therefore, I say that they have not cured unemployment. What I was going to suggest was that if that is so they ought not rigidly to set their minds against other suggestions that might be made for curing unemployment and, whether Cobdenite or non-Cobdenite, they ought to be able to address their minds to new ideas and new considerations that are put before them.
Let me remind them that, after all, although the noble Marquess has spoken with the usual sternness of a Free Trader who cannot conceive that there can be anything true in the world of economics except his own views, there have been great changes in the views of very eminent persons, who have changed their minds on these subjects. There is an enormous mass and volume of change on all subjects among employers, among employees and even among professors. I do not necessarily follow the doctrines of professors in all practical matters, but I
526
think that the statement of Professor Keynes, the Liberal economist on the Advisory Council, is really of great moment. After all, he was a Free Trader, but the force and rush of events have converted him. He says:
"The unemployment of men and plant is so large and so widespread, and has lasted so long, and looks like lasting so much longer, that I should expect a tariff to increase employment now, and for some time to come; while the advantages to business confidence, the balance of trade, and the Budget are too obvious to need emphasis."
You cannot prophesy about the views of great economists of that kind, but I know that he would have been quoted very much on the other side had he still retained his old views.
I am glad to see also the light breaking in even on the Bench opposite. May I quote from a statement made at Crewe in October last?
"We must recast our ideas and reexamine our fiscal life. Speaking as a member of a Free Trade Government, I believe that Free Trade has got to be reconsidered.…"
I dare say that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, remembers that statement which he made then. I am consoled by the fact that he is the youngest member on that Bench and, therefore, we have with us the youth on the Socialist side. I hope the noble Earl will not allow himself to be overborne by the more crusted wisdom of age, but will assert vigorously those views which he had the courage to avow publicly at Crewe some time ago.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, quite unintentionally no doubt, treated this subject with a certain levity and as if it were rather a matter which was closed. I regard this question as vital to the interests of our country and, therefore, whatever prepossessions we may have on the subject, I think, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, that we must address ourselves, if we can, with open minds to a consideration of the facts. I look at the matter from a double point of view. One point of view is the question of the sources of taxation and the other is the great problem of assistance to industry. During those happy times of which we have heard this evening when Free Trade, was in the ascendant and our trade was, growing, all thought that there really was no limit to the resources of direct

527
taxation. There was no shrinkage in the returns from Income Tax and so on. It was only recently, by the statement of the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that we were brought with a tremendous bump to realise that we had practically done what had so often been threatened before—reached the limit of taxation as regards direct taxes.
I am afraid that state of things will continue. We have been living so much on the collections of past days. Everybody knows the enormous burdens that were thrown on great fortunes by the Death Duties. You are not going to get that great source of revenue in the future because, looking at the state of trade in this country and the rate of taxation now, I do not believe it will he possible in the future to build up those enormous taxable entities upon which we have relied in the past. However prosperous trade may be, so large are the slices taken off it by direct taxation—Income Tax and Super-tax—that it would be impossible for these great accumulations of wealth to he made in the future upon which we have relied so much in the past. Therefore you are bound, I think, by the logic of events to look about for fresh sources of taxation. If you are going to have fresh sources of taxation and that revenue tariff of which I think even the noble Marquess spoke with a certain degree of sympathy, it is clear that you have to adjust that tariff. You may call it a revenue tariff but you have to adjust it to the requirements of industry. You cannot merely put duties on manufactured goods or articles of other kinds without considering what effect they will have on the trade and industry of the country. Therefore, the distinction which is so very often drawn between revenue tariffs and a tariff for the purpose of protection is to some extent illusory.
The other point—and now I am dealing, I think, with the far more important point—is assistance to industry. The noble Lord's Motion refers to the financial proposals of the Government and says that they contain no reference to any measures for the safeguarding of home industries and so on. They do not. But they do make reference to the safeguarding or protection of home industries, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered, whether relevantly or
528
not I should not dare to say, of course, a very vigorous diatribe against protective duties. He quoted for that purpose from a Tory Prime Minister. I am very glad, of course, to hear a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer quoting with approval the words of a Tory Prime Minister, but this Prime Minister was William Pitt and the Chancellor was quoting the views expressed by him 150 years ago as to the effect of duties on the poorer classes of the population. We really have learned a great deal since that time, and greatly as I admire William Pitt, I cannot pin myself exactly to the views that he stated. He said that it was relieving the well-to-do at the expense of the poor. We have heard that argument to-night from the noble Lord, Lord Pass-field, and the noble Marquess.
I wish to call attention to this, that, after all, there are a great many other countries in the world where there are democratic governments. There are a great many other countries in the world which have manhood suffrage and in some cases also womanhood suffrage, and also duties. Is it to be supposed that the great mass of the electorate in those countries are wholly indifferent to these considerations? Is it not possible that they have weighed them up themselves? Is it not possible that on one side they have set the necessities of employment and on the other side the necessities of duties and have come to the conclusion that on the whole what their Government is doing is the wisest? What, after all, influences the decision? The tariff or protection view is a very deep economic view based on much consideration and much thought, and it cannot be dismissed by a few platitudes or phrases about making the poor people suffer. It is based on this view, that prosperity is based on production and, firstly, having regard rather to production than the question of consumption. Their view is that large production must be the aim of statesmen and, as a corollary to this, there must be a policy of selecting, restricting or, if necessary, prohibiting imports lest the unrestricted inrush of imports should set the whole of the economic machine out of gear.
The question of distribution is a much easier one. When, by your careful policy of fostering production, you have got your heap of goods, then you may divide them. There might be, no doubt, in-

529
ternal discussions or even quarrels as to the extent to which that heap of goods so made should be divided, but surely this doctrine in itself is rather more intelligible than the rather mystic view that unrestricted imports are best, because that policy of unrestricted imports does surrender the initiative to the makers of other countries; in fact it allows other countries to dictate to this country, if it is a Free Trade country, what it shall manufacture and what it shall not manufacture. The country which has a policy of that kind may have certain advantages, but it does surrender the initiative of manufacture to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, in one of those distinctions that he was drawing, told us—and I did not quite understand what lie meant till he had explained it—that he was in favour of interference. That is where he is only half a Cobdenite. He told us he wanted to have more factory legislation, more restrictions, and more limitations, I think he said; but did he consult his friend Mr. Cobden? If he does so, he will find that Mr. Cobden was against all those things. I am simply trying to put this very practical point, that. the whole situation must be altered if you are going to lay burdens—necessary burdens if you will—or handicaps on the industry in this country to which industries in other countries are not exposed, or, to put it another way, if you are going to free industries in other countries from handicaps that you put upon your own industries at home.
Nothing will persuade a man of ordinary sense that that is fair or wise for industry. When you speak of the great successes that Free Trade has had in the past, far too much attention has been directed to a particular form of Free Trade. The situation really has now been so completely altered that we are living in a new world, and von cannot apply the old principles as you did before. Again, I submit that almost every one of the pre-suppositions of Free Trade has been falsified by the course of events. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, reminded us of the wonderful things—and they are wonderful things—that this country did in the War, in loans to other countries during the War, and in the way we are paying our Debt to the United States. Yes, but all these things have created a new situation, and have thrown
530
upon us a new burden, and it does not follow that the old measures which you took in the past will meet a situation which is wholly new and wholly unprecedented, throwing upon our industries tremendous and new burdens.
The Free Trader used to speak of that wonderful national system by which trade was to run in its own untrammelled and natural channels. What are these natural channels? Do they exist to-day? They may have existed to some extent in the past. We had our moist temperature, our proximity to our raw materials, fortunate contiguity of coal and iron, the use of the sea against land transport; but now all that is altered, and a few men sitting in laboratories have played havoc with the natural conditions and forced a new and terrible equality upon the world. We speak of our productive industry. We have heard to-night of our shipping industry and of our system of exchange and mart as a source of our prosperity and strength which might suffer from tariffs; but production, I think, will be found to be the great basis on which this immense super-structure was raised, and I do not believe that it would long survive the loss of its base. We have been confronted with the old doctrine that imports are always paid for by exports, but this is very largely a misstatement. A large amount of the imports that we receive merely come as representing in different forms interest on our foreign investments, and I suppose it is conceivable that if we had sufficient foreign investments we might live as rentiers on those investments without making anything ourselves; but capital dies, and capital must be replaced, and even if we were in that fortunate position of living upon other people we should still have to export our surplus of manufactures in order to increase our foreign investments.
We are told that after all, if we have suffered, we have not suffered so much as other countries, that other countries are suffering and have suffered from the tremendous distresses of the last few years. I cannot in these few minutes go into the causes—monetary causes, speculative causes, political disturbances and so on—but all I would say on behalf of industry in this country is that we have suffered from those general causes as much as other countries, possibly more

531
than other countries, and why should our industries have the further handicap of being exposed to the full force of foreign competition? I agree that business is a very complex matter, and that there are many causes of success or decline not due to tariffs or to Free Trade, but in order to distinguish between the causes, I think you will have to show that other countries that are tariff countries have been suffering as much as, or more than, we have done, before this economic blizzard came upon us, and that I believe it is impossible to do. I would hazard a guess that their power of recuperation will be shown to be more vigorous than ours when the time comes.
I would submit one or two reasons, briefly, to your Lordships why tariffs are specially important at the present time. We are, as everybody knows, passing through a great period of reorganisation, to which some people love to apply the name of rationalisation, and our businesses are, according to the Free Trade theory, in the position of some of those infant industries which might be protected even under the strictest theory of Free Trade. But to put it on a practical and non-theoretic basis, what is the difficulty that is now found by those businesses in reorganising themselves? It is this, that if they go to the banks and ask for the money they want, they are met with the question, "What is your security?" We are told they have to say, "We have not any security because we cannot be sure in present circumstances of selling the goods which would enable us to pay the interest upon the money you advanced to us, or repay the capital." The whole modern movement of the Government in regard to industry in this country has been to place great burdens and fresh handicaps on industry. Everyone in your Lordships' House knows that. I submit, therefore, that it is time to put some term to the interference of that kind of which the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, spoke.
Governments should address themselves to helping and assisting rather than to putting these fresh burdens on industry, and we might at last, I think, listen to the business men, to those who are handicapped in industry, and to those who are at work in industry, whether employers or employed, who, through the
532
Federation of British Industries in Manchester and elsewhere, have shown what their decisive views are going to be economically. In spite of the authority quoted by the noble Marquess from the World Economic Conference at Geneva in 1927, I find myself simply unable to believe that in a great country like this, with a great free market, with other countries putting up their tariffs, we have not got an opportunity which nobody has ever had in the world before of bargaining with other countries for some entry into their markets. If we were free to use the methods of tariffs we could offer them an opportunity which we could deny to them if they did not give us advantages in return. We have a position of great strength as regards our free market, but when we seek to rely upon the most-favoured-nation clause we find that careful and clever manoeuvring of bargainers in different countries has destroyed what is called the sheet anchor of Free Trade.
I will only say one word upon the Empire question. The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, when he was speaking, asked whether we were going to put on fresh duties in order to give a Preference. He seemed to leave out of account the reciprocity side of the question. After all, if you proceed by way of putting on duties, or taking off duties, it is part of a bargain by which you gain something solid in return. I think the people of this country understand a bargain and will look at both sides of the bargain before they condemn it in the off-hand way in which the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, does. I should very much regret if, in consequence of the rather severe treatment that has been meted out to representatives of the Dominions by the Government, there should be any restriction or even collapse in these great Conferences with the Dominions.
I do not charge the Government with having cold-shouldered the Dominions, but I do not think they have thrown themselves with all the energy they might have done into the work of strengthening our ties through mutual arrangements with the Dominions. I am sure they were civil to them personally, although one late Minister of the Crown expressed himself, I think, in a way that was a little unfortunate but I do not think that they have thrown them-

533
selves with the energy that they might have done into the cultivation and the examination of the possibility of further trade with the Dominions. I should be very sorry indeed if, when we have disposed of the main constitutional question between the Dominions, we should have no more Conferences simply because no one will come over here to discuss these economic questions. I attribute the greatest value, as I am sure your Lordships do, to these Conferences not only because they give leading statesmen in those countries the opportunity of meeting and knowing each other, but because the meeting of these Conferences every three or four or five years signalises to this country the integrity and the unity of the Empire in whose prosperity we are so deeply concerned.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I desire to crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House, as this is the first occasion upon which I have addressed your Lordships. The topic of this Resolution is one in which my predecessor took such a part that I feel that I must, if your Lordships will allow me the privilege, submit certain aspects of the matter which have not yet been placed before the House. When I started to listen to this debate I expected to hear considerable discussion on the respective merits of Protection and Free Trade, and I have been much surprised that, while there has been some assault on the merits of Protection, no one has made the slightest attempt to make out a case for Free Trade—at least, not the sort of case for Free Trade that we have heard in the past and on which, if I may say so, I was brought up.
The noble and learned Marquess went so far as to say that if the case we submit were capable of proof he would judge it to be sound. In that respect, I would only submit this; that Free Trade is not capable of proof and that I do not suppose we shall ever be able, before we try it, to prove whether Protection will be a good or a bad thing. You can only say that a very large number of very good judges have in recent years become convinced on the subject and firmly believe that Protection will be of the greatest assistance to this country. We can only urge our argument on this ground. I am afraid it is impossible to devise any proof on this matter. Each
534
man will have to proceed on the conviction to which his own reason brings him. I think the noble and learned Marquess will readily agree that it was not Free Trade alone which made this country rich. There were many other contributory factors. This country fought many wars before Free Trade. We fought the Napoleonic Wars under a Protectionist system. Although we have built up great wealth and although we have become a very powerful and a very rich nation, although we are doing very well in paying for the great expenditure of the years between 1914 and 1918, it is not really all attributable to the benefits of Free Trade.
As regards some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, I was surprised to find that he really made no case for Free Trade at all. On the contrary, the whole burden and tenour of his speech was that he would like to interfere with trade in every possible respect. He showed us in the course of his speech that he was in favour of interference, that he was in favour of Preference, that he was in favour of the Empire, but that he was not in favour of doing anything to assist trade or to hold the Empire together if it should prejudice the standard of life of the masses. In that I am perfectly satisfied that my noble friends on this side of the House completely agree with him. Our contention is that the proposals we make would not prejudice the standard of life of the masses, and I do not think it is possible for him to bring forward any proof to show that the livelihood of the people of this country would be impaired under the Protectionist system we propose.
It has been shown by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that our exports from this country are largely diminishing, and it is a fact which I know will not be contradicted that our export trade is constantly diminishing. What I am unable to discover, if our export trade is going and our home trade is to be done by the foreigner, is what it is suggested the workman is going to do. The answer is, as a matter of fact, very simple—he will go on the "dole" in large numbers, and that is what he has been doing during the last ten years. That is, to our mind, a great disaster, and that is why we bring forward proposals for a change in our fiscal system.

535
I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, that he is in favour of doing what he can to bring about the unity of the Empire. In fact, he spent some time in pointing out how very bold and very considerate his Government had been in dealing with Imperial matters. One would have thought from the generous terms in which he described his Government's policy that it has led with a great Imperial policy that would be an example to the whole world. But, of course, there is such a thing as a sense of proportion. We discovered, as a result of what he told us, that the Government, with almost incredible rashness, has set up three Committees to foster the Empire, that they had gone further and have actually set aside £1,000,000—in fact, he said a solid million pounds—in order to bind together the greatest Empire the world has ever seen. It is like trying to stop a leak in a battleship with a postage stamp. It is entirely out of proportion to the importance of the subject. But I do not think we ought to approach the question on this purely economic ground. Surely there is something more important, more fundamental, in our attitude to the Empire than a mere profit and loss account. Surely we cannot approach this as mere petty traders, to see whether we are going to gain a little more or a little less by this Preference, to be a little better or a little worse in our general standard of living by making a united Empire. Surely we must approach it in our belief in the Anglo-Saxon race and the British people, spread throughout the world as they are. We must believe that we are making the greatest civilisation that this world has yet seen, and that we must make every effort to bind our Empire together in order that this civilisation should have its fullest scope.
In the middle of the last century a statesman who has been upheld through generations as a noble and exemplary character, President Lincoln of the United States, fought one of the bloodiest wars in history in order to preserve the integrity of the United States of America. We are not suggesting that any war should he fought to preserve the integrity of the British Empire. We are merely suggesting that we should so arrange our affairs that we may buy our goods in the Empire instead of buying
536
them from abroad—in an Empire that is rich in all the goods that we need in this country, and that is able to supply us. It may be that in some cases there will be a difference of cost. What I maintain is that in no case will the difference in cost be such as to prohibit such a scheme being carried into effect. It might he argued that we shall lose too much of our foreign trade and that there will not be enough trade to be done within the whole Empire. I think that the figures that have been published in the last few years show that this will not be the case, but I do not propose for a moment that the Empire should have no import and export trade at all with the rest of the world. All I propose is that the exports and imports should be from the Empire as a whole, and not from each country individually.
It will take a long time, it may be many years, to build up a system of that kind, but the first step of any real importance in this direction was the proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada when he was over here last year. I am not going to defend that proposal, because I think it was unworkable, but it was not the last and final word of the people of Canada. Yet no counter-proposal of any merit was made which they might have taken up. Those discussions were not encouraged or brought along. On the contrary, they were damped down by the Government and referred to in very uncomplimentary terms indeed by a leading member of the present Government.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships at any length in further discussion on this matter, but I do say this. At the present time we can manage to get along in this country and the Dominions. We can manage fairly badly in the present state of affairs. But there is going to be a very large and very fundamental change in the world's economic situation which will force the people of this country and of the Empire to make up their minds on this subject once and for all. The great granaries of Russia are being opened up again, and the granaries of the Empire which took their place when Russia went for all practical purposes out of business in 1917 are going to be put into competition with the grain exports of the Soviet Government. We all know the difference

537
in the standard of living of the citizens of the Soviet and the standard of living enjoyed by the settlers in our Dominions from this country and from other countries. The British Empire will have to make up its mind whether it is going to get its grain and produce from its own Empire or from the Soviet Government. If it chooses the latter, there is no shadow of doubt that the great Dominions of which we are so justly proud will become deserts again, as they were before the hand of man cultivated them and before the great expansion took place in Australia and Canada which the last ten or fifteen years have seen. Let us prepare ourselves to meet that question when it is thrust on us. Do not let us close our eyes to the possibilities of the economic union of the Empire in promoting the standard of living. Do not let us imagine that by fiddling about with a few Committees, or by spending £1,000,000 or £10,000,000, we are really affecting one of the greatest questions which has ever troubled the human race, and which it is our responsibility to solve.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I feel confident that your Lordships would desire to join with me in congratulating the noble Lord upon the speech with which he has introduced himself to your Lordships' House, and in expressing the hope that he will join in our debates as often as his distinguished father used to do during the time when he was in your Lordships' House. I am aware that the hour is getting late, and it would be quite futile for me to attempt to make a speech of any length; but there are one or two points on which I should like, if I may be permitted in the few moments that I have, to address the House. It has occurred to me that the only two answers, if I may call them so, to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, those that came from the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, and the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, appear, if I may so venture to put it, to miss the seriousness of the purpose of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, made what I think I may describe without any disrespect as a Party speech. I have no fault whatever to find with it, but it seemed to me that the position is surely somewhat
538
more serious than he appears to think. The noble Marquess, with his great eloquence and powers of persuasion, spent some time in developing to the House the remarkable performances of this great country of ours under the system of Free Trade.
Admitted; but I want to know what those two speeches propose. What are we going to do? Neither speech showed any proposal for an amelioration of the present condition of affairs. Are we to continue literally to allow ourselves to drift into disruption? That is where we are going. How are we going to get out of the appalling mess into which we have got? It becomes more messy, if I may use that word, the longer we go on. Is it not an appalling fact that unemployment has already reached the figure of 2,600,000 men and women, and apparently, from all that we are able to judge, is likely to get worse? Is the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, so certain that we can meet these charges, or gifts, as he calls them, out of the taxpayer's money much longer? The less the taxpayer is able to find for this purpose, the greater the unemployment, and the greater the amount of unemployment, the less the taxpayer is able to find; and so there we are in that vicious circle. We have to get out of this some time. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, had a concrete proposal to lay before the House, a suggestion for getting out of the trouble. I am personally in no degree a confessed or confirmed Protectionist, any more than I am a Free Trader, but surely both Protection and Free Trade are means to an end, and the end is the best for the country. We have to arrive at some means of getting ourselves out of our present trouble.
Let me, for the one or two moments that I have, endeavour to give an answer, however futile, to the direct challenge made by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, in respect of the condition of agriculture. It seems to me that many Free Traders are under the misapprehension that industry and agriculture are antagonistic one to the other. Surely that is entirely untrue. I have always held that industry cannot hope to continue and to thrive unless it is based upon a sound agriculture. Surely that is a mere platitude. Agriculture and industry are in no way antagonistic. If industry, for the sake of the cheapest

539
possible food, is intent upon smashing agriculture, the next thing that will happen is that industry itself will collapse. That is unanswerable, I think.
Why should it be thought that, for agriculture to flourish, industry and the people who live by it must be put to hardship? Nothing of the kind. I do not believe the noble Marquess—to take one small instance—can have studied the relationship between the price of bread and the price of flour to-day and the price of bread and the price of flour a year ago. If he had done so, it would tell him immediately that the price that the consumer pays is not the price that the producer gets. That is one reason why a raising of the price to the producer would not necessarily come upon the consumer. It is merely a matter of a little reasonable control. But what agriculture craves for is a certain market, and given that there is no occasion for the price of agricultural produce to be raised to the British consumer.
It may be said that it is a foolish thing to say, but I am perfectly confident that a small Commission, even of one individual, attached to the Board of Trade, with credit and power to recommend to the Government of the day what duties should or should not be put on, would in three years' time have British agriculture flourishing and every man who wished to be employed in agriculture so employed, and be able to create an enormous number of manufacturing industries out of the produce of this country, absorbing a vast number of unemployed, without any need to raise the price of foodstuffs to workers in this country. On the contrary, I believe it would be possible to absorb scores of thousands of unemployed in manufacturing agricultural produce which is now brought here in a manufactured condition from abroad. I trust that this House will never again allow itself to think that agriculture and industry are antagonistic. They are partners, and are meant to he partners by Providence, and it is possible by a little adjustment to see that each is successful in its own sphere.
It would be wiser, I think, for me not to attempt to go further with the debate. I notice that the Leader of the House desires to speak, and it is not for me to stand between him and the House. I
540
will close with these observations. Try to bear in mind that we are not really up against the theories of Protection and Free Trade, or up against what we like or dislike; we are up against the certain fact that we have got 2,600,000 persons unemployed, with no immediate prospect of getting back to work. We are up against the fact that the direct taxpayer is taxed beyond endurance, that more taxation means more unemployment, that the more unemployment there is the greater is the call upon the taxpayer, and that the greater the call upon the taxpayer, the more unemployment there must be. Something has to be done to get out of that vicious circle, and a means of doing so is suggested in the Resolution. If anyone has any better suggestion to make, for goodness sake let him make it. Let us discard altogether these predilections and centre upon a scheme which will get people back into work and make it unnecessary for us to sink, as we appear to be in danger of doing, into the position of a third or fourth-rate Power. The time has gone by for these criticisms of one another. Lord Lloyd has produced at least some proposals and if the other side have anything better to say, at least let them say it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I only desire to say a few words and I hope I have not curtailed the speech of the noble Lord, who has always something interesting to say, particularly on agricultural topics. May I join him in congratulations to Lord Melchett upon his speech? I am sure we shall always desire to hear him in the future, after our experience of the first time he has addressed us. There was one matter in his speech to which I would particularly like to refer. I think he said quite truly that the proposal made at the Imperial Conference was unworkable. I entirely agree with him, and I think that ought to be borne in mind when discussing this question. Where I entirely differ from him is in this: It is untrue to say that any attitude except an appreciative attitude was ever assumed by the present Government towards the Imperial Conference or the relationships between the Dominions and Colonies and ourselves. The real difficulty is this: Our Dominions have complete financial independence. They have a complete right, without any

541
interference from us, to carry out their own trade policy in their own direction and, if he asks my opinion, for what it is worth it is this: there is no more certain way of raising friction and misunderstanding between the Dominions and ourselves than by attempting in any way to force upon them a policy which they do not desire to adopt and which they think is not in their own interests.
I would just say one or two words upon other questions which have been discussed. I do not think that Lord Lloyd, or anyone who has addressed us upon Protection to-night, has brought forward any valid argument that if the Protection they suggested was adopted it would be of any advantage to the volume of our exports. Let us see how matters stand, not upon matters of theory but upon questions of fact. I do not want to go into the interesting arguments brought forward by Lord Reading. Is America better off, relying upon a system of Protection, than we, who rely upon a Free Trade system? I should not like to instance Germany, because Germany has had her own special misfortune, although I hope something may be done to relieve the pressure there. But look at Canada, Australia and all these Protectionist countries, which have gradually been putting up tariffs against imports. Is it not the fact that they have been injured much more by the general trade depression than England, with her partial Free Trade policy? I have often thought that we talk too much about theory in these matters. Why do not we look into the facts? I cannot imagine anyone looking at the facts without coming to the conclusion that they have suffered much more than we have in the present distressing world-wide depression. M. Theunis, Prime Minister of Belgium during the War, in a Report which he made at Geneva, declared that if you wanted prosperity under present conditions you must not set up international difficulties and obstructions, but must get rid of all of them as far as possible; and the most obstructive of all are of course tariffs. I often wish that that Report of his had been more largely read and digested in this country.
There is only one other point that I wish to say a word upon, and that is Lord Hastings' speech. I recollect the
542
noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, saying on the last occasion when we discussed these matters that unless you had a guaranteed price, as distinct from the market price, nothing in the nature of Protection would be of any value to improve the conditions of agriculture in this country. I think that is perfectly true, but I want to put two arguments against that. I have been a farmer myself for a. very large number of years. I say that there is not that general distress in agriculture which is suggested. It is very considerable, no doubt, where cereal cultivation is still the basis of agriculture, but in the district in which I live, and in a very large number of districts which I know progress has been made, not by a protective system of agriculture, which cannot be,: financially successful under modern conditions, but by adaptation to new conditions and the production of other products which are wanted in this country, and in which we can successfully compete with foreign countries. That is going on very largely. There has been a very large development in other systems of agriculture which present much greater possibilities of successful development to-day than the Protectionist system, which, after all, in the case of cereal cultivation, does not affect more than 4 per cent. of our agricultural output.
That is so far as industry is concerned. Now I come to the social question. Can anyone really believe that in a country like ours, with something like 90 per cent. of working population, and with a problem as regards the workers which no other country has, progress can be made by increasing the cost of living in the shape of higher prices for bread? I do not believe that anyone who really considers it would venture to support a form of taxation which increases the price of the food of the poorest of our population. That is, of course, where Mr. Chamberlain failed, and that is where the system which is advocated by Lord Lloyd would fail when it came to the test of the opinion of the people of this country.
Let me refer for a moment to Lord Lloyd's Resolution. He regrets
"that the financial proposals of the Government for the current year contain no reference to any measures for the safeguarding of home industries."
Of course they do not. We do not believe in tariffs as a method of improv-

543
ing the existing conditions of employment, bad as they are, in this country. Would he expect a Government which does not believe in his remedy to make reference to measures for the safeguarding of home industries? Why should he? He knows perfectly well we are opposed to that method of procedure, that we consider that the injury which would be done is far in excess of any advantage which could be gained. Then, what is the second part of his Resolution— "or for the promotion of Empire economic unity." I think we have gone a very long way towards the promotion of economic unity in the Empire. If you look at it in the wider sense we can only promote that by appealing to their generosity and our generosity, to their racial instincts and our racial instincts, to their culture and to our culture; and the notion which the noble Lord seems to have of forcing a premature unity, which everyone recognises to be impossible, is not one to which this Government can lend itself. We shall, of course, be forced to divide against this Resolution, if the noble Lord presses its acceptance upon the House.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seems surprised that I
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
had any hope that the Government would at any time have considered safeguarding measures or measures to promote economic unity of the kind that I put forward. I would only reply to that in the same terms as Lord Peel. Right through the country we have seen an enormous change of opinion. Trade unionists, professors, every class of people who have got open minds are turning towards the very solution that I have ventured very feebly to put forward to-day. I do not think it was at all unreasonable, in fact, I think it was rather a flattering suggestion on my part, to hope that the Government would at least have a sufficiently open mind to be swayed by the great movements of popular opinion which are going on all round the country, and which a Socialist Party should be as prone to listen to as others. In view of what I feel is a very unsatisfactory answer by the Government, I would like to ask your Lordships to go to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Airlie, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Harrowby, E.

Churchill, V.

Jessel, L.

Howe, E.

Elibank, V.

Lawrence, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Hailsham, V.

Lloyd, L.

Lucan, E.

Hereford, V.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Monck, L. (F. Monck.)

Midleton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Polwarth, L.

Peel, E.

Bayford, L.

Queenborough, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Roundway, L.

Powis, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sinclair, L.

Radnor, E.

Daryngton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dawnay, L. (F. Downe.)

Teynham, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L.

Wharton, L.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.)

Wraxall, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dickinson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Reading, M.

Kirkley, L.

Snell, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, this Bill relates to Scotland. It is designed to amend the law relating to the placing on probation of young persons and first offenders appearing before the Criminal Courts. The present law on the subject is mainly contained in the Probation of

545
Offenders Act, 1907. This Act empowered the Courts to provide for the supervision by probation officers of persons released on probation. The object of the Bill is to place at the disposal of the Scottish Courts a more effective system of probation than at present exists, and so facilitate a more extensive use of probation than at present obtains.
While probation is, of course, already used to a considerable extent by the Scottish Courts, it is less extensively used, in proportion to the number of persons prosecuted, than in England. The figures for 1928 show that, on the basis of the number of persons prosecuted and put on probation in the respective countries, probation was used in England to an extent some 40 per cent. in excess of its use in Scotland. The main reason for this difference probably lies in the fact that Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, required the appointment throughout England and Wales of paid probation officers, and provided for the payment by the Exchequer of a contribution in aid of expenditure incurred by local authorities in connection with probation work, including the salaries, expenses and superannuation of probation officers. The Bill now before your Lordships may, accordingly, be regarded as a measure to give to Scotland something which England has already enjoyed for nearly six years.
At present, under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, burgh magistrates and sheriffs in Scotland are empowered, but are not required, to appoint probation officers, and the whole cost of any appointments made falls upon local rates. In consequence, there are many areas where no probation officers have been appointed, and the use of probation in Scotland depends to a large extent upon the existence in particular areas of persons who are prepared to give their services as probation officers on a voluntary basis. These voluntary probation officers have rendered valuable assistance to the Courts in carrying out their duties. This Bill will improve the existing position by providing, as in England and Wales, for the appointment of salaried probation officers as the normal rule in Scottish probation areas and for an Exchequer grant in aid of the expenditure incurred by local authorities in this respect. It is estimated
546
that the total expenditure falling upon local authorities should not exceed £18,000 a year, and it is contemplated that, as in England and Wales, the Exchequer grant will amount to 50 per cent. of the total costs. When I mention the figure of £18,000 it does not mean that there will be a totally fresh expenditure of that sum, because under the existing legislation probation officers have been appointed in certain areas who are already receiving salaries and expenses. These will be done away with and the total sum expended upon the service will be about £18,000.
There can be no doubt that fuller use ought to be made of probation. In present circumstances many young persons and first offenders are sent to prison who might have been dealt with better in some other way. It is common knowledge that short sentences of imprisonment for minor offences, especially in the case of young persons and first offenders, often have a definitely bad effect upon the offenders. While it must rest with Courts of Law to exercise their discretion in the circumstances of individual cases, it is most desirable that every possible alternative form of treatment should be considered before imprisonment is resorted to for minor offences, particularly where young offenders are involved. I know how careful one should always be about making any demand upon the public purse, but it seems to me that money spent in providing better facilities for the use of probation by Courts will be well spent, and should lead to substantial savings owing to persons being put upon probation instead of having to be maintained in prison.
In 1925 a Departmental Committee was appointed to enquire into the treatment of young offenders and other matters. It was presided over by Mr. George Morton, K.C., and one of the members of the Committee was the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. The noble Lord's active interest in the problem of young offenders is well known, and the work he has done in the amelioration of their conditions has been constant and unremitting. The Committee reported in 1928, and strongly recommended the provision of a national probation service in Scotland on the general lines of the English service. The Committee also made other valuable re-

547
commendations for amending the law relating to the probation of offenders in Scotland, and these are given effect to in the Bill. The first six clauses of the Bill deal with the new probation service and the expenditure in connection with that service. They make provision for the creation of probation areas, for the appointment of probation committees, and lay down the duties of the committees, including the appointment of probation officers, and also make certain stringent provisions with regard to expenditure. Finally, there is introduced a scheme for the superannuation of salaried probation officers.
These are all clearly set out in the Bill, and I need not take up the time of the House in going through them in detail. I should, however, call attention to Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill which give effect to the recommendations which were made by the Morton Committee and give somewhat fuller powers. These powers are designed to give Courts a fuller measure of control over persons on probation and to make the probation system generally more effective. There is one further matter that I should mention, although it does not arise in the Bill. In connection with the administration of the Scottish probation service my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland contemplates the appointment of a small body to be known as the Scottish Central Probation Council to assist him with advice on probation matters. This is not provided for in the Bill, as it can be done administratively. Little expense, I am informed, will be entailed, as the staff of the existing Scottish Juvenile Welfare and Aftercare Office in Edinburgh will be available to the new Advisory Council for the purposes of its work. It will, of course, be the endeavour of the Secretary of State if and when the Council is appointed, to obtain the services of persons well qualified to assist him on probation questions. The Bill seeks to make the probation system effective. It is based largely upon the Report of the Morton Committee and on the results achieved from the operation of the English Act. The principle of the Bill was accepted by all Parties in another place, and I hope it will receive your Lordships' favourable consideration. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, it requires some audacity to intervene in the debate at this hour, but, if I may say so, I have been waiting and hoping for this Bill not only through this evening but for more than twenty years, and, therefore, I can hardly refrain from making one or two remarks to express my satisfaction that the Bill has at last been introduced. It was in the year 1909, when I had been appointed to the position of Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, that I paid a visit to America, to the International Prison Congress, and there studied the operation of probation in that country, where it had had its origin. As long ago as 1910, in our Report to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the Prison Commissioners advocated a properly organised probation system under a central controlling body, as it would mean the diminution of imprisonment, and urged that there should be a State contribution in aid of it. That provision is now made in this Bill. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said, in 1925 the Criminal Justice Act was passed for England, and we had hoped that we might get similar powers and provisions in Scotland. I do not blame the Secretary of State of the day for not introducing the Bill at that time, because he had appointed the Committee, to which reference has been made, and of which I had the honour to be a member, and he wafted, not unnaturally, until we were able to report in 1928. This Bill very largely gives effect to the recommendations of that Committee.
I am afraid I do not like the Bill quite as much in its present form as in the form in which it was originally introduced into another place. There are two points which I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take into consideration and see whether some change cannot be made when we come to deal with the Bill in Committee. The first point is the proviso which was added to Clause 1, which makes it no longer obligatory upon every probation area to have ft salaried probation officer:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply in any probation area where it is

549
shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that no salaried probation officer is necessary."
I regret that provision, because it seems to me to put a very difficult task upon whoever may happen to be Secretary of State at the time, and I feel it will lead to a great deal of lobbying and manipulation in order to try and evade the proper working of the Statute. I wish the provision had remained the same as it is in the English Act.
It is rather curious that the opposition to the original provision came from two sections. In the first place it came from those who think that a salaried probation officer is not necessary in rural areas. I have made inquiries as to the working of the Act in England, and I am informed by the Home Office that it is precisely in the rural areas that the great benefit of the Act has been obtained, and that there probation officers are working very successfully in many areas where before probation was very little used. I think I can prove that in Scotland it is precisely in those areas that it is needed. It has been argued that because very few people are put on probation in certain counties therefore there is no need for this provision. That, I venture to say, is a most fallacious argument. I contend that every Court should have at its disposal the means of putting a person upon probation with just as much facility as it can now send a person to prison or impose a fine. That is not the case at the present time. There are many counties where there are no probation officers and no machinery in existence whatever for putting the Act into operation. I find that in 1921 there were fifteen counties with 15,000 persons brought to trial and only six persons put on probation. The last figures are for 1929 and they show that in fifteen counties with 15,000 people proceeded against only seventeen were put on probation. It is impossible to argue that only one per 1,000 of the persons proceeded against was a suitable case for probation in those counties.
If I may, I will give a personal instance. Only yesterday morning, when I was attending at the office of the Scottish Juvenile Advisory Council, we had an inquiry from the clerk of the Court in a county some seventy miles from Edinburgh asking if we could tell him the name of a, suitable person to act
550
as probation officer in the case of a girl who was to be brought up for trial. How absurd to think they should have to come to us to tell them of the people whom they ought to know of in their own county. They have no probation officer and this is a county which has not one person on probation and has not had for several years. Surely in such counties as that there is the need for a salaried and regular probation officer. The arguments in favour of a salaried officer as opposed to a purely voluntary one is that if the voluntary probation officer does not turn up at the Court nothing can be said. There should be an official at the absolute disposal of every Court to make inquiries and to proceed to take charge of a person if the Court so sees fit.
I will not weary your Lordships with figures but they abundantly show the need for probation officers. Perhaps these figures are of sufficient importance to be quoted. In the summary courts, 115,464 persons were proceeded against in 1929. For various reasons, 22,000 were not convicted, 17,000 were admonished, leaving about 80,000. Of those, only 2,200 were put on probation; 4,000 were sentenced to prison; and 8,579 went to prison because they could not pay their fines. I ask particular attention to that fact: 56,000 were fined. The noble Lord has referred to the number of young persons who go to prison, and why? Because they have not got the money to pay the fine. In many of these cases the imposition of a fine is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the case. Take the case of a man who fails to support his wife and children. What is the use of sending him to prison? If he is put on probation, the probation officer may possibly get him to set aside a proper proportion of his wages for the purpose; but if he is in prison, he is not earning anything.
I would also ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to consider the argument, that because in certain large towns voluntary probation officers have accomplished a great deal—though there are not nearly enough—in the supervision of young persons, no salaried officer is needed. The fact is that in these cases the system is organised by persons who are salaried, though not salaried as probation officers. They are salaried as

551
secretaries of societies or clubs for boys or girls and have a certain amount of time to give to probation work.
The only other point to which I would ask the particular attention of the noble Lord opposite is the proviso introduced at a late stage in another place that
"It shall not be lawful to appoint as a salaried probation officer for any area or to nominate in a probation order as a voluntary probation officer a person who is or has at any time been a member of a police force."
That is Clause 5 (3). I do not think that that proviso is intended to be a slur upon the police force but it has that appearance. I would like to bear my testimony, based on knowledge gleaned from many probation officers, that no men are more sympathetic or more kind or more ready to help in probation work than members of the police force. I have had an instance brought to my notice where the police took a great deal of trouble over those who needed help. I would point out that although in our Report we definitely stated that it was not desirable that the probation system should be worked in connection with the police force, that is quite a different thing from saying that no one who has ever been a policeman is fit to be a probation officer. I think that implies tarring with a black brush which is not deserved.
If, as was stated in another place, the term police officer is held to extend to those who have been special constables, that, I think, is utterly absurd. Some of us, myself included, acted as special constables during the War for the sole purpose of regulating the movement of the population in the unhappy event of invasion. It is absurd to say that that should disqualify a man from being a probation officer. I hope the noble Lord will consider some modification of that proviso, possibly by saying that no one who, in the three immediately preceding years, had been a member of the police force should be eligible. That would prevent a man resigning in order to take up at once the post of probation officer, but it would indicate that we are not casting a slur on the police force. In our Report, we stated that it was exceedingly important that there should be close co-operation between the police and probation officers and this new proviso is not likely to assist in such co-operation.
552
I have reason to know that it is quite possible for members of the police force, as such, to continue to act as probation officers. That is the system in Glasgow, where members of the police force are set aside to act as probation officers. In one town, we had evidence that the whole detective force of the police were probation officers. I do not think that is a good system, and our Committee condemned it, but, nevertheless, some of these police probation officers have, I know, done very good work. On the whole, however, I have reason to believe that that sort of probation is not real probation, with assistance and advice and help, but really amounts to nothing more than what is technically know as a suspended sentence. So long as the probationer behaves properly and is not convicted again or brought into Court, no action is taken, but that is not the sort of probation that we would like to see.
There is a great deal that one would like to say, but I am afraid time does not permit. I would like to have quoted the admirable words of Lord Hewart at the National Prison Conference in 1925, when he pointed out the danger of considering that probation was simply a means of letting off people. I have often said, and I maintain, that true probation is supervision outside the walls of an institution instead of inside. We must never get sentimental and think that it is simply a means of letting off people. I am very glad this Bill has been introduced and I very cordially support its Second Reading, because for many years this system has been more and more recognised as an alternative to imprisonment. It should be extended to the utmost extent and by every means possible as an alternative to imprisonment and a method of treating offenders. I strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill, which will give us in Scotland what we greatly need and will, I hope, be the foundation of a proper probation system in that country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LOUD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, as this small Bill deals with a point which has attracted a great deal of public attention, perhaps your Lordships will allow me briefly to explain its provisions. It consists of only one clause repealing subsection (3) of Section sixty-one of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That subsection of the Road Traffic Act reads as follows:
"Where a person uses or allows, to be used without reward for carrying eight or more persons as passengers any motor vehicle ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture, trade or business, then, except where the persons so carried are workpeople being carried in the course of or to or from their employment, the vehicle shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as if it was a contract carriage, and the provisions of this Part of this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall apply accordingly."
Briefly, that involves preventing lorries being used for the purpose of taking cricket teams and football teams, Sunday school treats, employees' outings, boy scouts and girl guides to their camps, and so on, and it is recognised that this was a genuine hardship. My right hon. friend the Minister of Transport thought the matter out very carefully, and he tried to think of possible amendments to the Act, or the possibility of altering the regulations or issuing fresh regulations; but it appeared to him and to the Government that the simplest way of dealing with this very legitimate grievance and hardship was simply the repeal of the subsection of the principal Act. Therefore this Bill is before you, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, there is only one question that I desire to ask the noble Lord. I quite agree with what he has just said, but there are other flaws which have come to light in the Road Traffic Act with which it may be necessary to deal either by amending the regulations or by means of Bills. What method is the Minister likely to adopt? I cannot help thinking that it would be very much better to have a more comprehensive Bill than this, and to deal with one or two other questions. One in particular comes to my mind in connection with the speed at which trailers are allowed to travel when they are in
554
tow by motor vehicles. The Minister himself has agreed, I think, that the speed laid down in the Act is too low. This would give the Minister a chance to put that point right. I hope we shall not have too many of these Bills, but I think there will be other points which require amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I may say that the Road Traffic Act has hardly had a sufficiently long trial yet to find out what difficulties there are in it, if any, which require altering—some perhaps by regulation and some, as the noble Earl suggests, possibly by further legislation. But this particular hardship and grievance it was felt should be dealt with forthwith; in fact before the August Bank Holiday. It is on Bank Holidays that this grievance would be felt, as it is impossible to obtain properly regulated motor vehicles for this purpose, and lorries and vehicles of that description are very often used. It was because of its urgency that the Minister felt that this particular grievance should be dealt with forthwith.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DESTRUCTIVE FOREIGN ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, this is a small but important Bill to deal with the menace of the musk rat, more colloquially known as Fiber zibethicus. The musk rat is quite all right if it is kept confined in metal pens, but unfortunately some of those who are trying to breed musk rats do not so confine them; they keep them on marshy grounds with wire fences, so that they escape.
LORD HASTINGS: They have not done so yet I hope.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think some of them have, but at any rate they are trying to catch them. The musk rat is an animal that is capable of doing very great damage. It does damage to river

555
banks, and so undermines them that they collapse; it does damage to canals and, by boring, lets the water out; it does damage to drainage by making dams; on the whole it is a vegetarian, and it eats crops, but when hard pressed it will eat fish, small chickens and young pigs. Accordingly I hope your Lordships will all agree that the musk rat is a beast whose operations must certainly be controlled. It is therefore proposed in this Bill to enact that musk rats shall be kept only under licence from the Minister. The Minister shall have power to forbid the keeping of musk rats altogether, in which case there is a clause for giving compensation. It is hoped by means of this licensing system to avoid that necessity. There is only one other point, and that concerns Clause 10 of the Bill, which gives power to the Minister to deal with any other animals. He can only do so, however, after an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. There are a number of animals that we fear may be imported into this country, and it is thought best to deal with the matter in this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, while giving general and very cordial a support to this Bill, I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to subsection (3) of Clause 5, which says:
"The appropriate department so soon as they become aware that musk rats, not being musk rats kept under a licence, are to be found on any land, may, unless they are satisfied that either the owner or the occupier of that land is taking all necessary steps for their destruction, themselves take such steps as they consider necessary for that purpose."
That would perhaps be very appropriate in most Acts of Parliament, but in this case it may be less appropriate. Once these rats have escaped, they do not remain on the land where they escape, and I suggest it would be very unwise to put the smallest faith in the best endeavours of the owner or occupier of the land to take the necessary steps for their destruction. The difficulty will be on too large a scale for them. I should have thought it would be very much better to leave out those words, and leave power for immediate action in the hands of the appropriate Department. This would strengthen the Bill and more-
556
over it would probably be a great safeguard to other occupiers in the country who may suffer damage from these rats. I throw out that suggestion. In regard to Clause 10, I would remind the noble Lord that there are other species besides mammals. There are birds, fishes and even insects, and it may possibly be wise to give power to the appropriate Department to control their import. I welcome this Bill, and I think it is likely to react to the advantage of the country.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will certainly consider the points raised by the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, this is a Bill which has been passed, I think, without a Division in another place. It is to authorise the Treasury to guarantee principal and interest on a loan of £750,000 to the Government of Mauritius, in order to enable them to take prompt steps to repair the damage that was caused by a terrible hurricane last March. The Colony is not able to deal with such a calamity without assistance. This has happened before in Mauritius and, after a similar hurricane, similar action was taken and a loan was guaranteed by the British Government. The Colonial Government paid off the whole principal and interest in due course, and not one penny fell upon British funds. We think that, in spite of the fact that Mauritius is not doing any too well, this serious and temporary emergency can be got over with the prompt aid of the British Government's guarantee, and the Treasury does not expect any charge ultimately to fall upon British funds at all. It would be impossible to do without this guarantee, and it is necessary that it should be given promptly.
It is proposed to spend the money, (1) in repair and replacement of Government property, of offices and so on, damaged in the hurricane; (2) by advances to provide persons and companies up to the amount of the losses in

557
the way of damage to property, stock and so on; and (3) by advances to public works, which cannot be financed in any other way, with regard to one thing or another which arose in consequence of the hurricane. This will incidentally provide immediate employment to a certain number of people, who will have been rendered workless by this calamity. I would have been happy to give your Lordships more information, but as we shall have other opportunities of discussing the Bill, it will perhaps be sufficient if I now move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Passfield.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I would like in the first place to protest against the course adopted by the Government with regard to this Bill. It was read a first time yesterday, and put down for the Second Reading to-day, which is a much shorter interval than is usually allowed between the stages of Bills in this House. I am quite aware of the fact that this Rill is concerned with money matters in the main, but it is not a certified Bill. There are points which make it desirable that it should be discussed, and I venture to say that the interval between the First and Second Headings is a very short one.
So far as the actual Bill is concerned, I do not wish to enter into any details. I will merely say that it does seem to me to throw into very tragic relief the position in which our sugar-producing Colonies find themselves at the moment. The point of this Bill is that this loan is not to be raised for any constructive purpose at all. It is merely to be raised to restore the damage which has been done by the terrible hurricanes which occurred earlier in the year, and if this loan does serve its purpose in the course of time, it will merely leave that unfortunate Colony in the somewhat pitiable state in which it was before the hurricane occurred. The only other matter to which I would speak is a matter referred to by the noble Lord, and that is the possibility or probability of the Exchequer being called upon to find the money in respect of the guarantee of the loan. One of the provisions of the Bill is that this loan should not be granted unless it appears to the Government that the Government of Mauritius would, after the first
558
five years, be able to meet the annual charges as they fall due. I would like to know whether the Government consider that there is a. reasonable prospect that these annual charges will be met after the first five years have passed?
LORD PASSFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his criticism. I quite realise that this Bill has been brought forward in a great hurry. It has already passed through all its stages in the other House, where, unfortunately, it was delayed by pressure of business. We cannot give the guarantee until the Bill is passed, and it is extremely urgent that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible. Your Lordships are of course entitled to proper notice, and to a proper interval between the stages of the Bill, but I venture to plead that this is a rather exceptional measure. It is not merely that I am asking for the Second Reading now, but I want to know whether your Lordships will take the Committee stage to-morrow. Otherwise we shall not be able to get the Royal Assent on Wednesday next. If there is any objection to that course, I of course give way, and will not ask for it, but it would be a very great convenience and advantage, and a real help to the Government of Mauritius, The Government of Mauritius are really seriously distressed by this calamity. They have, exhaused all their local resources in giving immediate relief and they now cannot finance the relief work any more. They do want the money, and there is every reason to believe that no loss will ultimately fall upon the Exchequer.
The Treasury have, quite properly, made it a condition that a Financial Commission should go out to Mauritius at the earliest possible moment, in order to see that the finances of the Island are in proper order, and that expenditure is cut down as far as possible, so as to make the Island solvent, in spite of the pressure connected with the low price of sugar. I am glad to say that Mauritius is not quite so hardly hit by the low price of sugar as some of the West Indian Dependencies. Of course, it is not doing well, but up to now estates have not gone out of cultivation, and it has been possible to reduce the cost of cultivation by several pounds per ton. Nevertheless this great hurricane comes upon them as a great calamity. I am

559
able to assure the noble Earl that the Treasury will be able to give its certificate that it expects the Island will be able to find the money, and in order to be able to do that the Treasury have taken the precaution of deciding that a Commission shall go out there, which shall have authority to cut down expenditure and see that the revenue is raised up to the point of enabling the Island to go on. There is every confidence that they will be able to do so. If your Lordships will allow the Second Reading today, and the Committee stage to be taken to-morrow, we could then get the Royal Assent on Wednesday next. I think it would be a kindness to the distressed people of Mauritius if your Lordships allowed the Bill to be taken thus early.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY.THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY. My Lords, I think I should be wrong if I did not make some remark, in the nature of a protest, at the manner in which this House has been treated. My noble friend who sits behind me has told you that the Bill yesterday received its First Reading, and now the Government are asking for the Second Reading today and for the Committee stage to be taken to-morrow. I do not feel that your Lordships will desire that we should refuse the request that is made, but I do venture to utter a protest at the manner in which your Lordships have been treated. This is a Bill which, we are told, was, owing to the pressure of business in another place, delayed in coming to this House. I should have thought that it was quite possible to have had the Committee stage next week, and so comply with the usual practice in this House, that Bills should not, save in very exceptional circumstances, be passed in this very brief and perfunctory manner.
On the broader subject, I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord that it is unfortunate that to-day, when we have had an important debate, which it was well known would occupy a considerable time, four Bills should be put upon
560
the Paper for Second Heading. Lord Polwarth delivered an important speech, which, owing to the condition of business, had to be made to an empty House. I should have thought that on an occasion like this it would have been much better for these Second Readings to have been taken at the beginning of business on another day. That is a matter not concerned with the subject we are now-debating, but I did not wish to detain your Lordships on the Motion for adjournment. As the noble Lord has put forward reasons for taking the Committee stage to-morrow, I think it is only right that we should agree to the noble Lord's suggestion, but we agree to it under protest.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Third Reading discharged and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
EBENEZER CHAPEL BIRMINGHAM BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for to-morrow.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 30th of April and the 23rd of June last discharged, and Bill committed for to-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.